Let It Burn Policy Summary

While the reading passage enumerates the three types of damage often cited by the critics of the "Let It Burn Policy," the professor in the lecture effectively refutes the validity of each of these arguments by redirecting attention to the long term benefits that resulted from the recovery process. The first serious damage cited by the critics is the loss of vegetation. There was significant loss of trees and other vegetation in the park as some one-third of Yellowstone national park was engulfed by the fire. It would have been understandably shocking for people to witness the charred remains of trees and ashes left on the landscape. The professor, however, points out that vegetation did, indeed, return to the area, and more significantly, new forms of botanical …show more content…
In the long term, the vegetation became more diverse and prolific. The second point mentioned by the critics is the fatalities caused to the wildlife of the area. All animals, great and small, would have been affected by the disaster. They were either burned in the fire or left without a hospitable habitat. The professor's response to this criticism is that the population of wildlife eventually recovered. The species of animals repopulated the areas, and, more significantly, even new forms zoological life were able to proliferate in the new environment. This was the result of the availability of new types of vegetation, especially smaller plants, which provided improved habitat and food source for smaller animals like hares and rabbits. In this light, some food chains were actually strengthened as a result of the fire. The last argument made by the critics is that the local economy suffered because of the fire. There was a significant reduction in tourism to Yellowstone, and the local businesses suffered as a consequence. The professor rebuts, however,