In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires. The “let it burn” policy assumed that forest fires would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1

The reading passage discusses three kinds of damage that are cited by critics of the " let it burn' policy. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She mentions that the forest fires are part of an ecological cycle and they are fundamentally good. First of all, the author holds that Yellowstone fire scorched almost one third of the land and destroyed most of the vegetation. In contrast, the lecturer brings up the fact that smaller plants were able to grow in the areas cleared by the fire. These plants needed open unshaded fields and could not survive while the forest was inhabited by giant trees. In addition, the fire generated high level of heat that helped certain seeds to germinate. Therefore, the species in the forest were more diverse after the fire, according to the lecture. Secondly, the writer contends that the flames negatively affected wildlife in the park causing big animals to flee, such as deers and elks. Moreover, the smaller ones were not capable of escaping. Furthermore, the destruction of the habitat and disruption of food chains made it impossible for surviving animals to return. Nevertheless, the lecturer points out that the growth of smaller plants allowed a population of rabbits to occupy the forest again attracting predators and other species. Finally, the excerpt posits that the fire hurt the local economy cutting short the tourism season. Conversely, the lecturer indicates that what occurred in 1988 was a rare incident due to a unique combination of factors like low rainfall, unusually strong winds and accumulation of dry undergrowth and this does not take place every year. As a result, the lecturer avers that visitors and tourists came back to the park.