Category: Wildlife

Diversity of Life within the Sanctuary

A home to a great variety of wildlife and endangered species, the Manas Sanctuary is located in the Himalayan foothills, in the far eastern state of Assam. Designated as a wildlife sanctuary in 1928, as a World Heritage in Danger site in 1985, and finally as a National Park in 1990, Manas is considered to be one of the best-kept national parks in India. (Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, 2008) Manas has a very assorted animal population.

Being the only tiger reserve in Assam, it accommodates Indias second-largest tiger population. Aside from this, it is also popular for the rare golden langur and red panda, and other highly endangered species of birds and animals. In addition to tigers, other potentially aggressive animals in Manas are the elephants, rhinoceros, wild buffaloes, leopards, clouded leopards, and the black panthers. Other creatures include swamp deer, gaur, golden cat, pangolin, fishing cat, capped langurs, Assamese macaques, slow loris, hoolock gibbons, smooth Indian otters, sloth bears, barking deer, hog deer, sambar, and chital. (Manas Wildlife Sanctuary)

Not only does Manas accommodate the Fauna, but it also contains more than 450 species of birds. Among the most popular are the great pied hornbill and the Bengal florican. Both resident and migratory species such as giant hornbills, jungle fowls, bulbuls, brahmin ducks, Khaleej pheasants, egrets, pelicans, fishing eagles, serpent eagles, falcons, scarlet minivets, bee-eaters, magpie robins, pied hornbills, gray hornbills, mergansers, harriers, ospreys, and herons reside within the area. Of course, a large variety of reptiles and butterflies can also be seen in the sanctuary. (Manas Wildlife Sanctuary)

All of these can be seen by visitors through rides on boats and elephants. Elephant rides are best for visitors who would want to see wild animals, while the boat rides are for spotting animals and birds that come to the rivers to drink. Although there are no available department jeeps or guides, the tourists could hire private jeeps that will be used during the tour. (Manas Wildlife Sanctuary)

The ecosystem within the Manas Sanctuary

Animals and plants of different species interact with each other all the time. Interactions could be in the form of eating together, living together, mating together, and even preying on each other. (What Is an Ecosystem?)

The Manas Wildlife Sanctuary is a home of ecosystems where both biotic and abiotic components are linked and interrelated. It is said to represent one of the most unique and best examples of the Eastern Himalayan ecosystem because 92% of the park is still under forest cover. (Management of Royal Manas National Park, 2008)

The interrelationships among the life forms within the sanctuary start with the input of energy from the sun. This energy is captured and transformed into chemical energy by cellular processes such as photosynthesis and respiration, which are then released to the environment in the form of heat. The continuous input of solar energy is a requisite for the survival of all biological systems on earth. (The Concept of the Ecosystem, 2006)

Energy moves within the ecosystem through the food web, which is basically composed of interlocking food chains. This process begins with the absorption of energy and other elements from water, atmosphere, and soil by plants, which are considered to be the primary producers in the ecosystem. Herbivores, which are considered as the primary consumers, obtain energy by consuming the plants. Secondary consumers, which are the carnivores, then eat the herbivores; detritivores, scavengers, and decomposers, in turn, consume the droppings and carcasses of the aforementioned creatures. It is important to note that during the process of decomposition, elements are not destroyed or lost; thus, it can be seen that there is endless cycling of elements within ecosystems. (The Concept of the Ecosystem, 2006)

Controls within the ecosystem are a delicate balance, which intrusions and unnecessary disturbances can easily upset. The following discussion focuses on the human intrusions and activities that are threatening the biological interrelationships within the Manas Sanctuary.

Human Intrusions That Threaten the Area

Although the wildlife sanctuary was established to protect and conserve threatened animals, there are still unwanted interactions between humans and animals that produce adverse consequences. Worthy to note is the unspecified number of infringements in several buffer zones that were set up in the sanctuary. Of particular concern is a village named Amtika, which is located in the area occupied by the golden langur.

