# Does the Pres have too much responsibility? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pres-have-too-much-responsibility/173891 "2003-05-08T13:38:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pres-have-too-much-responsibility/173891/21 "2003-05-11T02:20:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > More roads = greater chance of fire but also greater ability to fight it. And, I suppose if they were 8 lane superhighways cutting across the forest every 10 miles, it would make it that much easier still to fight any fires. But, I think there is more to think about than how to optimize fire-fighting capabilities, like how to prevent the fires in the first place (or how to have a more natural cycle of small fires rather than these megafires brought on by policies of fire suppression). [Let alone all the biodiversity issues and things like that.] ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pres-have-too-much-responsibility/173891/22 "2003-05-11T03:40:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*And, I suppose if they were 8 lane superhighways cutting across the forest every 10 miles, it would make it that much easier still to fight any fires. \*\* Well, yah. \*\* But, I think there is more to think about than how to optimize fire-fighting capabilities, like how to prevent the fires in the first place\*\* Agreed \*\*(or how to have a more natural cycle of small fires rather than these megafires brought on by policies of fire suppression). \*\* Not sure I buy into the natural cycles of fire or the need, with the exception of Sequoias. There is nothing natural about a fire except the statistical probability of the event. I can’t see any benefit of forest fires. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pres-have-too-much-responsibility/173891/23 "2003-05-11T13:30:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > Not sure I buy into the natural cycles of fire or the need, with the exception of Sequoias. There is nothing natural about a fire except the statistical probability of the event. I can’t see any benefit of forest fires. Well, here are a few links discussing some of the benefits of wildfires: [http://www.missouri.edu/~news/archives/tipsarchive/wildfiretipsheet.html](http://www.missouri.edu/~news/archives/tipsarchive/wildfiretipsheet.html) [http://www.s-t.com/daily/05-01/05-20-01/a01lo008.htm](http://www.s-t.com/daily/05-01/05-20-01/a01lo008.htm) [http://www.pdc.org/iweb/DataContent/Wildfire/WildfireBenefits.html](http://www.pdc.org/iweb/DataContent/Wildfire/WildfireBenefits.html) And, here’s an extended quote from the first link: > [@](#): > > After a wildfire, a forest might look like a barren wasteland. Amongst pillars of charcoal barely recognizable as trees, the only things that seem to remain are ash, dirt and rocks. > > But this picture is not necessarily grim, said Dan Dey, a research forester stationed at U.S. Forest Service’s North Central Research Station on the MU campus. According to Dey, who specializes in disturbance ecology, wildfires can be beneficial to a forest ecosystem. > > Dey explained that when fire is introduced into a system, some individuals may suffer, but the population is usually better off overall. He listed the following as some of the benefits fire can have on a forest: > > · Increase in biodiversity - After a fire, different habitats develop in forest openings. This creates a mosaic of new habitats that encourage new species to enter the area. > > · Increase in new, productive growth - Because not all plants survive, those that thrive without much competition grow faster than they could before. New plants also are succulent, more palatable and closer to the ground, making them better food sources. > > · Reduction in probability of disease or insect infestation - Fire can improve the health of a forest by removing trees weakened by insects or disease. This also decreases the chance of future infestations and outbreaks. > > Dey added that the realization of these and other benefits are dependent on a fire’s characteristics, including its intensity, frequency, seasonality and extent. Obviously, it is a mixed bag and there is evidence (as discussed a bit in that link) that the sort of unnaturally large and intense wildfires we have created with our fire-suppression techniques may be more harmful and less beneficial than the smaller, natural, more frequent fires that nature has been adapted to before human intervention. ---
**Author:** ![lander2k2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@lander2k2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lander2k2)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pres-have-too-much-responsibility/173891/24 "2003-05-12T04:36:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Conflict of Interest \* > \*\*Almost everyone else answered this thread in the way it seemed to be intended. Not with any individual in mind, but the office itself. > > You on the other hand stoop to partisan political name calling. Ok, if you think the sitting president is a simpleton please show proof. Or is this just your opinion? \*\* Just my opinion. Is that not allowed here? By the way, it has nothing to do with partisanship. I’m not a democrat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pres-have-too-much-responsibility/173891.md?page=1)