4 ms·
You’re arguing against someone who said “there should never be forrest fires”, but that person doesn’t exist.
by pkulak 2mo ago
You’re arguing against someone who said “there should never be forrest fires”, but that person doesn’t exist.
- bluGill 2mo agoThere are a lot of such people. The whole Smokey the bear thing was trying to teach people that for decades.
- triceratops 2mo agoEven if we agree that natural forest fires are good, Smokey the bear is entirely reasonable. Nobody needs to go starting more fires due to negligence.
- bluGill 2mo agoI'm saying it doesn't matter. If the forest is getting the regular burning it needs anyway someone lighting an additional fire at a different time isn't going to make any difference. Not that you shouldn't be careful, you can get yourself hurt in a natural fire (but it shouldn't be such a large fire that it kills you). Leave no trace should be your goal. Even if fire itself is something that doesn't matter, there are lots of other parts of leave no trace that that will also result in less fires.
- pkulak 2mo agoIt's pretty reasonable to think that a person-caused fire will be way worse than a natural fire, since the people ones will be distributed far closer to other people-things, like houses and other people.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- hamdingers 2mo agoNot only do those people exist, they have successfully passed policy in California and elsewhere hamstringing their ability to do prescribed burns.
- pkulak 2mo agoWell, at the very least, they don't exist in this thread.