I am strongly not against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas. i think that having forest burn down is not a bad thing and its not hazards idea. If we were to burn some forest we would be helping clear over crowded forest and make more nutrients to go back in the soil to have more healthier plants and tree. Trees and plants and animals will be crowded do to more trees growing and growing. Rather than setting multiple parts on fire at a time we can only set smalls parts do to might not being able to control the fire or it get out of hand. that why people are against it because we cant always be curtain that the fire will be successful all the time. People will be still against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas. …show more content…
For example if we had a fire that was proscribed then a part of that would be burned so in case a wildfire broke out there would be a much damage because part of it was already had been burned. So more fires that happen on purpose then less wildfires. Animals that live in a forest that is over crowed, it states again in Fire and Aviation Management "Improves habitat for threatened and endangered species". If we don't clear the crowds of trees in the forest how are the animals going to find shelter from preitors? we are putting an animal in danger because we will not burn a