The village communities that reside on the periphery of Manas are using the park to collect grasses, fuel, wood, fodder timber, and even for grazing of their livestock. In addition to these are the unsustainable burning activities during the dry season, hunting and extraction of timber and firewood in the buffer zone. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

Also, in February 1989, members of the local Bodo Students Union, who form about one-third of Assams population, occupied the park while campaigning for the autonomy of its people. The consequence of this were acts of arson, sabotage, and the massacre of more than a dozen wildlife guards by terrorists, which further caused the forced evacuation of the park staff. These gave the opportunity to professional thieves, lumber smugglers, and intruding villagers to harm and kill a number of animals including rhinoceros, elephants, and deer. These further caused substantial damages to infrastructure and guard posts in 12 areas of the part. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

In 1993, still due to human encroachments, almost one-third of Manas rhinoceros were stolen and at least 4 tigers and 2 elephants were killed. A significant number of trees fell and the habitat of the golden langur, hispid hare, and pygmy hog has been put at great risk. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

Stealing, which is usually done by heavily armed gangs, is still one of the greatest concerns in the park. In 1996, a boatman of the sanctuary has been shot by poachers, and the rhinoceros population decreased significantly due to these illegal activities. Action plans and conservation management strategies are continuously being proposed and implemented so as to curb, if not totally eliminate the number of activities and happenings that harm the diverse life forms in the area. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

Protection and Conservation Management Efforts/ Actions

Management plans for the wildlife sanctuary are continuously being crafted and revised. One of the activities that are being practiced so as to maintain the composition of different habitats is the controlled burning process. Other regular conservation works include the provision of staff accommodations and the development of roads and wireless network so as to improve the efficiency of anti-poaching operations and administration of the entire sanctuary. Rhino Action plans are also in place so as to address the adverse effects of poaching on the rhinoceros population. (Protected Areas Programme, 1997)

The WWF (World Wildlife Fund), a global conservation organization is likewise working on a project that contributes to the conservation management of Manas. The main components of the project are conservation research, institutional and capacity development, anti-poaching, transboundary dialogues, and ecosystem protection. Its objectives include 1.) conservation of the biodiversity; 2.) strengthening of park management and local community capacities via education, training, and infrastructure development; and 3.) provision of rural development activities for residents by integrating conservation and development efforts. (Management of Royal Manas National Park, 2008)

Due to substantial numbers of Indian insurgencies, the projects current focus is on anti-poaching patrolling activities and strengthening staff capacity, while research and integrated conservation and development programs are minimal and limited to the northern part of the park.(Management of Royal Manas National Park, 2008)

Individual Contributions to the Preservation of the Manas Sanctuary

By simply not participating in activities that may cause harm to the biodiversity, (i.e. stealing animals/ killing plants and other creatures, etc.) an individual can significantly contribute to the preservation of the Manas Sanctuary. In addition to this are the initiative of the individual to actually report any illegal activities and harmful encroachments that may come to his knowledge to the appropriate authority.

Conscious effort to educate oneself about biodiversity and ecosystem and passing on to others his knowledge about such are also great contributors to the conservation and preservation efforts. Of course, giving financial aids and/or volunteering to be a member to organizations (if not pioneering an organization) whose objectives are to conserve and protect the life forms within the sanctuary contribute substantially to the efforts. Simply put, an individuals contribution can be in terms of initiating conservation efforts or making the existing efforts effective and sustainable. The concept of sustainability with regards to sanctuary conservation is further discussed below.

Other Measures to Ensure the Preservation of the Sanctuary

The current measures and efforts to preserve the sanctuary are seen to be more than enough to achieve the preservation and conservation objectives. What is to be strengthened are the measures of making the efforts sustainable, because a project whose objectives end with the end of the project itself does not achieve its objectives at all. One way of making the efforts sustainable is by strengthening public support for biodiversity conservation. This could be accomplished by launching education and informative campaigns to the public, particularly to the local communities and village residents. These campaigns should be with high public recognition so as to ensure their effectiveness.

