Managers of some public lands now understand the importance of fire in the cycles of nature. When a lightning fire poses no danger to people or buildings, some public agencies now let it burn. Many forests that have not been allowed to burn for decades contain dangerous amounts of fuel. A lightning strike in such a forest could lead to a big, hot, dangerous fire. Suppressing fire in other environments, such as grasslands, has also led to undesirable changes. The best answer to these problems appears to be to fight fire with fire. Land managers use prescribed fire, carefully planned burns that bring about desirable changes. 2 Wildfires usually occur in the summer or early fall, when grasslands and forests are dry. But prescribed burning is more likely to be planned for less extreme conditions so the fires can be better controlled. For example, grassland burning at Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas is done during the cool winter months. Prescribed burns in Montana forests are usually carried out during the spring. 3 The problems caused by fire suppression are huge. About 40 million acres of forests across the country are at risk for dangerous fires because natural fires have not been allowed to burn for so many years. 4 The goals of prescribed burning are clear. A prescribed fire should burn away heavy undergrowth of brush to remove potential fuel for wildfire. When a fire has plenty of fuel, it burns hotter and travels faster, covering more territory in less time and getting out of control more easily. With a moderate amount of fuel, a wildfire is less likely to burn hot enough to kill adult trees or to overrun an entire forest. 5 When the brush and deadwood on the forest floor burn, they release nutrients that can nourish the trees, grasses, and other forest plants. The less cluttered forest floor, with its fresh growth, provides fine habitat for wildlife such as elk and deer. 6 The increase in food for wildlife brought about by burning can also be dramatic. When shrubs are allowed to grow without fire, more and more energy goes into maintaining the old wood, and less goes into new growth. When the old wood burns, the shrub puts out many new, succulent shoots that provide food for deer and elk. In an acre of northern shrubland deprived of fire for twenty years, only thirty to forty-five pounds of food for wildlife is produced yearly. After a fire, that same acre will produce at least four hundred to six hundred pounds of food in a year.

Question

Managers of some public lands now understand the importance of fire in the cycles of nature. When a lightning fire poses no danger to people or buildings, some public agencies now let it burn. Many forests that have not been allowed to burn for decades contain dangerous amounts of fuel. A lightning strike in such a forest could lead to a big, hot, dangerous fire. Suppressing fire in other environments, such as grasslands, has also led to undesirable changes. The best answer to these problems appears to be to fight fire with fire. Land managers use prescribed fire, carefully planned burns that bring about desirable changes. 2 Wildfires usually occur in the summer or early fall, when grasslands and forests are dry. But prescribed burning is more likely to be planned for less extreme conditions so the fires can be better controlled. For example, grassland burning at Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas is done during the cool winter months. Prescribed burns in Montana forests are usually carried out during the spring. 3 The problems caused by fire suppression are huge. About 40 million acres of forests across the country are at risk for dangerous fires because natural fires have not been allowed to burn for so many years. 4 The goals of prescribed burning are clear. A prescribed fire should burn away heavy undergrowth of brush to remove potential fuel for wildfire. When a fire has plenty of fuel, it burns hotter and travels faster, covering more territory in less time and getting out of control more easily. With a moderate amount of fuel, a wildfire is less likely to burn hot enough to kill adult trees or to overrun an entire forest. 5 When the brush and deadwood on the forest floor burn, they release nutrients that can nourish the trees, grasses, and other forest plants. The less cluttered forest floor, with its fresh growth, provides fine habitat for wildlife such as elk and deer. 6 The increase in food for wildlife brought about by burning can also be dramatic. When shrubs are allowed to grow without fire, more and more energy goes into maintaining the old wood, and less goes into new growth. When the old wood burns, the shrub puts out many new, succulent shoots that provide food for deer and elk. In an acre of northern shrubland deprived of fire for twenty years, only thirty to forty-five pounds of food for wildlife is produced yearly. After a fire, that same acre will produce at least four hundred to six hundred pounds of food in a year.

