MP, that was (IMHO) beautifully said. After I made my last post, I thought a bit about how forest fires have obviously been raging long before we had the means to try to "control" them, and how they are, as you said, just a part of nature (at least, those that result from "natural" causes like lightning. Is a cigarette butt a "natural" cause? That might make an interesting debate in and of itself).
I guess things get a little "complicated" when the decision to "let it burn" starts to involve many human lives and thousands of homes, (or alarming percentages of national parks like Yellowstone about 20 years ago), when the (much-needed) insurance industry is already reeling from unprecendented claims from hurricane damage the likes of which have not been previously seen, as we swing into a new cycle of hurricane activity which might well bring us another twenty-plus years of "Katrina"-filled hurricane seasons.
As you said, we do very often fight forest fires (and I would add, try to prevent them) despite their beneficial aspects. Removing combustibles is just another aspect of forest fire control. Tough issue, for sure.
Things do get a little iffy when we try to control mother nature; just look at New Orleans, the possibly ill-conceived channelization and levying of the Mississippi, and the resultant negative impact on the once-vibrant Mississippi Delta.
I don't really want to start a debate about let it burn/put it out, air pollution, global warming, Kyoto, the Army Corps of Engineers, or natural hurricane cycles vs. increased hurricane activity possibly (probably?) being caused at least partly by oceans warmed by man's activities. Suffice it to say that sometimes it's very difficult to get at the "truth". All the more reason that we do our best to try to arrive at that "truth" in as intelligent, thoughtful and civilized a manner as that which you demonstrated in your post.
Cordially, John D.
