Editorial

Forest fires present conundrum of balance

For weeks, wildfires have been raging across the country, mostly in the West where vast forests are being burned in drought-stricken states.

Once again, the debate is raging between those who believe forests and wilderness should be protected from the forces of nature and those who believe natural disasters -- including fires -- have a way of producing needed benefits.

One element that is considerably more prominent in the debate these days is the scope of development in and near what were once uninhabited wild areas. When homes and businesses are threatened by disaster, the human tendency is to do everything possible to provide protection.

This year, as with other instances of huge forest fires, there is considerable risk that the lives of those fighting the blazes will be placed in peril. Indeed, several firefighters have been killed this year in the large-scale efforts to stop the fires and protect developed areas.

Some observers of this year's fires observe that efforts to prevent forest fires over recent decades have made matters worse. Because of heavy undergrowth, the fires are considerably more intense than they would have been if previous fires had been permitted to burn.

Of course, added to the debate is the cause of the fires. Some fires are caused by such things as lightning strikes. Two of this year's biggest fires were set by humans.

If the aftermath of the fire more than 20 years ago that burned a vast area of Yellowstone National Park is any indication, there are numerous benefits from forest fires.

In 1988, more than 750,000 acres in the national park burned without intervention under a "let it burn" policy that caused so much national debate that it generated something of a crisis in the White House, where pressure was mounting to force Yellowstone officials to battle the blaze.

Now more than 400 research projects have shown the benefits of that fire. Wildlife has not only rebounded, but in some cases endangered species have been given new opportunities to thrive. Even plant life has been revived by the 1988 fire.

As Yellowstone officials see it, a huge fire fireproofs a forest. New plants thrive. A natural balance is restored.

At the time of the Yellowstone fire, the thousands of blackened acres were frequently described as a an "ecological disaster." But today the park shows few signs of devastation.

Questions of balance appear to have good answers when it comes to forest fires in wild areas. The part of the equation that is less clear is the balance between once-wild forests and our desire to build homes and live amid the natural beauty.

The unanswered question: Which should get priority -- trees or homes -- when big forest fires break out?

Comments