The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
The Importance of Supporting Engineering Education
The Importance of Supporting Engineering Education
February 20, 2024

In today's era of information technology, engineering plays the role of a vanguard, trying to optimize processes and develop new products, making...

    High Park fire retardent may be killing wildlife, plants and doing little to stop flames

    The fire retardent being dropped on the High Park blaze, and many other fires around the country, may be doing more harm than good, according Mead Gruver of the Associated Press. His story, which is running in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cites new U.S. Forest Service rules limiting the use of the retardent slurry. The new regulations are in place to avoid instances such as the Oregon kill-off that Gruver describes:

    “In 2002, a slurry bomber inadvertently dumped between 1,000 and 2,000 gallons of fire retardant on the Fall River about 25 miles south of Bend, Ore. The retardant immediately killed all of the river’s fish, an estimated 21,000 mainly juvenile brown trout, redband trout and mountain whitefish over a six-mile stretch(Gruver, Associated Press.)”

    The ecological impact, though unfortunate, is, in my opinion, acceptable if the retardent helps to combat wildfires. But Gruver reports that it is currently uncertain whether the retardent does much to stop a raging wildfire.


    “‘The case for retardant use is not sufficiently strong to offset the environmental effects,’ Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics in Eugene, Ore., said. (Gruver, Associated Press.)”

    The article is a good read, but is really quite depressing. After all, we’re left with only a few dismal options:

    1. The retardent works to stop a fire, but kills much of the ecosystem that it was meant to protect.
    2. The retardent doesn’t work and the land burns anyway.
    3. The fire never reaches the retardent and the first option’s outcome is repeated.
    View Comments (7)
    More to Discover

    Hey, thanks for visiting!
    We’d like to ask you to please disable your ad blocker when looking at our site — advertising revenue directly supports our student journalists and allows us to bring you more content like this.

    Comments (7)

    When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
    All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *