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.

a.) Jennifer Weeks is a CQ Researcher (Congressional Quarterly) contributing writer from Watertown, Massachusetts. During her career, she has been a writer for many publications, most notably The Washington Post and The Boston Globe Magazine, and has 15 years’ experience as a public-policy analyst, lobbyist and congressional staffer. She attended Williams College where she received an A.B. and also received master’s degrees from the UNC and Harvard.  Her career in reporting on issues dealing with public policy, help her report without bias on issues dealing with energy and environmental issues which she specializes in.  CQ Researcher is a database that is highly recommended is a key starting point in many searches for credible, nonbiased, comprehensive and clearly organized reports on a wide variety of issues.  The company was started to provide information for editorial writers and now provides an international view of world issues for those interested in learning and researching.  CQ Researcher’s goal is to stay unbiased and to provide a comprehensive view of the full issue.

b.) The Primary audience for this article is students interested in researching this issue.  The fact that this article is online may exclude a number of the lower class that do not have access to the internet.  This article is also directed at those who live in the Eastern United States as the places that are discussed are located there.  The targeted audience also seems to be for those that are somewhat knowledgeable of current events (i.e Hurricane Katrina) and also those that spoke English.

c.) This websites purpose is to display unbiased reporting on important issues and this article seems to be unbiased.  It is for educational purposes and fits with the overall websites goals of education for students also.

d.) This source is:

• Valid
• Credible based on my interview with Tom Tidman
• Balanced
• Comprehensive
• Relevant
• Current
• Controversial

2.)http://library.cqpress.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1992051500&type=hitlist&num=10

a.) Mary H. Cooper is a staff writer for CQ Researcher specializing in energy and environmental issues.  She worked as a correspondent in Washington for L’Inita, a Rome daily newspaper.  She also translates and interprets for the US State department and graduated from Hollins College with a degree in English.  She can provide an international view on the issues that she writes about because she has experience writing for an international audience.

b.) Because of the company that runs the website, the audience will be students looking for facts about this topic.  Again, this article is online and therefore may exclude a portion of society because of their lack of internet access.  This article is targeted at those that speak English and are from the United States, though it is not seemingly targeting a specific region as the other article seemed to.

c.) The purpose of this article is education and also public advocacy, though in an unbiased fashion.  This is similar to the more general goal of the website to provide students looking to do research with an unbiased view of this issue.

d.) This Source is:

• Credible
• Truthful
• Balanced
• Comprehensive
• Relevant
• Current issue, even though published in 1992
• Controversial

3.)

Since the early 1900’s there have been Conservationists trying to protect our nation’s wetlands with varying degrees of effectiveness and with varying help from the government.  Until recently, people have not fully realized the impact that removing these areas truly have.  Protecting Wetlands: Is the Government Doing Enough by Jennifer Weeks looks at whether or not the government should step up its laws protecting wetland areas or whether it should listen to land developers and workers in industries such as lumber and farming, who say that the rules are too broad and need to be rewritten.  According to Weeks, many businesses that attempt to obtain permits to build on these lands incur costs that can range from $30,000 to upwards of $275,000 in a process that can take nearly a year.  Many developers claim this permit process is too lengthy and blame the broad standards that are currently in place.  In Mary Cooper’s article titled Jobs Vs. Environment, she looks at whether or not it is right to sacrifice jobs for the sake of protecting certain species.  More specifically, she looks at the very controversial debate of whether over 6 million acres of forest should be untouched by loggers so that the northern spotted owl can continue to exist.  This problem, though seemingly specific, really leads to the bigger issue of whether our nation should be protecting these areas so that these species will continue to exist.  According to naturalists, it is a question of whether the loggers and industries that use nonrenewable resources want to run out now or in three years.  Places like these forests will run out at some point, and if we can close them now and protect these owls, why not do it?  The people in industries such as logging argue that one species does not justify leaving thousands out of jobs.  One of the plans that attempt to change and alleviate this situation is something called “mitigation,” which normally involves the exchange of one preserved area to another so that there is no net loss of preserved areas.  The problem then is the quality of these areas and the fact that the fragmentation of the areas does more harm than many realize.

