Freewrite 5

Sibley starts by bringing up facts presented by others first.  I find it funny that he does not identify who this first source is directly in the text, but it may be because the audience would already be familiar with him. He then analyzes the source and tells the reader how he feels about it before comparing it to Marxism.  He then continues to introduce quotes, followed by his reactions and feelings about these quotes.  After providing the reader with credibility, he then brings in an opposing view and analyzes that before bringing up an example.  He constantly varies his delivery of the sources and continues to bring in both opposing and concurring viewpoints followed by his analysis.  His examples of facts such as the documentary and apartment walls which came from ever day life and would be recognizable to everybody reinforce both the fact that he has done his research and also to juxtapose the various sources together.  The way that Sibley introduces his sources and follows each one with an analysis of why it matters to his topic helps the reader be able to trust Sibley and demonstrates to them that Sibley will be analyzing his sources fully.  His incorporation of the opposing viewpoint lets readers know that he will be complete in his research.

After seeing the way that Sibley introduced himself, I realize the need to build your credibility early and that to do that, you need to show that you have done your research.  I plan on starting my essay by introducing the topic, but also giving a quick glimpse at both sides and what they hope to get out of these conservation lands.  After introducing the problem, I will then go into why either side thinks that they are right and their answer to what we should do with the conservation lands.  There is a lot of evidence for either side of this argument and also many examples of the two sides coming to a head which I plan on discussing next.  Finally, after presenting all of the evidence, I will try to conclude with a brief summary of both sides again, in relation to my thesis and also what they plan for the near future.

1.)

Weeks, Jennifer. “Protecting Wetlands.” CQ Researcher Online. SAGE Publishers, 3 Oct. 2008. Web. 24 July 2009. <http://library.cqpress.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2008100300&type=hitlist&num=0>.

This is a very comprehensive article that discusses the governments roll in the protection of our nation’s wetlands.  The website that it comes from is meant to be a nonbiased source which covers both sides the issue extensively.  It gives a number of specific examples and facts to support either sides claims.

(More description and analysis in #4.)

Quotes:

“So they migrate to vernal pools — ponds that form during the wet seasons and range from a few feet to several acres across. If all goes well, their offspring will hatch and grow large enough to breathe air before the pools dry up in summer. Some species, such as fairy shrimp, spend their entire life cycles in the pools, leaving eggs behind that stay dormant through dry months and hatch when the pools reappear a year later.”

“”Shallow marsh channels are important habitat for fish,” says Doug Myers, science director of People for Puget Sound, a Seattle conservation group. “Chinook salmon rear their young in estuarine deltas, coves and lagoons in the Northwest. And birds migrating along the Pacific Coast stop to feed along the mud flats.””

These two quotes I would group together into what I would use to demonstrate the necessity of some of these locations.  I think that they are good demonstrations of why these areas are important and provide some specific examples.  These two quotes are facts and would support the claims for saving these lands.  I do not think that this source will change my view of my topic as I already knew these facts, but they may help my audience to recognize the significance of what we do with these lands.

“Until the 1970s Americans widely regarded wetlands as swampy places that were useless unless they could be drained or filled in. Before settlers arrived, the continental United States contained more than 220 million acres of wetlands. Today less than half of that area (107 million acres) remains.”

This provides a start of a timeline which will be important in seeing how the rules and regulations have changed, especially in recent years.  This coincides with information I have received from one of my primary sources.  I think it is important to get numbers into the discussion early so that the reader has a sense of the issue and the impact that it has.  I’ll compare this to how the towns lands changed around this time.

“Many trade groups say they support reasonable wetlands protection but that current standards are too broad and the permitting process too cumbersome. “While [the permits'] environmental purposes are laudable, they do add to the cost and delay the completion of the public and private infrastructure that literally forms the foundation of our nation’s economy,””

This source also agrees with some things that I learned in one of my interviews and reinforces how delicate the balances is between too much restriction and not enough.  I might question the company’s and ask how might they change the rules so as to still be fair.  Maybe try to look into a few examples here about how companies changed restrictions.

2.)

Cooper, Mary H. “Jobs Vs.Environment.” CQ Researcher Online. SAGE Publishers, 15 May 1992. Web. 24 July 2009. <http://library.cqpress.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1992051500&type=hitlist&num=10>.

This article is more focused on the economic impact of these lands rather than the

environmental aspects.  Even though this article is a little outdated, the issues that it presents are still relevant and I think it will provide a good source to compare modern regulations to those in the recent past.  (Again, more in depth analysis in Freewrite #4.)

Quotes:

“Hardpressed residents of Washington, Oregon and northern California are unwilling to sacrifice “jobs for owls.” Environmentalists counter that both will disappear within a few years if loggers continue to destroy what they say is a nonrenewable resource. The Bush administration and others contend that the controversy is illusory, because economic growth and environmental protection are not incompatible.”

This quote is important because it represents the basis for the two sides (debatably three as the government tries to be neutral.)  It is also a concrete example of how the two sides can meet in a specific argument.  I am not sure whether I will use this, but it is still a good example.

“For despite two decades of progress in cleaning up the nation’s air and water and protecting fragile habitats, industrial and agricultural expansion is placing continued pressure on the environment. At the same time, popular concern for the environment continues to mount, resulting in increasingly stringent measures to prevent further damage. But in recessionary times such as these, the fear of unemployment can overwhelm the desire to protect the environment.”

This quote hints at the larger problem that is faced when dealing with these areas.  Even though we have been working to save these lands and the environment and they are still progressively getting worse.

Formal writing:

Throughout the nation, protecting wetlands and other conservation areas is becoming harder to accomplish.  According to Protecting Wetlands, “Until the 1970s Americans widely regarded wetlands as swampy places that were useless unless they could be drained or filled in. Before settlers arrived, the continental United States contained more than 220 million acres of wetlands. Today less than half of that area (107 million acres) remains.”  It has only been recently that people have actively started to preserve these lands and to stop actions that will inevitably lead to their destruction.  Such is the case in the town of Acton, Mass. where in the 1970’s, several wealthy families proceeded to buy up large areas of land around their town and keep it untouched (Tom Tidman.)  Even today, these lands lay largely untouched, but not despite the efforts of developers and those that think these lands should be used for creating houses and businesses.  Because these lands have stayed so well protected, Acton now has some excellent natural areas that many species call home.

According to Tom Tidman, the Director of Natural Resources for Acton, the rules and regulations that are in place now seem to be working quite well.  They are strict enough to be effective, but not so strict as to create constant legal issues with those trying to build in these areas.  One method that is used in order to “protect” these lands is what is called mitigation.  Mitigation occurs when an area of land that is considered wetlands and protected is traded for an area of supposed equal environmental value so that developers or whoever owns the land can build on it.  But according to Protecting Wetlands, sometimes these traded lands are not good enough and will not provide the same sort of protection from things such as flooding.  Tidman also comments that by moving these wetlands, you are adding to what is termed “fragmentation,” which is simply the fragmenting of these large areas of open space.  This fragmentation can have huge effects on animals, especially the slower moving ones which cannot cross the normal barriers that are normally set up, namely roadways and fences.

Advertisement