tpo20

The reading claims that there are three kinds of damage in forest of Yellowstone caused by the "let it burn" policy and many people called for replacing this policy with a policy of distinguishing forest fires. In contrast, the professor states that fires are natural for ecosystem and "let it burn" is a good policy and she refutes each of the problems in the passage.

First, the article asserts that Yellowstone fires caused tremendous damage to the park's tree and other vegetation. However, the lecturer opposes this point by saying that vegetation was not affected and new plants appeared in the land after fire. She mentions that plants became more divers. In fact, she gives an example to illustrate this point. According to the professor, the fire desrtoyed plants there but new small plants appeared and the seeds of old trees were not terminated but they reappeared after the fire.

Second, the passage avers that the park wildlife was affected and there also was concern that the destruction of habitats and the disruption of food chains for animals. On the other hand, the professor counters this point by stating that it is true that the population of animals were affected but the fire created a new opportunities for new plants and this in turn created ideal habitat for small animals such as rabbits and hairs. In addition, the predators of these animals were few and the food became more stronger than before.

Third, the article posits that the fires compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction, which in turn had negative effect for the local economy. Conversely, the professor casts doubt on this point by explaining that this would possible if the fire of Yellowstone occur every year which is unusaul. Actually, she argues thatr low rainfall, dryness that year cause massive fire and these combination will not occur each year. Besides, the visitors came back the same year of the fire and after that.