Week 8 Conference Reply #3 - Ecological Succession

I've read the replies in this tread of the discussion and am familiar with the Mt St. Helen's from the news and photos.  Recently I saw a show on volcano's and the destruction they cause.  A spot on Mt. St. Helen's was talked about, along with some photo's.  From the video and photo's they showed on the program, I don't think it has come back very well.  An ecological disaster that is closer to my home and one that I am familiar with is that of the Yosemite National Park fires in the late 80's.  Thousands of acres of forest were destroyed by nature by lightning.  From my viewpoint, I don't think the US Forest Service should have (they didn't) allow a logging company to come in and "rebuild" the forest.  

As so many in our class have discussed, I feel it is important for nature to repair itself.  Some issues worth considering are economic, in terms of tourism.  Yosemite is visited by millions of international tourists every year, and have been since 1890.  In Yosemite's case, revenue was only lost during the days of the fire, which was unavoidable, and immediately afterward, due to clean-up efforts.   The fire was so bad that we had soot on our house, cars, driveways, and everything that was outside; we lived nearly 50 miles away.  Other fires that are near to my home or that I am familiar with is the Oakland fire and the Los Angeles fires.  Those two forest fires also scorched thousands of acres, yet were near major metropolitan area.  Do we replant those, and start anew?  For economic reasons I say yes, but for others I say no.  Where do we draw the line as to where will build our houses, schools, or businesses?  Practically everywhere you look there is something that nature has put somewhere.  Whether it's the flood plain of the Mississippi or the fault lines or forests in California.  There is only so much room for so many people.  

~Matt

Visit my home page at www.FaulknerWeb.com

E-mail me at Home