A few assumptions that should not be made

The Jan. 24, 2008, editorial in the Northwest Arkansas Times guided by experts but lacks input from a generalist.
In the
Times editorial on controlled forest burning experts in several fields had their way with the editorial writer and he has stated their case for them, but appears to accept their assumptions without bringing up questions.
For instance:
Does a forest fire contribute to the rise in carbon in the atmosphere?
Is the forest a monoculture so uniform that large parcels can be treated identically?
Will such fires reduce the diversity of species and create a less healthy environment?
Can controlled burns really be controlled?
Will controlled burns reduce the carrying capacity of the land for many species?
Does erosion result when burning occurs near streams and on steep slopes?
Does the Ozark National Forest offer the acute danger of wildfires developing in the dry western states where the controlled burn has shown a potential to prevent highly destructive fires in areas where homes and even cities have been buillt in inappropriate places?
What species of wildlife will be harmed?
What would the ideal forest imagined by the experts actually be like? What good things would be missing?