Thanks!
Bob

Prescribed burns are NOT an archaic practice, they are needed now more than ever, to help combat invasive species and manage habitat without needing to resort to herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals.

If one does prescribed burns at the correct time and under the correct conditions, native species are evolved to handle it just fine. In fact, many ecosystems (such as Longleaf Pine forests and multiple kinds of grasslands) REQUIRE periodic burns. Removing fire from the picture is FAR worse for species evolved in concert with it, than a few deaths of individual spiders, caterpillars, etc. every few years.

And as Matt points out, wise managers never burn more than a part of their holdings at once – this is to allow some creatures to move to escape the fire and to allow others a population reservoir from which to regularly re-expand into the burned areas.

One also does not burn during bird nesting season (duh). Also: most rodents can escape fire by retreating to their burrows.

Also:
Discing and tilling are NOT GOOD for subterranean wildlife like Eastern Spadefoot Toads, Narrow-mouthed Toads, and a whole host of other ground-dwelling or ground-roosting species.

I could go on and on, but this seems sufficient…

Your comment about problems associated with smoke from prescribed fires is a valid concern. I should clarify that the new law does not change the fact that all prescribed fires must comply with the existing Air Pollution Control Act that has been on the books in Pennsylvania since 1960. This means that burn plans (which DO take smoke safety issues into consideration) must be reviewed not only by the Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), but also by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to approval.

Regarding your statement about farmland, I should also clarify that the prescribed burns that I, and others in the conservation community, support are conducted during the course of restoring and/or managing areas of natural habitat, in an effort to improve plant diversity and enhance wildlife habitat. Fire is often the best way to accomplish this. Most of the time, tilling is not a good option for these areas, because tilling tends to destroy any desirable native vegetation present and favors the germination and dominance of annual and perennial weeds and invasive species. Also, in many cases, tilling is impractical because of erosion issues on steep slopes. Shallow discing can in some cases be a good alternative to fire, but only in certain circumstances. Burning is actually a very efficient way to make nutrients available in the soil for uptake by plants.

You also make a very good point about burns destroying cover for small mammals and insects, as well as winter cover for birds. This is true, and it is precisely because of this fact that any knowledgeable land manager will only burn part of a given area each year, while leaving large areas of unburned habitat intact to serve as refugia for these organisms. This rotational burning system helps to minimize the impact of fire on populations of insects, rodents, etc.

Finally, while I respect your opinion and you have every right to dislike the practice of burning, I can assure you that there is a large body of science that supports the fact that burning is indeed necessary and vital to maintaining the ecosystem health of many natural communities. I will refer you and others who are interested to Fire, Ecosystems, and People: Threats and Strategies for Global Biodiversity Conservation, published by The Nature Conservancy’s Global Fire Initiative. While the entire publication is informative, take a close look at the figures on pages 7-9, which indicate that the Nearctic region contains 75% fire-dependent ecosystems and that the majority of temperate forests, grasslands, and shrublands are fire-dependent. At the same time, more than 70% of the land area in these regions experiences degraded or very degraded fire regimes. Despite the fact that fire regimes (fire return time) in the northeast have been degraded by our own intervention during the past century, there are still many natural communities that require burning to maintain or enhance their biodiversity.

You are right to be concerned about the public health and safety considerations associated with prescribed burning. The law that Gov. Rendell recently signed will only help to ensure that burns are conducted safely and in accordance with all necessary precautions.

I’ve lived near open fields (such as the one pictured) all of my life, and there were never any brush fires (except those started by careless smokers, etc) so what is the point of burning? By burning a field, you destroy the ecosystem of bird nests, small rodents, as well as the food they eat (bugs, spiders, etc) The smoke pollution which burning generates is a public health danger.

I think field burning should be discontinued. It is an unnecessary and archaic practice.