Question

Write an argument for or against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas. (Rough draft)

Answer 1

Controlled fires can be described as a method by which a fire is planned so that the health of a forest can be maintained.

Argument against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas

• The dead leaves, grass etc which are burned down in controlled fires is in fact of some benefit to the soil of the forest. When leaves fall on ground, useful minerals from it decay into the soil.
• Controlled fires need a proper planning and even a little change such as change in the weather can cause the entire forest to burn. Hence, they are risky.
• The quality of the air gets damaged due to the burning.

Answer 2

Answer:

When done correctly, a controlled fire may get rid of the dead underbrush that's really to blame for damaging houses and even communities. Until one got out of hand, CA performed these burns annually. At that point, they stopped, as all large, foolish bureaucracies do. Now, as entire communities catch fire, we can witness the repercussions. You can see something in the backdrop of the photographs that hasn't burned trees.

Well-managed fires are helpful in clearing the forest of undergrowth, but they frequently spiral out of control due to negligence on the part of one person, such when they throw a cigarette butt that subsequently starts to burn. As a result, considerably more of the forest is destroyed than anyone could have imagined. In urban woodlands close to my house, I have witnessed it occur.

#SPJ2