tpo14

The reading claims that salvage logging which is the practice of removing dead trees from affected areas is beneficial for both a damaged forest and to the economy. It provides three reasons of support. In contrast, the professor states that the results of salvage logging in a long term have environmental damage and she refutes each of the author's reasons.

First, the article avers that after a devastating fire, forests are choked with dead trees and salvage logging makes room for fresh growth. However, the professor opposes this point by saying that cleaning up the trees does not necessary for fresh growth. In fact, the decomposing of dead trees would help to enrich the soil and this would be suitable soil for new trees and plants. She mentions that salvage logging can result the lack of the nutrients in the soil.

Second, the passage posits that decaying wood is a highly suitable habitat for insects which in large number can damage live. On the other hand, the speaker counters this point by stating that it is true that a large number of insects will increase which is really bad. Actually, the beetles live in 100 years and they are not causing damage to forests. Also, trees are used by birds and other animals which contributes to health forest and the salvage logging will increase the harm for forest. This appears a contradiction to the information made in the article.

Third, the reading asserts that salvage logging has economic benefits. Conversely, the professor casts doubt on this point by explaining that the economic benefits are small and it will not last for a long time. She argues that the lumber using helicopter which is too expensive and the jobs created by salvage logging are temprory. She states that these jobs are filled from outsider and not by local residents.