Strengthening public support is not an easy task which is why it is to be suggested that India, as a country, should adopt the principle of sectoral responsibility to provide the foundation of ensuring the sustainability of each conservation effort. This principle simply means that each sector would be taking responsibility to reduce its harmful impacts on the environment. (Weissenberg, 2007) Sectors could include the different stakeholder groups, government agencies and departments, non-profit organizations, scientific community, local authorities, private sectors, and many others more.

The implementation of this principle could be made possible by having legislation, both local and national, that would engage the various communities to actually take part in preserving biodiversity, particularly of the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries such as the Manas. The internal communities of Manas and the organizations that support its cause can help in the start of the implementation of this principle by practicing it among themselves, and by disseminating it to all local communities that they can reach.

Effects of Long-Term Harmful Human Intrusion

If unwanted human intrusions remain unaddressed, not only will the sanctuary cease to exist, but looking at the bigger picture, these encroachments could lead to a significant decline in the worlds biodiversity and to the alteration of the ecological balance.

The results of these would be the loss of sustainable development and the proliferation of unexpected shocks, such as water shortages, burgeoning and spread of diseases, extreme weather conditions, and vulnerability of crops and livestock, which would further lead to the lack, if not the absence of food for the human population. (Srivastava) To put these simply, harmful human intrusions to the sanctuary would primarily endanger the life forms within it and the park per se, but, in the long run, the harm would ultimately fire back to the human beings.

References

Management of Royal Manas National Park. (2008). WWF. Web.

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. (2008). Journeymart. Web.

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. Wild India. Web.

Protected Areas Programme. (1997). World Heritage Sites. Web.

Srivastava, Paritosh. Hanging in the Balance: Conserving Biodiversity. UN Chronicle Online Edition. Web.

The Concept of the Ecosystem. (2006). Regents of the University of Michigan. Web.

Weissenberg, Marina von. (2007). Sectoral and cross-sectoral integration of biodiversity considerations. Web.

What is an Ecosystem? Alberta Online Encyclopedia. Web.

The World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) is a privately financed conservation organization (Pares, 2010, p.1). The purpose of this NGO is to safeguard nature and to stop the degradation of the planets environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature (Parnes, 2010, p.2). It was founded in 1960 and yet after four decades it is not only going strong but has become a very influential NGO  its Panda logo is an instantly recognized icon all over the planet. The WWF succeeded not only because of good management but also of a clear understanding of the principles governing media relations. The WWF was able to use media to enhance their image, provide a better company profile and as a result they were able to change the way the world looks at them.

The World Wildlife Fund for Nature was established in 1961 by the first General Director of UNESCO, Sir Julian Huxley (Parnes, 2010, p.2). The organization was created after Huxley made a report regarding the wildlife conservation in East Africa, saying that the regions wildlife could disappear in 20 years if nothing was done to safeguard the environment (Parnes, 2010, p.2) As a response to Huxleys report, a group of experts made a commitment to establish an NGO that will support conservation efforts and WWF was born.

The WWF made of national level organizations that are accountable directly to their own board and donors (Parnes, 2010, p.2). However, these national level organization must send two thirds of the money that they raised to the to their headquarters in Switzerland, nevertheless they are allowed to keep the rest of the money to spend it the way they see fit (Parnes, 2010, p.2). With regards to checks and balances the WFF international in Switzerland must be transparent when scrutinized by those under it  the national level organizations as well as their donors and the authorities based in Switzerland (Parnes, 2010, p.2).

The mission statement of the WWF, the fact that it is an NGO and by reason of its organisational structure explains why its leaders has to learn the intricacies of medial relations. The WWF does not only have to maintain a good image but it also has to make its presence known at a global scale, the motivation behind the need to use the media for the success of its programs.

