Snags Argumentative Essay

1184 Words3 Pages

Argument Essay In the past year, the United States’ environmental policy has become a matter of great concern among its citizens. Our president Donald Trump has given little attention to the alarming condition of our environment. Global warming is creating erratic weather patterns, companies are extracting resources at unsustainably high rates and drought stricken states such as California are struggling to provide their citizens with potable water. With such ravaging problems and an unresponsive government, it is up to the citizens to monitor and maintain our pristine Earth and its vital services. One issue that deserves particular attention in the West, in states such as California and Oregon, is that of wildfires. It appears that …show more content…

For example, the destruction of old trees leaves the soil more fertile, and allows for faster growth of new trees. According to the Washington Post, “large fires and patches of intense fire, which create an abundance of biologically essential standing dead trees (known as snags) and naturally stimulate regeneration of vigorous new stands of forest.” The vast majority of people regard snags as unsightly , and government officials are pushing towards the eradication of these snags through harmful processes such as logging. However, what they fail to realize is that snags serve as habitats for a great number of species and without them, forests would not have the same biodiversity they had before. Not only are wildfires essential for plants in the area, they are also vital for the survival of other animal species. For example, “Small songbirds from Michigan nest only in young jack pine forests. But the pines' cones only release their seeds in a fire. So without fire, much of the birds' nesting habitat has been eliminated.(6) The same applies to the black billed woodpecker, whose nests are a breeding ground for tens of smaller insect species. Clearly, if we put out wildfires, hundreds of species would lose their homes, and this would have drastic impacts on the many fragile forest ecosystems in the West. …show more content…

They decided that logging would decrease the number of trees that could catch on fire, and this in turn would decrease the number and intensity of wildfires in the West. This is far from the truth. Scientists Chad Hanson and Mike Garritty assert that “Logging removes relatively noncombustible tree trunks and leaves behind flammable “slash debris,” consisting of kindling-like branches and treetops. (1) Consequently, our president’s plan is merely undoing what he is trying to do. The main reason why wildfires have increased over the past couple of years is simply because humans are being less tolerant of them and are using harmful and ineffective methods to try and stop them. The same problem is seen in North Dakota and Montana, where “Decades of stopping fires has led to a dangerous buildup of plant growth that is feeding fires at lower elevations”(3). At this point, it is obvious that the government needs to come up with new, if at all any, ways to counteract wildfires. Trees by themselves are biodiversity hotspots and have so many environmental uses, such as providing atmospheric oxygen. Trees burnt by wildfires also host many species. Logging trees, therefore, has absolutely no benefit, and merely increase the ratio of live trees to burnt trees, and decrease the total number of existing trees.

Open Document