I plan on interviewing the director of the Acton Conservation Committee, Tom Tidman.  My brother had an internship with him last year, so I know a little bit about his job description and I think it will make it a little easier to approach him and I will be a little more comfortable carrying on a conversation with him.  These are the questions that I have come up with for Mr Tidman, though I will be asking more questions specific to the answers that I get.

-How long have you been working in Acton? How long dealing with conservation lands?

-Can you briefly describe the work you do for the town and how it relates to conservation.

-Can you describe what a typical day would be.

-I am interested in conservation lands and more specifically how they may be considered public space.  Do you believe that they can/should be considered public space? Why/Why not?

-Are you familiar with the development project that was denied in Boxborough? The housing development?

-Why would someone be interested on building on these lands, even though it seems as if it would require quite a bit more effort?

-Why is it important to keep these lands as conservation land and to stop businesses and developments like this?

-Do you think there should be more or less restrictions on these lands and how they are allowed to be used?

-Is there anything else you would like to add about these lands and public spaces?

-Just some general information:

Name, Age, Gender, Education, Job Title

PRIMARY RESEARCH

I plan on interviewing Tom Tidman early this week in order to learn more about conservation lands and why they are saved.  I also am looking to answer specific questions as to why and how someone would go about building on them as seen by the questions above.  I am going to talk to him and ask him these questions and then if I feel it will be helpful, I will go observe the location that was planned to be built on and see if I can observe any of the features that Mr. Tidman talks about.  I think that Mr. Tidman should be pretty readily available if I go in and visit, though emailing and calling have not been successfull so far.  I think by going in and setting up a time to meet I will be able to get my questions answered without any problem.  Even though I would consider myself an outdoorsy type, I do not feel that it really biases me any on the subject and I am not really sure how I feel about this subject, which is part of the reason that I am interested in this topic.  As I am researching, I will try to see if any biases do come up and keep them in check.  I hope by finding out the answers to my questions and also to become more knowledgeable on this topic so that I can form an actual argument which will help provide my research with more structure.

I think that my main topic right now for my research project would deal with conservation and how the land that is regulated.  The reason I thought of this was partially from one of my secure zones at Nagog Pond, but also because there is a lot of conservation land in my town, and recently there has been a lot of talk of how to use it.  A number of years ago, it was suggested that an area of conservation land would be sold to create a place for a Home Depot or a number of other businesses.  The town fought over it for a number of reasons including things like traffic and lights and noise.  The project ended up mainly not going forward because it was on conservation land and was swampy and they did not want to have to deal with the laws that are imposed on conservation property.  There are also a number of lots that are on conservation land that severerly limit what the owners can do in their own backyards.  Another thing I have noticed driving down the main road in my town is sections where “turtle xing” signs are displayed to make people aware of them and help protect them.  I think this is a good idea, but I’d like to know if people even pay attention to it or if they change their driving at all in the area.  I know that these people are trying to protect nature and the land so that it stays nice and people can enjoy it, but some things may just be too much.

I will also look into how these areas are patrolled and how these rules and laws are enforced by them.  I know that most if not all have signs posted around their perimeter, but I wonder if they are regularly patrolled or if any of them are under watch by cameras or if they just expect people to call in if their is suspicion.  I also wonder if the signs are heeded or if they make people think that they can go into these areas without worrying about getting caught because they aren’t patrolled.  I know for a fact that there are people that go to the reservoir to fish and have to evade the random patrols there.  I know a few kids from high school that have been caught and they get a warning the first time but apparently if you are caught again your equipment is taken.  I would talk to one or two of them and see what they think about it being conservation land and protected.  I probably will talk to someone from the conservation group from our town or get in touch with someone that can answer a few questions for me about things that come up during my research.

Another option that I thought of which I do not know exactly how I’d go about is focusing on what can and cant be displayed on private property, but is visible from public spaces.  Things like signs and political things that may or not be appropriate for public display, but are on private property.  Where is the line drawn, or is there even one?  As I wrote about in one of my posts, I wonder how the messages on church signs are recieved by those who are not from that religion. Do they just ignore them or do they get offended or how do they recieve the message.  Also, what are the reactions to putting signs for political canidates along public stretches of roads and in other public areas like around schools.

As of yet I haven’t decided which of the above options I would choose for my research project, but I am leaning towards the first one because I think it is more interesting and more prevalent in my area.  If anyone has any suggestions they’d be greatly appreciated!