Media Relations

In todays marketplace any organisation  whether it is for profit or nonprofit  could not afford to continue its operations without a clear understanding of media relations. According to experts the proper use of media relations will generate the following results:

1. improving company or brand image;
2. better media profile;
3. changing the attitudes of target audiences;
4. improving relationship with the community
5. influencing government policy at local, national or international level;
6. improving communications with investors; and
7. improving industrial relations (Bland, Theaker, & Wragg, 2005, p.55).

These are the things that the WWF needs in order to maintain its effectiveness as an NGO and at the same time to increase its capability to acquire more funding from aid agencies and private donors.

Furthermore, media planning is emerging as an important new specialty in public relations (Hallahan, 2001, p.461). This is evident in the way the WWF expertly handled new media as shown in their official websites and the way they communicate through them. But perhaps the deeper reason why the WWF shows great respect to the inherent power of newspapers and TV stations to create public perception was explained succinctly by Walter Lippman who said:

Every newspaper when it reaches the reader is the result of a whole series of selections as to what items shall be printed, in what position they shall be printed, how much space each shall occupy, what emphasis each shall have. There are no objective standards here (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2004, p.259).

Others are even saying that there is no such thing as objectivity in the media and the rhetoric about fairness and balanced reporting is just all myth (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 2004). The WWF recognizes the fact that they cannot be at the mercy of journalists and so they need to be proactive with regards to making them allies rather than detractors. The WWF does not only make press releases or grant interviews, the organization has a full-time communications officer from Cambodia to Canada (WWF-Cambodia, 2010; WWF-Canada, 2010). This is a clear commitment on their part to work with journalist and news agencies.

Agenda-Setting Theory

One of the most important things to consider is the impact of the Agenda-Setting Theory. Everyone is aware of the power of the media to influence society but the Agenda-Setting Theory clarifies what it means. According to communications specialists, While the news media may not be successful in telling the pubic what to think, they are quite successful in telling the public what to think about (Carroll, 2010, p.3). This is the immense power wielded by the media.

The real extent of the medias power to affect the success of an organization is magnified when the principles of Agenda-Setting Theory is applied to corporate reputation (Carroll, 2010, p.3). Corporate reputation is a complex concept with three dimensions and these include a firms public prominence, its public esteem, and the series of qualities or attributes for which a firm is known (Carroll, 2010, p.3). If the media can set the agenda and influence the general public on how to perceive a particular organisation, then it is all the more important for companies to pay attention to media relations and its capability to bring them up or bring them down.

The WWF also understands that the traditional role of media and their monopoly on information dissemination has been broken. Politicians, CEOs, celebrities, and other newsmakers have discovered that they can circumvent die-hard journalists to take their messages directly to the populace via sprightly talk shows, satellite news, conferences, appearances on entertainment shows, sponsored programs on cable networks, and video brochures (Hallahan, 2001, p.462). One mistake can be blown out of proportion if there is no clear idea on how to manage media.

It is not only enough to communicate; the WWF has to learn how. This is because, Todays postmodern media environment is filled with ambiguous formats where the intent of messages is not readily clear to audiences  advertorials, infomercials, video news releases, home shopping shows, product placements, and, and promotional events co-sponsored by media that are reported as legitimate news (Hallahan, 2001,p.462). Modern usage of different forms of media is liberating but it can also be difficult to control.

According to another media expert an organisation will not get the desired result when it comes to media relations if the leaders did not prepare in advance a media relations plan (Henderson, 2005). He wonders why would any organisation ever consider launching an outreach program, issuing a news release or making any public statement without some sort of plant that provides purpose, relevance and context (Henderson, 2005, p.61). The WWF cannot afford to simply issue press releases there must be a general overview of what the organisation is trying to achieve. It is like shooting without a target and therefore nothing is expected to be hit.

A media relations plan should have a situation overview that summarises in a few statements the lay of the land, the competitive environment and the challenges and the obstacles faced by the organisation (Henderson, 2005, p.62). There is also a need to know the audience, the objectives and a strategy for each objective (Henderson, 2005 p.62). Finally, there is a need for a position message that will clearly differentiate the organisation from competitors and as a result capture the attention of the target audience (Henderson, 2005, p.62).

