There is a lot of controversy of whether or not people should use controlled burns. Controlled burns are setting fire to a natural habitat, such as forest or prairie, in order to clear out the unwanted species or just refresh the area. Some plants, such as the Sequoia (a tree), need the heat in order for their seeds to be spread. Controlled burns can also prevent real wildfires by getting rid of all of the underbrush that could easily set on fire in dry weather. But controlled burns can also have a negative impact on the environment, such as the smoke polluting the air. And if not executed properly, the fire can get out of hand, like it did in May of 2000, when the town of Los Almos, New Mexico experienced an out of control burn that was originally started by the National Parks Service at Bandelier National Monument. Although with controlled burns there is a chance this will happen, I still think controlled burns should be used. The reason is because, even though the smoke could be harmful, the burns are a lot less harmful than real wildfires. I believe that, if controlled right, the government should continue putting on controlled burns.
Works Cited
"Controlled burn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn>.
McCuen, Â Barbara. "Should the U.S. End Its Policy of Controlled Burns in Wild Areas?." Politics, Activism, Political Issues, Government, and Elections - SpeakOut.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1359b-1.html>.
MLA formatting by BibMe.org.
I really enjoyed reading this piece. You had a lot of good information to back your opinion and you had good vocabulary. Maybe next time you shouldn't center you sources -- or whatever you did to them. Also, you could have included that last sentence into the paragraph above. Overall nice job!
ReplyDelete