No, that's a lot more dangerous cause there's a lot more fuel from a dead forest compared to a regular one. That's also the reason why forest fire is so bad in the US cause there's a law over there to stop the practice of controlled burns and such which in turn caused a massive built up of fuel over time. Better to reduce it first before doing a controlled burning.If the forest is already dead, a bit of burning might not be that bad. Forest fires happen naturally, and promote growth.
I don't think those two situations are comparable, and I was under the impression that it was a bit of a swampy forest they were in, where fires spread less easily because of all the moisture.No, that's a lot more dangerous cause there's a lot more fuel from a dead forest compared to a regular one. That's also the reason why forest fire is so bad in the US cause there's a law over there to stop the practice of controlled burns and such which in turn caused a massive built up of fuel over time. Better to reduce it first before doing a controlled burning.
No, that's a lot more dangerous cause there's a lot more fuel from a dead forest compared to a regular one. That's also the reason why forest fire is so bad in the US cause there's a law over there to stop the practice of controlled burns and such which in turn caused a massive built up of fuel over time. Better to reduce it first before doing a controlled burning.