Aside from having an effective media relations plan the most important thing for an organisation to accomplish is to endear itself to the press people. There is no better way to find out a successful media relations model than to examine the strategies and perspective of communications officers such as Press Secretaries. These people are not only aware of media-related concepts and theories on how media relations work, these people have real-life experiences and they know what works and what does not work. One good resource person in this regard is the former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

This is because he used to run a successful media operation and as a result of that experience he was able to develop a media relations model known as McCurrys 4-Cs and this stands for: candour; credibility; clarity; and commitment (McCurry, 2000, p.4). He said that an organisation must consistently tell the truth in order to be credible. It should also be communicated clearly so that the media people will get a clear idea of what is being said. Finally, McCurry also said that there must be commitment on the part of the organisation to keep on telling the appropriate story because the media will appreciate this.

It looks as if the WWF as a media friendly organization has taken a page from Mike McCurry, the former White House Press Secretary under the Clinton Administration. McCurry said that it is not enough to have candour and credibility when it comes to media management he also said to include clarity and commitment (McCurry, 2000, p.3). Based on the steps made by the WWF, there is evidence to show that they want to be as clear as possible when it comes to communicating their views on environmental issues and they also are committed to keep on speaking out until communication between the WWF, their donors, partners, investors, and the general public is assured.

Thus, the WWF is not only content in reaching out to the different media outlets using a team of communications officers, the organization also hired media experts to help them create a workable strategy to manage the media. This is the reason why they enlisted the help of the Center for Development Communication, a firm specializing in the crafting of communication strategies to address social and development issues (CDC, 2010). Their expertise fits perfectly well with the needs of the WWF.

Media relations is of utmost importance because it is the only way that an organisation will be able to maximise the power of the media to enhance their image and change the way the whole world will come to perceives them. The use of media relations principles is the only way that an organisation will be able to endear itself to the press. For instance, if WWF will not use the principles of media relations then it is possible that the press will not give them a fair and balanced reporting. It has been pointed out earlier that mass media is being operated solely based on journalism principles alone. It is a business operated by business people and if they feel that an organisation is hostile to them then it cannot expect to be given glowing reviews.

If this will happen then the perception of the general public will be distorted and will defeat the purpose of using the media as a tool to enhance an organisations image. Furthermore, it is not enough to simply be nice to journalists. These professionals have a work to do and they are also accountable not only to their editors but also to the consumers of news materials. Thus, they need to be able to write a good material and this means that they must be able to get the truth. This is why candour and credibility was emphasized by McCurry. Journalists will not appreciate it if the story that they report is not accurate.

It is important to maintain a sense of professionalism in dealing with journalists but it is also necessary to be aware of strategies that can help the company establish effective media relations, build relationship with journalists and then to evaluate and monitor media and the effectiveness of media relations.

The first thing that needs to be done is to maintain awareness for the organization and this can be achieved by creating a media list. According to experts, Youll build your media list by consulting current directories& (Hahn, 2005, p.98). After choosing the journalists and media entity that the company will work with the next thing to do is to contact them and make them partners in disseminating information regarding the company. From that point onwards the next thing to do is to maintain relationships by keeping them updated with regards to important developments within the organization (Hahn, 2005, p.98).

It will greatly increase the success of the partnership if there will be an informal media luncheon done annually or on occasion media contacts will be invited to lunch (Hahn, year, p.98). It is also imperative to write thank you notes to reporters after the company received a good coverage from them (Hahn, 2005, p.98). It will also help strengthen and maintain good relationships with the media people if the leaders of the company will familiarize themselves with the work of the media contacts and then compliment them if they filed a good story etc. (Hahn, 2005, p.98).

Finally, the organisation must show its commitment that every time it will collaborate with journalists and news agencies it must do so with consistency. It cannot be credible and truthful on a few occasions and then become unreliable the next time there is a press conference or press release. There must be a commitment to keep people informed. There must also be a commitment to bring out the best from each other. This can be achieved by giving information accurately. The WWF will benefit greatly if these principles are observed and followed.

