The article is talking about " let is burn" policy. Article states that this policy caused more damage to everyone and give an example of Yellowstone in 1980 which is most famous national park where it burned for two months and spread over huge area and give three kind of caused to support. However, the professor refutes all reasons saying that it is natural part and it is fundamentally good for nature.
First, the reading says that Yellowstone fire caused tremendous damage to trees and vegetation and some smaller plants were entirely incinerated. However, the professor refute this by saying that it actually increase new plants after fire and it increase diverse trees and vegetation. Also some plants seeds are not burned in fire so they also ready to grow. They give an example that after fire many smaller plants are again growing up.
Second, the article says that fire affects park's wildlife as many large animals like deer and elk were seen fleeing the fire and smaller animals were unable to escape. However, the professor refute this by saying it brings new opportunity for animals. As trees were again plant so smaller animals life rabbit can also find place in park and it brings food chain of this smaller and large animal becomes stronger.
Finally, the reading says that fire compromised the value of park tourism and it puts negative consequences for the local economy as local business depended on park visitors. However, the professor refute this by saying that it only occurs in 1980 and that year has massive climate changes and after that it never happened again. After that year, every year tourist come to visit this park so assumption of negative effect is wrong.
The article is talking about
"
;
let
is
burn"
; policy. Article states that this policy caused more damage to everyone and give an example of Yellowstone in 1980 which is most
famous
national
park
where it burned for two months and spread over huge area and give three
kind
of caused to support.
However
, the
professor
refutes
all reasons
saying
that it is natural part and it is
fundamentally
good
for nature.
First
, the reading says that Yellowstone
fire
caused tremendous damage to trees and vegetation and
some
smaller
plants
were
entirely
incinerated.
However
, the
professor
refute
this by
saying
that it actually increase new
plants
after
fire
and it
increase
diverse trees and vegetation.
Also
some
plants
seeds are not burned in
fire
so
they
also
ready to grow. They give an example that after
fire
many
smaller
plants
are again growing up.
Second, the article says that
fire
affects park's wildlife as
many
large
animals
like deer and elk were
seen
fleeing the
fire
and smaller
animals
were unable to escape.
However
, the
professor
refute
this by
saying
it brings new opportunity for
animals
. As trees were again
plant
so
smaller
animals
life rabbit can
also
find place in
park
and it brings food chain of this smaller and large
animal
becomes stronger.
Finally
, the reading says that
fire
compromised the value of
park
tourism and it puts
negative
consequences for the local economy as local business depended on
park
visitors.
However
, the
professor
refute
this by
saying
that it
only
occurs in 1980 and that year has massive climate
changes
and after that it never happened again. After that year, every year tourist
come
to visit this
park
so
assumption of
negative
effect is
wrong
.