Unfortunately didn’t have a camera with me when I saw this one because I was on a boat, but this sign is promenintly displayed by a property that is on Lake Arrowhead in Maine.  There are loads of propertys with a dock and boat in the water and this particular one is in a relatively secluded area with no house visible from the water through the trees.  I do not know if this family has had something stolen in the past or if they are just cautious, but they have turned their property into a jittery space by adding this threat as it is of being recorded.  Though I am sure this is to deter anyone with ideas of theft, I wonder why this is the only property on the lake that has a sign stating that they have this surveillance system.   These signs are clearly trying to keep unwelcomed people off of the property and to make people aware that they need to be welcomed on the property.  These signs I believe do a good job of affirming Flusty’s idea of space because someone looking to enter the space would be much more inclined to go to any of the other propertys along the lake not marked by these signs, even if they were just for show.

This image is of a private tennis court in a neighborhood in my town.  My town is made up of lots of these little neighborhoods and some of them are a little exclusive as to who they let in.  As you can see in the picture, the tennis court is set back from the road and behind trees, not readily visible from the road.  It is also behind a tall fence that has a lock on the door.  I know that they have had problems with people coming in from neighboring areas and getting in to the courts to use them.  The neighborhoods feeling is that since they are the ones that pay to keep these courts clean and well maintatined, they should be the ones to get to use them.  This space is not really under any sort of surveillance from cameras or anything, but people from the neighborhood will stop by and say something if they do not recognize who you are.  The fence and the location are to keep those that are not in the neighborhood out and to make the court for exclusive use of those in the neighborhood.  This is like Flusty’s crusty space in that it is “protected” by a fence in order to keep outsiders out and a stealthy space because it is pretty well hidden from the road and passersby.  Though I guess this may not be considered in a public space, I still think that this is acceptable to do because the reasons that the neighborhood has for the fence and lock are sound; they do pay to maintain the court, and therefore are the “owners” of it.  I guess the only question I would have about this would be what would happen if someone from the neighboring towns wanted to use the courts and offered to pay.  Would they be allowed to use the courts? or would they be excluded still.

This third space is an example of slippery space and jittery space.  It is a pond that is very tightly restricted because it provides some of the sorrounding areas with water.  The main rules for this area are no fishing and no entering into the water.  The space is slippery because for most of it, the pond is surrounded by a pretty dense forrest that has very few paths through it.  There are very few houses along the pond, mainly because you can’t really do anything in the water.  Around the areas that have roads close to the water, this area is a jittery space because there are pretty frequent checks by either police or someone with authority from the pond that will make sure you are not doing anything illegal.  There are also signs stating that there is no fishing or swimming in the water posted all around the few paths and areas that you can get to around the pond.  These checks and the lack of access to the water provide a very good detterent to people looking to enter the water.  I am not sure how I feel about the pond and the fact that it is such a nice space and can not really be used because of these restrictions, though I do understand that the water needs to be protected because it is being used in homes in the surrounding areas.  I think that this definately affirms Flusty’s descriptions of secure spaces and that this really can’t be considered a public space if it is going to be so heavily protected.  There really is no use for the pond other than the ones that are prohibited and this means that the public isn’t really even welcomed into the space.

I am not sure of how the others in my group feel about religion and I do not mean to offend anyones beliefs. I myself go to church and am in a pretty religious Catholic family.  I chose this piece because religion can be a very controversial subject and I hope that it will be a good conversation where we can learn from each other.

This is a sign that I found driving past a church in Maine.  There were two churches that were along the same stretch of road.  Unfortunately, the other church I missed the signs by a few days, but one of the signs read, “Like steel, lose your temper, lose your worth.”  After seeing this sign, it got me thinking about this assignment and how transgressive these kinds of signs can be to certain people.

This sign is outside of a church on the main road running through a small town in Maine.  It is a relatively plain sign that blends into the signs around the area with its colors and nondescript lettering.  This sign and another one further down the road, feature some phrases that can get quite religious.  This being a public road and very visible to anyone passing by, this sign may be to religious to have in a public space.  This particular phrase in the picture is not particularly religious, though it still is saying that giving will make you a better person.  Though this is not a great example of a very religious comment, some of them are and are very public displays of religious.  What happens if someone who drives past this sign and is offended by this phrase, whatever it may be.  There is nothing to screen the people who are looking at this sign and there is no way to know their reaction to this sign.

