tpo14

The article and the readind are contradicting each other, in term of benefits of salvage logging. More specifically, the penman of the article presents three theories to reveal the truth that salvage logging has two advantages related to damaged forest and the present economy. However, the author of the reading negates the arguments presented in the passage and provides some evidence to refute them.

According to the article, the first dispute focuses on the fact that removing dead trees would create more space in the forest which enhances the new growth of various tress, otherwise dead trees certainly take years to decompose by themselves. Nonetheless, the professor undemines this point by stating that leaving the dead wood in the place would inrich the soil gradually and make it suitable for the future development of trees. In the contrast, cutting them off imediately cannot provide certain nutrients to the land. Thus, it is beneficial if we keep it as it is after the forest fire.

Moreover, another point in the passage highlights that insects which live on dead trees could be harmful to the healthy spruce trees. Thus, it is better to remove dead woods. Nevertheless, the lecturer rebuts this by asserting that even though insect like bark bettle start growing on a dead trees, there is not clear evidence of damaging live trees. In fact, these woods are best home for various birds and other animals in the forest. Accordingly, the point made in the paragraph is not solid.

Lastly, yet importantly, it is true that logging creates job opportunities since workers are required to remove damaged wood. Additionally, salvage wood can be useful in many industries. On the otherside, the speaker reject this point and contend that the economic benefits will not last long. Further, he mentions that expensive equipments are needed such as helicoptor to remove heavy and dead woods from the forest. And finally, there will be job for specifically experience outsiders, and not for local workers.