This is probably more for the rural guys and gals out there, but I'm just curious as to what are your thoughts on it? Does the forestry commission or wildlife refuges in your area do it?
I'm down here in South MS, and our local wildlife refuge frequently conducts prescribed burns in the area. I think it's a good thing that they do it, we rarely get any major out of control wildland fires, and the one's we do get can be contained/confined very quickly. Of course the downside to this is some of the people do not understand how helpful it is to do a prescribed burn and do nothing but complain about the smoke. We've even had a lady here recently is "going on a mission" to have prescribed burns done away with. I'm thinking there should be better community education about the benefits of control burning. Otherwise without it we could end up alot worse than just some smoke thats floating around.
Now is the time to be watching out for information coming out of Australia that will be addressing your questions. Both the USA and Australia both have environmentalists that have been successful in stopping prescribed burning and fuel reduction burn operations. The results have proven to be disastrous.
That woman is obviously ignorant. The pro's FAR out weigh the cons when it comes to RX Burning, IMO people don't burn near enough.
I can't speak for the rest of the US, but the Southern forests/ecosystem thrive on fire, the Good Lord made them to burn. My dad worked 20+ years for the U.S. Forest Service and he argued for more prescribed burning on federal lands, they burn less now than in past decades and sadly it shows. Some of the woods around here are so damn thick you couldn't throw a cat through them! the understory is choked with brush and there are alot of fuels piling atop the ground. It's one huge fire danger.
My dad has since retired from the Feds and works as a consultant forester in South Alabama for large landowners who run commercial deer/quail hunting plantations. They actively run fire through their properties yearly, here's a few pictures of what their woods look like (keep in mind though, this first shot is of a fairly young stand of timber that is due to be thinned in a few years).
When I've helped my dad in the woods down there marking timber or something I could literally run for a mile and only have to move 3-4 feet in one direction to avoid hitting trees.
To me when you weigh the pros of burning (how it improves wildlife habitat, reduces risk of wildfire and opens up the woods) to the cons (of a little smoke) it just seems like a no brainer.
Up here in Michigan, our department does all the burning. If its a big area we usually call in a couple departments and turn it into a work session or a training thing. Usually works out quite well......most of the time lol.
Without prescribed burns, fuel loads increase over the years until they get to the stage where nothing can stop a fire once it starts. As Mike Schlags said above, we have environmentalists that are against burns, because they hurt trees and kill animals. Those people are never seen on the fireground when things have gone bad...
There are areas in my State where the greens have stopped virtually all burns. When those places go up, as they will, devestation will be terrible. It's now and there are untouched areas still waiting to go.