Jessica's Blog

Prior to performing research I listed several questions from the six categories: fact, definition, interpretation, consequences, value, and policy that sparked interest in what I wanted to write a research paper for.  Some questions I came up with in order of the above categories are: How are wolves being managed?  What is considered a wolf kill on a domestic livestock?  Why should people care about wolves in their area?  What happens to the ecosystem when wolves are absent?  What values lie with people on reintroducing wolves?  What legal policies encourage support for wolf reintroduction?

These questions are important towards my research because I care about finding additional information on trophic cascades and why wolves are important to the ecosystems if which they are native and have evolved.  I also cared about the viewpoint people have towards the reintroduction of wolves to an ecosystem in which they live.  Without public support, wolves will be viewed negatively and reintroduction will be more difficult.  What causes people to dislike wolves?  Many people, such as, ranchers dislike wolves because they attack and kill their livestock.  I wanted to learn more about the statistics behind livestock kills by wolves and how often it occurs.  While wolves do kill livestock, I wanted to find evidence on how many livestock are actually taken by wolves and in which situations it was occurring.  Also, evidence showing the positive effects of wolves on ecosystems would be helpful in swaying the public’s opinion of wolves towards supporting reintroduction.

One source I have found so far that supports many of these questions is an article titled “Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western United States” from the journal “Biological Conservation”.  This source is relevant because it explores how wolves can improve an ecosystem that perviously did not have predators to control the ungulates that decreased the condition of the ecosystem through over-browsing.  The target audience of wildlife researchers and scientists would find this source credible because it is similar to the Journal of Wildlife Management and according to their website – publishes the leading research in the discipline of conservation biology.

The scholarly journal I chose was The Journal of Wildlife Management and the purpose of this journal is to cover wildlife science, management and conservation for scientists in the field.  The journal feels it has a responsibility to address national and international issues that affect the current and future status of wildlife in North America and throughout the world.  Those who read this journal are either wildlife, fisheries or conservation biologists or students of the subjects and are interested in learning about current issues in their field of study as well as using the journal as a research source for personal papers or projects.  The writers of the journal are professionals in the field of wildlife, fisheries and conservation biology who have performed scientific experiments and research on various topics in the field and wish to present their findings to the rest of the scientific community.  These papers are all edited by selected professions on the editorial board of the journal.  Important questions this journal asks are things such as: are we analyzing our data correcting, are we using the correct statistical tools, how can we prevent biodiversity loss, what things are most important to certain species…etc.  The questions all relate to data collect, species analysis, and management of lands and animals.  I am interested in these questions through my field of study and the courses I am currently taking.  My courses through readings and assignments have taught me to look at every aspect of the planet in different ways and understand how each is linked to the other.  Plans are very important and without constant research on the topics the field will fall behind.

After visiting The Nature Conservancy website I came upon a blog titled Eat Lionfish and Stop These Caribbean Reef Invaders written by Stephanie Wear who is a marine scientist with The Nature Conservancy’s Global Marine Team and against invasive species.  She uses a video hosted by youtube to really get her message across that Lionfish are a very negative invasive species in the Caribbean Reef to show her audience exactly what they look like and why they are so damaging to the native ecosystem.  The video interacts with the words in her blog by backing up what she is writing about and why the topic and action she is asking for is appropriate. The video also helps Wear’s ethos by showing she has done research and uses other scientists and people working along side this problem; other ethos is presenting when she mentions her husband has been running a class that studies the native reef fishes.  Also, she is currently improving tools that assist in building resilience in coral reef communities as presented by her about me section (you can view this by clicking on the link associated with her name in this post).  There is not a lot of use of color, hue, or saturation on this blog site but typeface is used when she uses boldface font on certain parts of her text to indicate what she feels are the most important parts and things she would like to get across to her audience.  The use of bolding words also presents logos by pointing out which pieces of her argument are evidence, results and why the audience should care.  Lastly, pathos is presented through the video when images of the reef and Lionfish together along with narrative explaining how this fish may take away the native reef fish the Caribbean.

The debate over which method works best for conservation is still occurring and Armsworth et al. in their editorial written for Conservation Biology Journal titled Ecosystem-Service Science and the Way Forward for Conservation it is made clear they feel strongly ecosystem services need to be used.  The main exigence in this article is that biodiversity losses are still occurring at a very high rate and new methods of conservation are needed — he names education on ecosystem services as one of these new methods.  He argues that protecting nature for our own sake will be more useful than strictly protecting nature for nature’s sake.  A main point he brings up is that many agencies and projects already mix the two approaches of nature for nature’s sake and aiding in people’s well-being and that this strategy is working for effectively.  Another point Armsworth mentions is that despite our successes in helping the planet, the rate of biodiversity loss has not slowed down and these new methods of conservation are direly needed today more than ever.  He also argues that the idea of nature for nature’s sake is only part of those who already hold this belief and that those who are not willing to protect nature for this reason are the one’s we need to educate on conservation.  These people are typically in poor nations where the environment provides for their well-being and survival, therefore educating them on the benefits nature can provide if conserved can be very useful.  Armsworth brings up the point that we all need nature to survive, it provides us with food, water and shelter along with many other things such as recreation and that our well-being is ultimately linked with the immediate environment.  The article is summed up by stating that the conservation community shares the same goal of ensuring biodiversity is maintained for the long term and through ecosystem services we have a greater chance of succeeding with this goal.

