whether let it burn policy in case of forest firee is good or not

both the reading passage and lecture discuss whether the let it burn policy in case of forest fire is good or not. the former argues that there are three reasons for not supporting this policy, but the latter refutes each of these points. first of all, the author of the passage claims that the Yellowstone forest fire turned the enriched forest into a wreck wasteland by burning the small plants. however, the lecture contends that forest fire was vital to create the diversity of plants. because of this fire, small plants were growing up and helped to germinate the seeds of plants while coming in contact with high heat. therefore, let it burn policy leveraged to colonize new plants and trees. secondly, the text asserts that forest fire might cause changes in ecological balance, as it destroys the particular habitat, and many small animals could not go out from the fire, which led the whole food chain cycle was affected. in contrast, the listening counters that forest fire made the balanced food chain cycle. as many small plants were growing up, which was attracted by rabbits, heirs, etc. and it allowed to increase the number of these animal's predators. hence, it created an ideal habitat. in third, the reading passage states that it caused a devastating result on local tourism because people made the tourist time shorter, and local business people who relied on this suffered a lot. on the other hand, the lecture mentions that it was very unusual that occurred in 1988. low rainfall, dry climate all caused a massive fire in Yellowstone. in the next year, after the incidents, the situations were getting alright, and people could visit that place, and local businesses flourished.