In the lecture the professor raises counterarguments to each of the three points mentioned in the reading passage about the damages in the Yellowstone National Park caused by the "let it burn" policy. Contrary to the reading, the professor asserts that natural fire is necessary for ecological cycle and the "let it burn" is a good policy.
First of all, the article claims that the big fire causes astronomical damage to trees and vegetation in Yellowstone. The lecturer, by contrast, argues against this view and states that vegetation burned will be covered with new plants which create a more diverse plantation environment. For example the fire can give a chance for smaller plants to grow because it eliminates those tall trees.
Another crucial point the writer makes is that wildlife is seriously affected in the fire owing to the destruction of habitat and the break of food chains. The lecturer, however, disagrees with this idea and contends that not only do animals recovered after the fire but they were provided with new opportunities because of the fire. For example, smaller plants which appeared after the fire formed new habitats for animals such as rabbits. With the increase of these animals came their predators, a phenomenon which actually strengthen the food chain.
Finally, while the author maintains that the fire negatively affected local economy by reducing the value of Yellowstone's tourist attraction, the professor argues that the fire can't affect economy seriously because such kind of destructive fire barely happens. Its happening was due to the combination of a large variety of unusual conditions which was impossible for most of the time. Furthermore, the fire has not happened since 1988, so the fire has very limited effect on the local economy.作者: season08 时间: 2011-8-15 00:22:06