Saving the planet is a goal every environmentalist has, but how we plan to go about it is different among many in the profession.  Douglas McCauley holds a viewpoint many of us share but he wants us to change our thinking about how we should go about conserving our world and environment.  In his commentary written in 2006 for Nature titled Selling out on nature McCauley argues for protecting nature for nature’s sake or for intrinsic value — the right something has to exist outside of humans.  The exigence of this piece is that market-based approaches to conservation are not working in current time and do not always gain long-term solutions to the problems the world is facing.  One of the main points McCauley makes in this argument is that if we only place an economic value on nature then what will happen once we are no longer receiving a profit; will we continue to protect that piece of nature?  He also states that market-based conservation has only presented one large long-lasting explain of success — the Catskill/Delaware Watershed that provides New York City with clean drinking water at a much lower price than a filtration plant.  He states that if technology becomes less expensive and can do the same jobs as nature then why should we bother protecting the watershed or any piece of the environment for that matter.  Later in his argument, McCauley expresses concern for parts of nature that conflict with our interests or neither help nor harm us; he states that market-based conservation does not take into account these conflicts.  Another point that is brought up during this article is that sometimes saving nature does not always pair up with making a profit.  The example of introduced Nile perch into Lake Victoria in Africa is used to explain this situation.  McCauley argues that when Nile perch where introduced into Lake Victoria it allowed huge profits to be made by the local people who traded the fish but caused mass extinctions of native fishes in the lake.  Overall, McCauley uses many instances to show and explain why he feels we should conserve nature through intrinsic value.

Note: Although my field of study is more centered around wildlife populations and ecology I decided to use an article written on global climate change since this issue provides many concerns for wildlife overall.  The following link will provide the blog/website I found to use for this assignment: http://www.green-blog.org/2009/12/20/ice-snow-so-wheres-the-global-warming/#more-2075

The argument this author is trying to get across towards the audience looking into global climate change is that even though it is cold in the area you may live, global climate change — warming specifically — is still occurring.  The author makes the point that global climate change is an overall effect on the planet taken as a whole where as short-term weather is what you feel when you are outside your home.  Also, the author argues that even if temperatures are decreasing or are low in one area of the planet, climate change is not even across the world, other areas can indeed be increasing in temperature.  Global climate change, as the author states, is more strongly affecting the poles and not areas such as the continental United States and is a reason why we may feel cooler rather than warmer in the short-term.  It is important to remember that climate change, although occurring around the poles, can cause problems for the entire world by causing ice to melt at a rapid rate increasing sea levels as the author points out.   Global climate change is important in the field of wildlife biology, ecology, and any environmental field because as the author states it affects the entire planet and causes changes in the landscape such as ice melting and causing the ocean levels to increase that can change habitat for various species including humans.

The exigence in this response is that a bad call made by a referee during a NFL game caused fans to become upset and distrust the system as well as a coach causing an uprising.  The head of the office for the NFL is the speaker and the fans of the NFL are the audience.  The speaker uses ethos when he explains that he understands the game and has done everything within his power to make sure the mistake with not happen again.  He mentions how he has a great respect and desire to make football more enjoyable for the audience and helps the fans understand they can trust the referees in every game.  Logos is used when the speaker states because he has punished the referee and because referees strife for perfection, a mistake will not happen again.  Also, the speaker brings up a mishap that occurred with a coach causing an uprising with the referee and with logic explains the rules and thus the reasons why he will not be punished.  Pathos is not used as much during this response, perhaps stating that the referee feels he had failed miserably at this job might cause the audience to be swayed to believe issues were not caused due to pay offs.  The speaker’s purpose is to convince the fans of the NFL to continue to watch games, purchase game tickets and trust the system of the game.  He achieves this goal I feel by explaining the situation and showing that referees are doing everything they can to be perfect but mistakes are made.  Also, he states that those in control of the NFL care greatly about the game and do everything in their power to perfect and keep good ethics in the game.

Within Bitzer’s essay, “The Rhetorical Situation” he explains in great detail what constitutes rhetorical utterance based on different situations.  For example, according to Bitzer, eulogies written for real people but are never delivered are considered rhetorical because a situation like John F. Kennedy’s death calls forth a reason or invitation to create the eulogies.  Also, Bitzer states that an audience is required for rhetorical utterance but that an audience can be himself or an ideal mind fitting into diaries and thoughts.  Eulogies that are fictionalized are not considered rhetorical by Bitzer’s theory because they were not written in the wake of a true situation; there was no situation in which to respond to – although they can become rhetorical if they can fit a true situation.

I disagree with Bitzer than neither scientific discourse nor poetic discourse can be deemed rhetorical.  Scientific writing for example does indeed require an audience to achieve goals; many scientific experiments require funding prior to actually performing any work.  If a scientist cannot convince or sway the audience that their work is important or worth conducting who will provide the funding?  If funding is not received thus no experiment is conducted.  Again, if say an ecological biologist cannot change the minds of the world into understanding that global warming is a threat then nothing will be done to solve and prevent future issues; therefore an audience is very much needed in order to achieve goals.  Poetic discourse, although I do not know much about it, seems as if it could be used to bring about change if the topic is based on an issue at hand by sparking interest in the audience that can be swayed to believe or see the issue in a different way than they do.  Poems can bring about change and an audience is required for the poet to get their points and arguments across, the only difference is in the style used to present the points.