7 How do land managers decide where to burn? Hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands are possible candidates. In recent years, more and more people have moved into the countryside, often right on the borders of National Forest lands. Such areas are at the top of the list for prescribed burns so that the fire hazard to people and homes is reduced. 8 In 1997, the U.S. Forest Service decided to burn more than 52,000 acres in its Northern Region (Montana and parts of Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming). Five million acres of northern forests evolved over the ages with fire and were burned by lightning fires about every twenty years. Such forests consisted mostly of ponderosa pines, with some larch and Douglas fir. The frequent, natural fires burned low to the ground, killing the underbrush and young firs, which produced an open forest. 9 More than eighty years of fire suppression has changed these forests dramatically. Now they are overcrowded with Douglas fir and prone to superhot fires that can kill older trees and sterilize the soil, making regrowth take years longer. Such hot, intense fires are also more dangerous to firefighters. 10 Unfortunately, many of the forests have gone so long without fire that even prescribed burning would be dangerous. Some logging or thinning of the trees would need to be done before they can be safely burned. 11 Native Americans once helped maintain healthy grasslands with their fires. Now managers of wildlands are doing the same thing in many parts of the country. An example is the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge south of Tucson, Arizona. This refuge represents the last remnant of Sonoran savanna grasslands in the United States. Cattle once roamed across the refuge, feeding on the grasses and changing the ecosystem drastically. 12 Now, cattle have been barred, and the refuge is burned to get rid of weeds and shrubs like mesquite. The endangered masked bobwhite quail is being reintroduced, and habitat is being created for birds that stop there on their long migrations. 13 Not everyone is happy with prescribed burning. Cattle ranchers would like to return their herds to the Buenos Aires refuge, and many critics complain about the cost of reintroducing quail. 14 Prescribed fire in forests also has its opponents. Some believe logging can solve the problem of crowded forests, while others fear that fires will escape into populated areas. But the problem of lands damaged by leaving out fire, a major player in the natural system, will not go away. One way or another, fire will take part. A controlled burn costs money and can cause some air pollution. But fighting a wildfire is many more times as expensive and can bring long periods of smoky conditions. Controlled burns are good “preventative medicine” and can help fire return to its role of maintaining and renewing ecosystems. (jot down important key notes in he text and give a reason for why) in this format (evidence:
(reason:
(evidence:
(reason:
(evidence:
(reason:
(evidence:
(reason:

Answer 1

Evidence: Managers of public lands have realized the importance of fire in the cycles of nature and are now allowing lightning fires to burn when they pose no danger to people or buildings.

Reason: This approach is taken because many forests that have not been allowed to burn for decades contain dangerous amounts of fuel, which could lead to big, hot, and dangerous fires if ignited by a lightning strike.

Evidence: Suppressing fire in grasslands has also led to undesirable changes in these environments.

Reason: The best solution to these problems appears to be fighting fire with fire, using prescribed burns that are carefully planned to bring about desirable changes.

Evidence: Prescribed burns are typically planned for less extreme conditions, such as the cool winter months for grassland burning at Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, or during the spring in Montana forests.

Reason: Prescribed burns are scheduled for these times to ensure better control over the fires and reduce the risk of them getting out of control.

Evidence: Over 40 million acres of forests across the country are at risk for dangerous fires because natural fires have not been allowed to burn for many years.

Reason: This is because natural fires play a crucial role in removing heavy undergrowth of brush and maintaining a moderate amount of fuel, which helps prevent wildfires from burning too hot, too fast, and becoming uncontrollable.

Evidence: Prescribed burns release nutrients when brush and deadwood on the forest floor burn, which nourish the trees, grasses, and other forest plants. Additionally, the less cluttered forest floor provides better habitat for wildlife.

Reason: Prescribed burns are essential for maintaining a healthy ecosystem by promoting fresh growth, providing food for wildlife, and removing excess vegetation that can contribute to more intense and damaging wildfires.

Evidence: The areas most prioritized for prescribed burns are those near populated areas or areas where people have moved into the countryside, to reduce the fire hazard to people and homes.

Reason: The proximity of human settlements to public lands makes it crucial to prioritize prescribed burns in these areas to protect both people and property from the risk of wildfires.

Evidence: Fire suppression has drastically changed forests, causing overcrowding and making them more prone to superhot fires that can kill older trees and sterilize the soil.

Reason: Over 80 years of fire suppression has disrupted the natural fire cycle in these forests, leading to undesirable ecological changes and an increased risk of dangerous wildfires.

Evidence: Prescribed burns in grasslands, such as the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, help maintain healthy ecosystems and create habitat for endangered species.

Reason: Just as Native Americans once used fires to maintain healthy grasslands, prescribed burns in grasslands are necessary to control weed growth, promote the growth of grasses, and support the reintroduction of endangered species.