There is noone to say that this sign is either transgressive or not transgressive definitively, but it is a personal opinion whether it crosses some sort of line with you.  These phrases are created by the church that it is in front of and is meant for passers by.  The sign is meant to move the person to change in some way, or to make them realize something about themselves.  A phrase such as “like steel, lose your temper, lose your worth” is a moral statement that makes people question themselves.  Some people will be offended by a statement that makes them question themselves.  There has not been any display of disagreement to these signs to my knowledge, though I do not live in the community where these signs are displayed.  I believe there has not been because I don’t think that anyone would make that much out of these signs.

These signs have made me wonder about the people creating the phrases and what they wanted us to think about.  Are they saying the phrase as a cliche or are they saying it with a deeper meaning.  Are they trying to change the people reading the sign? Is it meant with religious conotations? I just wonder if these signs really are fit for these public spaces and how they are controversial or not.

This trojan ad is one that I heard on the radio while I was flipping through other ads for this assignment and I decided this would work really well.  The picture that I found represents it pretty well and can serve as a good enough representation of it.   I chose this ad because I think it is pretty controversial to advertise condoms in public spaces.  This ad features a metaphor where people that do not use trojan condoms are like pigs, which this picture describes quite literally.  Like the ad on the radio, the ad also features the consumption of alcohol with this picture taking place in a bar and the radio ad mentioning alcohol also.  The main particapants in this picture are the couple standing by the bar, made to stand out mainly by the lighting and the mans white shirt.  This is the only male in the ad, with the rest being represented like pigs because apparently they do not use trojan condoms.  The modality of this ad is medium because it has been basically assembled with the many pigs that have been added and the specific lighting on the couple at the bar.  

This ad is supposed to be a snapshot of a night at a bar somewhere where these men are hanging out and talking to what seems like a bunch of disinterested women.  The one woman that seems interested is the one who has found the man that uses a condom.  This is a different take on the whole protected sex campaign from one of the main condom companies points of view.  I think that this ad is geared towards both genders, but sends each a different message.  For the males, the ad is trying to make you realize how dirty it is by comparing unprotected sex to being an animal.  For the females, it also seems to bring up a cleanliness issue, but also seems to say that the only men worth meeting are those that use a condom.  

I think that the use of public spaces for these advertisement is controversial because for many people, this is not an appropriate thing to be talking about publically.  I think that by putting this ad on the radio, it may be a little less of a problem for these people because there is no need for the visual side of it, which I believe is most bothersome for people.  For me, I don’t disagree with seeing these ads in public spaces because I feel it is necessary to get this out there so that people will not have unprotected sex.   I realize that this is not an ad directly for this purpose, but I believe it sends a similar message that will have a very similar end result.  This ad is not really trying to shape peoples public spaces or lives, but rather their personal lives.  It does try to have people who view it buy a product and also realize how important a condom is, though maybe not in the most conventinal way.  

While I was doing this research, I really started looking at how the people in the ads were used to portray the message of the ad.  I also started to notice the differences between ads geared at men vs. women vs. both.  I used to look at ads and just see the words and the pictures and the obvious messages. Now when I look at them, I look at these things and see the larger picture and how they all fit together subtly to create a complete ad.  I think that this discussion about modality and the particapants in these ads really made me look at these ads as a whole and to get their full meaning from them.

Hilton Head Island

Many people may not be familiar with this symbol, but anyone that has visited this place will recognize this as one of the most prominent symbols of Hilton Head Island.  As well as being a symbol, this is also sort of a weak icon, as it tries to represnt Hilton Head through the palm tree and crescent. It doesn’t really have a generealized location, but really has no meaning if you have no prior knowledge of this location.

Speed Limit Signs

A speed limit sign is an index of the speed of cars traveling on the road that the sign is located on.  It can also be a symbol of the road that it is on because the higher the speed limit, (generally) the larger the road.  I chose a picture of a German speed limit posting because it demonstrates how these signs also need context in order to know their full meaning.  Many of these signs are in MPH and this particular one is in km/h.  If you did not know that this was in km/h you could be very and it could also be very dangerous.