Let it burn forest fire policy

The reading and lecture are both about the" Let it burn" natural forest fire policy. The author of the reading strongly postulates that after the damage of the Yellowstone fire incident, the policy needed to be changed and provides three reasons to endorse its idea. On the other hand, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He thinks that forest this policy about the fires are fundamental for ecosystem creation. First and foremost, the passage begins by asserting that the tremendous fire accident in Yellowstone turned the national asset into barren land and especially had a dramatic effect on the park's vegetation. The author claims that small shrubs and tall trees were either burned or completely ruined. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that natural fire diversified the plants' growth by providing an opportunity to those species that couldn't be naturally developed otherwise. For instance, for those plant seeds that required exposure to a high temperature to germinate; fire heat provided them with suitable developmental conditions. Furthermore, he points out that scorched colonies were replaced by vast new varieties of plants. Next, the professor in the lecture states that just like plant developments, animal populations were recovered in the land too. The spread of small growing plants attracted the herds of rodent-like hares and rabbits, who feed on these low shrubs. He argues that the provision of natural habitat to these rodents brought back their predators, and that made the ecological food chain even stronger. These claims refute the writer's implication that as a consequence of fire, the natural food chain is adversely disrupted as it forced some animal creatures to migrate while others were left burning. Ultimately, the article wraps his arguments by declaring that not only tourism was demolished but also local businesses had to go through financial losses which result in a decline in the economy. The speaker in the listening rebutted this point by insisting that visitors had started to return just a year later that incidence and number of tourists are continuously increasing from that time whereas 1988, was the only year when certain other factors involved which make that year disastrous in history. He elaborates this by mentioning that dry weather, heavy wind, and heavy rainfall were the environmental conditions that have never been seen together after that year.