[Dust1n]

Originally Posted by Albertafisher

I have to ask a couple of question on a slightly different tangent.. If clear-cutting (don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-clear-cutter) causes loss of habitat, then wouldn't forest-fires be just as bad? And yet, aren't forest fires positive to the environment....?
Also,
Before human intervention, a lot of Alberta used to be full-on prairie, with only pockets of forest. From about Athabasca down to Montana it was this prairie. Due to forest-fires, the "aspen parkland" biome was not present (with small exceptions, such as spruce groves). And now in the last 500 years humans have caused the aspen parkland to expand to fill up most of central Alberta (from fighting brush fires), causing species like white-tail deer to invade, pushing out species like pronghorn, and even reducing the population of mule deer. Considering that, it's a surprise our fisheries have managed to remain constant. With changing vegetation, predators, and human activity I am amazed that more species have not died off....
The North Saskatchewan River contained channel catfish up until aprox 150 years ago... What does this tell us?
There is my little rant, I hope I added value to this global-warming debate

forest fires are not too good they loose habbat for animals and birds and rrealse co2 into the air