Hib hi ioi h h hh h h hh h h h h h h hh h h h h hh h hh h h h hh h hh h h h hh h h h h h h h h h hh h h h h h hh h h
Because fire is bad for world. And world is nice :) We need make world nice clean and no more fire. Fire mean we can lose out pokemon cards and our yugioh ones :( dat is very bad news. We need put out all fire in world to make world better world for the poeple living in the world.
If my dad did not do that every one would die so is he did not there would not be houses so is you think that the so i think that we sould put them out and if we didnt so if you say no you are crazy boom k
I like to eat French fries and potato exasperated ice cream tastes horrible I hate it you should let wild fires burn because it is a life cycle which is important that is why I love to eat potato fries and Eva's ice cream it just tastes totally Deloitte you,🇰🇭
They should be put out yay a ya yay ay aya ya ya ya ya yay aya ayy aya yaa ya yay aya aya aya ya aay ayaa ay ay ay aya aya ay ayay ya ayay aya a aya ay ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya
Forest fires are dangerous , and we should all take special precautions year 'round to make sure fires are not carelessly ignited. Forest fires threaten people needlessly, kill wildlife and destroy forests that provide a livelihood and recreation for millions of people around the world . . . .
I think we should put out forest fires because they spread easily, they are hard to keep under control and the smoke from the fire ruins our air. :) :) Also trees produce oxogen and paper so that would mean less clean air and more trees would be chopped down to get paper!
More forest fires will kill all them trees fam. And then it will cost more money to replace those burned tries dude. Plus we need trees to make paper and less trees equals less pieces of paper got emm. Ab c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
Because i say so.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Trees give us fricken oxygen and paper hjfhaha djsandd dd dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d ddd d d d d d dad a a a a a a a a a aa a a aa
Forest fires play an important role in maintaining natural areas. Fires help clear out forests and plains, allowing for new growth. As such, fires should be allowed to burn as long as they are not a threat to human life or well-being. If they are, then all measures should be used to protect the people.
More forest fires should be allowed to grow naturally during dry summers, if they are sufficiently remote from human settlements to not justify the high costs of fire suppression. Some forest fires are easier to just let them run their natural course. Leave it to nature to manage and leave nature in some parts, more wild. Humans should alter nature yes, to better accommodate our own natural increase, but why do some think they must "control" everything?
Humans should not use birth control either, because it is far more important that human populations spread freely, so more and more people can love.
Sound opinionated? Well it's true, as is shown by my research for a school project. First: Forest Fires are natural, and needed for some plants to grow--some seeds only open due to fire, some only can grow after a fire. It also removes flammable matter building up that could potentially cause larger fires. In arid areas, vegetation doesn't really rot. Fires cycle the nutrients. Secondly: Humans are building right on the edge of these places, causing any fire to concern them. Our thinking is, Oh no! A fire! Our houses! So, it is killed. Later a huge one wipes it out, crossing the dirt-path barriers meant to be a firebreak (embers will travel a mile before igniting something) since the accumulation of material was not consumed. This also doesn't feed the environment. Thirdly: Climate change--human induced, of course-- with land modification-- dams cut-off water flow, thus making the water table drop where the water does and this means less greenery and more fire-preferred brown. Green trees and shrubs aren't likely to burn, whereas browning plants are. Scrub fires, brush fires, chaparral fires, forest fires... All destroy habitat if not let to burn naturally, as well as cause millions in property damage. Let us not forget the risks the brave men and woman who go into fight these take. They wouldn't have to if people would stop developing and stop controlling how much burns and where. Prescribed burns often don't consume enough, or are too often done that the environment doesn't have time to regenerate and this then allows other more flammable plants to take over. On the contrary, fires put more CO2 into the atmosphere, which is otherwise kept in rotting/growing plant matter. But! If we allow nature to regulate her fires--brush fires-- then fires that consume whole trees are less often--crown fires-- and then put less CO2 in as the trees still standing haven't released their CO2. In large fires, they burn and release it. People modify and encroach on a fragile environment then use old-style thinking on how to "manage" it. They build their homes in risky areas, and try to control Nature to make it how they want. Then they wonder, staring at the ruins of their homes, Why? Well, why do you try to control the perfect system that was originally established? Earth did fine till people began wrecking it. Now all Hell breaks lose, and people just refuse to understand. Protect the environment, but let it alone--that's the best protection. It's also the cheapest.
Many forest fires are remote enough to just let them burn wild. Efforts to suppress forest fires may cause as much damage as they supposedly prevent, well unless to protect human property. Backburns enlarge the burned acres count, bulldozers, pollution of fire suppressants? And the the fire jumps the firebreak anyway? Some fires should be left to nature to manage. Don't risk firefighters lives on a fire that will eventually fizzle anyway.
The television media never seem to investigate why massive amounts of money are spent trying to put out a forest fire and how much of the effort is to save property. The media loves to interview fire victims who live in or near forests but never question how much it costs to save these houses and the risk to the lives of firefighters. Is a house worth the life of a firefighter?
Nature manages itself. The fires are its way of clearing overgrown and dangerous conditions. The only problem may be the homes in the way of the fires. Perhaps some effort should be made to save those properties in the way of the fire but then, if they are destroyed, no further building should be allowed.
The wildfires that we let burn are gigantic but if we take out the correct ones then we can have the correct ounce of water we can be safe and not have to worry about the fire getting close to houses or our loved ones if you live near a park.
D d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
Forest fires happen, it`s natural. They have happened for millions of years, and the Earth recovers. If forest fires affect our crops and our buildings and towns, then they should be put out. If not forest fires happen and we should let nature rule. Sometimes we need to let nature win.
In my opinion, no body should give a rat's ass is we spend all the money cuz really, we can move some where richer. In other words, nobody gives a fuck. B b bb b bbb bb b b b b b b b b b b b b b bITCH