Cadie and Piper have 2 different views of forest fires. Which perspective do you think is the best?

Cadie and Piper have 2 different views of forest fires. Cadie believes forests must be cleared of underbrush and dead trees to prevent the destruction of acres of trees. Piper believes we let nature take its course and new trees will return. Explain which perspective you think is the best.

Without knowing more about the science behind their respective viewpoints, it's hard from me to say! From reading this novel alone I'm inclined to agree with Cadie, but I also wonder if that's because I was reading from her perspective and therefore naturally more sympathetic to her stance.

I get the concept of a cleansing burn, I live in the Midwest where controlled burns are part of agriculture and conservation, but I also know that drought and suburban encroachment are fuel for destruction in regard to wildfires. So while I can see the appeal of a survival of the fittest outlook like Piper's, I think it is unrealistic and naive to assume that a let Nature take its course approach isn't devastating physically and economically. I think Cadie's point of view is a more proactive one.

Cadie because of her research developed a long range understanding of how forests survive and thrive by taking conservation measures to support their long range survival even if means some devastation in the short run while Piper’s is what will be will and let nature takes it course. I think Cadie’s approach is best though it may some temporary sadness to those who use a particular forest .

I believe Cadie has the best viewpoint. She understands what has to be done so that the forests can survive. She is using the scientific approach and I think Piper is using a more sentimental and caring approach.

I think something in the middle. A forest fire is destructive but also results in new growth. But I also don't feel that it is a good idea to just let thousands of acres burn, with lives and homes, both human and animal being lost.