Reading and lecture are debating whether or not salvage logging offers benefits for forests and economy. On the one hand, the writer asserts that it has important positive implications, providing three reasons for support. However, the lecturer casts doubts on the claims made by the writer, saying that his arguments are not sustainable when compared to long-term environmental advantages.
First, cleaning up the forests of dead trees harms the habitat because it deprives the soil of important nutrients. In other words, dead trees provide essential nutritive substances which are vital for the revitalization of the forest, and for new trees to grow up. So, this standpoint clearly contradicts the passage.
Second, the writer affirms that spruce bark beetles harm the environment because they are going to infest the fallen trees. Anyway, the lecturer refuses this idea, by adding that spruce bark beetles have been living in these kinds of habitats over the last century, and no tremendous damages were registered. Moreover, there are other species such as birds and other insects which lives in this habitat and benefit from dead trees. Furthermore, some insects have the role to maintain the forests prosperous and healthy on long-term, by exterminating the harmful insects.
Third, the economic gains are insignificant and on short-term. This is because sometimes forests see
enormous damages and people can enter the space only by using helicopters and vehicles which are expensive to maintain. In addition to this, regarding the employment issue, this argument is not relevant, because companies prefer hiring outsiders who have experienced and who are specially trained for these kinds of missions. Therefore, local residents are less likely to be hired, even temporary. As a result, this argument is refuted by the lecturer, who proves once again that salvage logging does not provide any important benefits.
Reading and lecture are debating
whether or not
salvage logging offers benefits for
forests
and economy. On the one hand, the writer asserts that it has
important
positive
implications, providing three reasons for support.
However
, the lecturer casts doubts on the claims made by the writer, saying that his arguments are not sustainable when compared to long-term environmental advantages.
First
, cleaning up the
forests
of dead
trees
harms the habitat
because
it deprives the soil of
important
nutrients.
In other words
, dead
trees
provide essential nutritive substances which are vital for the revitalization of the
forest
, and for new
trees
to grow up.
So
, this standpoint
clearly
contradicts the passage.
Second, the writer affirms that spruce bark beetles harm the environment
because
they are going to infest the fallen
trees
. Anyway, the lecturer refuses this
idea
, by adding that spruce bark beetles have been living in these kinds of habitats over the last century, and no tremendous damages
were registered
.
Moreover
, there are other species such as birds and other insects which
lives
in this habitat and benefit from dead
trees
.
Furthermore
,
some
insects have the role to maintain the
forests
prosperous and healthy on long-term, by exterminating the harmful insects.
Third, the economic gains are insignificant and on short-term. This is
because
sometimes
forests
see
enormous
damages and
people
can enter the space
only
by using helicopters and vehicles which are expensive to maintain.
In addition
to this, regarding the employment issue, this argument is not relevant,
because
companies
prefer hiring outsiders who have experienced and who are
specially
trained for these kinds of missions.
Therefore
, local residents are less likely to
be hired
, even temporary.
As a result
, this argument
is refuted
by the lecturer, who proves once again that salvage logging does not provide any
important
benefits.