Conclusion

The WWF understands the power of the media. Thus, it made critical steps to manage it and harness its power rather than to stand in its way. As a result they borrowed a page from McCurrys playbook that says an organization must not only focus on candor and credibility but also on commitment and clarity (McCurry, 2000, p.3). They were also wary of the Agenda-Setting theory and the power of the media to set the agenda in news discussion and information disseminations. As a result the WWF does not only have communications officers working full-time but they also hired media experts to develop media strategies for them. This is a great factor in their success and thus they were able to influence international policies with regards to saving the environment.

References

Bland, Michael, Alison Theaker & David Wragg. Effective Media Relations: How to Get Results. London: Kogan Page Ltd., 2005.

Carroll, C. (2010). Corporate Reputation and the News Media: Agenda-Setting Within Business News. New York: Routledge.

Center for Development Communication. (2010) CDC Home. Web.

Cutlip, S, A. Center, & G. Broom. (2004). Effective Public Relations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hallahan, K. (2001) Strategic Media Planning: Towards an Integrated Public Relations Media Model. In Handbook of Public Relations. R.L. Heath & M. Vasquez (eds.). London: Sage Publications.

Hahn, Pamela. (2005) The Only Writing Book Youll Ever Need. MA: F&W Publications Company.

Heath, R. (1997) Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges. UK: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Henderson, David. Media Relations. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2005.

McCurry, M. (2000) Managing the Media: Former White House Press Secretary Mike Curry tells how. Harvard Management Communication Letter.

Parnes, R.B. (2010). How the World Wildlife Fund Works. Web.

Pryor, B. (2004) The Role of an Environmental NGO in the Landmark Florida Everglades Restoration: An Etnography of Environmental Conflict Resolution with Many Twists and Turns. Ca: Heliographica.

Regester, M. & J. Larkin. (2002) Risk Issues and Crisis Management: A Casebook of Best Practice. UK: Kogan Page Limited.

Smith, R. (2002) Strategic Planning for Public Relations. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

World Wildlife Fund (2010). Media: Newsroom. Web.

World Wildlife Fund  Canada. (2010) Director, Communications. Web.

World Wildlife Fund  Cambodia. (2010) Re-announced post of Communications Officer. Web.

Introduction

Federal US agencies apply various techniques when it comes to managing refuge systems related to the land and wildlife. Obtaining a refuge is essential in terms of the protection of certain species by creating the circumstances in which said organism is inaccessible to predators and external factors interfering with its well-being. The concept relates to the mitigation of such risks as invasive species, excessive hunting, deforestation, and other factors that disrupt the balance within the ecosystem. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Forrest Service (USFS) are two federal agencies established to confront the need for refuge management to ensure the wildlife is conserved and protected. However, while the entities have similar objectives in regard to conservation and supporting ecological causes, the frameworks they use in relation to refuge management are different. In this paper, the differences in the approaches of USFWS and USFS will be discussed alongside the similarities and the benefit of each framework.

Allowable vs. Multiple Use Management

As mentioned prior, both organizations are motivated to conserve wildlife, and one of the measures that helps achieve the goal through refuge management. The US Fish and Wildlife Service manages fish, plants, wildlife, and natural habitats to ensure the management strategies maximize the benefit for the American citizens and minimize risks related to the endangerment of certain species, deterioration of fisheries, and similar challenges. The US Forrest Service, on the other hand, manages national forests and grasslands. Thus, the aim is to sustain natural resources with the purpose of providing people with the necessary benefits while ensuring the activities do not lead to the deterioration of the land. The objectives of the organizations and the aims when it comes to benefiting people ultimately illustrate the different approaches when it comes to refuge management.

