Integrated Writing TPO 20

The article states that "let it burn" policy has caused a lot of damages and "let it bum" policy should be replace it. The reading provides three reasons of support for this opinion but the professor explain that fire is part of nature and it shouldn't be hindered and she refutes each of author's reasons.

First the reading claims that Yellowstone fire caused huge damages to the park's vegetations. The professor refutes this point by saying that fire actually helped some other vegetations form to thrive in the region. She explained that new species of plants that needed vast places had the opportunity to grow in emptied places. Thus this new colonization helped the vegetations.

Second, the article posits that this fire was affected wild life as well. However, the professor said that this new plants that has been thrived in the emptied region helped small animals like rabbit and hare to have the opportunity to live in this region and use these new grown plants as their food. Also their colonization helped animals who haunt these animals to migrate to this region and overall wildlife of regions expanded because of that fire.

Third, the reading says that the fire comprised the value of the park as a tourist attraction, which has unwanted negative consequences for the economical status of local people. The professor opposes this point by arguing that there is a fallacy in this argument because big fires like the fire of 1988 doesn't happen every year and we haven't see such a fire since then because that year's summer was very hot and there was low rain fall.

In conclusion, suppressing natural forest fires is not necessary and it doesn't have catastrophic consequences in wildlife plants and animals, and tourism industry.