USFWS has implemented an allowable use framework to maximize conservation efforts. Thus, however, does not imply that commercial activities are prohibited on the territories under the control of the agency. Nonetheless, all services such as camping, guiding, photography, rentals, agriculture, and access to the sites have to be confirmed and allowed by the agency (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2022). For example, if the allowable take of golden eagles is approximately 2300 as measured through calculations aimed toward balanced conservation, hunting premises shall not exceed the number (Millsap et al., 2022). The measure helps the entity ensure that the aforementioned activities do not interfere with the conservation objectives and will not negatively affect the areas. Thus, the resources can be used, and the lands can be interfered with of the said agency determines the activities to not correlate with negative side-effects to restoration and conservation policies.

USFS, on the other hand, operates under the premise of the multiple-use framework. The concept highlights the idea that the forests are used for more than one purpose. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 protects the concept of having a multi-use approach to natural resources obtained in the forests protected by the USFS, highlighting that the land is to serve as a conservation entity ensuring effective refuge management for maintaining a balance within the ecosystem while replenishing the natural resources later used by people (US Forest Service, 2022). Thus, the agency is to consider that the objective of restoration and conservation go hand-in-hand with maximizing natural resources such as timber. As a result, it is inevitable that while a similarity is the aim to assist in regards to ecological objectives, the difference is highlighted in the multi-use approach, which is to include additional purposes such as acquiring natural resources.

The two frameworks, while different, both have benefits and correlate with certain limitations that are to be discussed. On the one hand, USFWS can maximize the agencys success when it comes to conservation efforts since this is the central premise. Needless to say, since commercial activities are allowed if they do not interfere with the primary goal, the entity is able to acquire financial support and rely on the profit from the aforementioned services. However, this is also a limitation since the regulatory implementations do not imply replenishing natural resources, hence, providing people with the needed goods through authorization. Moreover, the profit is lower, and the agency is limited in regard to investments in further conservation practices.

The multi-use approach, on the other hand, is effective in terms of profit and resource replenishment while less practical for conservation measures. An example is noise impact which occurs on building sites, deforestation actions, and construction activities and interferes with the ecological objective (Taylor & Schwaller, 2018). However, since the objective is to maximize natural resources, such limitations are not valid enough to limit activities related to the acquirement of wood and similar aims.

Conclusion

Several strengths and limitations correlate with the allowable use framework implemented by USFWS and the multi-use model applied by USFS. The strengths of the allowable use strategy are the maximization of conservation efforts and the focus on environmental aims, as well as the authority of the federal agency in determining commercial activities. However, the weaknesses include limited profit that can later be invested in further ecological aims as well as the limited assistance to natural resource replenishment needed by people. The multiple-use framework, on the other hand, is beneficial in assisting people with their needs and creating profit. At the same time, the limitations correlate with fewer opportunities for conservation and a more complex aim that does not facilitate activity delegation. Moreover, the framework limits the agency in determining whether the commercial processes are ethical or are to be minimized.

References

Millsap, B. A., Zimmerman, G. S., Kendall, W. L., Barnes, J. G., Braham, M. A., Bedrosian, B. E., Bell, D. A., Bloom, P. H., Crandall, R. H., Domenech, R., Driscoll, D., Duerr, A. E., Gerhardt, R., Gibbs, S. E., Harmata, A. R., Jacobson, K., Katzner, T. E., Knight, R. N., Lockhart, J. M., & Watson, J. W. (2022). Agespecific survival rates, causes of death, and allowable take of golden eagles in the western United States. Ecological Applications, 32(3).

Taylor, P., & Schwaller, A. (2018). Management considerations for noise impacts on the Superior National Forest and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(3), 18051805.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2022). National Wildlife Refuge System. FWS.gov.

US Forest Service. (2022).Moving mountains at the Forest Service. USDA.

Nothing in the world exists in a vacuum, and the ability to find links between different things defines the degree of our maturity. People often forget that the planet is not their property, and it makes them utilize harmful and unethical approaches to wild animals and their rights. In 2015, Kate Clark presented a series of taxidermy sculptures with human faces to illustrate people’s unwillingness to recognize themselves as a part of nature (Froelich).

The combination of the brilliant idea and extremely controversial art materials raises a lot of concerns. At the same time, the existence of such projects highlights the need to answer the following question: where do we stand concerning wildlife? If there is one more approach apart from the normalization of violence against animals and supporting hypocritical animal protection initiatives, people have to find it.

In modern works devoted to wild nature and its meaning for the human race, some authors tend to criticize the approach to understanding wildlife based on the romanticization of nature as an object. For instance, in her work titled “A Shark in the Mind of One Contemplating Wilderness,” Tempest Williams argues that wild nature is unique in its beauty when it is “in motion.” The author is a professional naturalist and environmental activist, and her love for nature prevents her from seeing animals as things that can be studied in any possible ways. Although the preservation of animal remains with the help of taxidermy belongs to the techniques that are commonly used in science, the author claims that there are many hidden threats and ethical issues associated with it.

The use of animal bodies can lead to further progression of scientific knowledge in biology and increase common people’s levels of zoological literacy. However, apart from its scientific purposes, taxidermy can sometimes be seen as a form of art, and this tendency bothers modern environmental activists.

As for the essay by Tempest Williams, one of the author’s main arguments relates to people’s inability to understand the beauty and complexity of wilderness by staring at dead bodies surrounded by decorations aimed at representing forests, meadows, snow-covered regions, or other places of habitation. In her work, Tempest Williams criticizes her opponents’ points by comparing and contrasting her experiences related to wild nature in motion and its said immortal form.

The author argues that in the context of art, the presence of “stopped power” and “controlled sensation” prevents such art objects from representing wild nature as it is (Tempest Williams). In this connection, the work explains the need for animal protection in a unique and unhacked way, explaining the inappropriateness of objectifying wilderness.

The existing links between wilderness, violence, and the transformation of art seem to be used to justify the unnecessary exploitation of natural resources, including animals. After getting acquainted with the projects of Damien Hirst, a contemporary artist from the UK who uses the bodies of animals to challenge common statements about mortality, Tempest Williams gets at the heart of the problem with the understandings of wilderness.

In her opinion, Hirst’s approach to art that involves “taking things out of the world” to get to their essence is extremely contradictory and aims to oversimplify the concept of wilderness (Tempest Williams). Kate Clark takes these things a step further and demonstrates the flaws of this approach to wildlife by uniting mutually exclusive ideas. On the one hand, she wants people to realize that they belong to nature and wild animals do nothing bad to be mistreated and exploited (Froelich). On the other hand, her sculptures still present the dead bodies of wild creatures, which can be considered unethical. The introduction of only one new element such as a human-like face can drastically change people’s perceptions of animal remains in art by appealing to their conscience.

Instead of demonstrating the laws of nature and the aesthetic value of untouched wildlife, the willingness to turn animals into art objects eventually leads to the normalization of violence. In the opinion of Tempest Williams, the inability to think holistically when approaching the mystery of life makes people of art understand the beauty of a living creature “not as a continuum but as the texture of the functional design.”

However, apart from the recent trends in art, thinking about wild animals outside of context and its consequences are also closely tied to emotional states and, to some extent, double standards. In her article “Keegan: Why We Care about Whales,” Marina Keegan demonstrates that people’s emotions related to the suffering of animals heavily depend on the biological species and the degree of media coverage. Telling about her volunteering with pilot whales that are not on the verge of extinction, Keegan brilliantly illustrates the consequences of taking things out of context by comparing people’s attitudes to the suffering of big wild animals and some massively exploited species.

Due to her experience, she realizes that “people are strange about animals” since the killing of “thousands of fish” taking place every day does not make them cry, whereas any beached whale gets tons of attention (Keegan).

To some extent, Keegan’s discussion of priority-setting in people’s attitudes to wild nature aligns with the conclusions of Tempest Williams about holistic thinking in understanding the beauty of life. For instance, when asked to think about different species of fish, people are likely to imagine an object and an alimentary product rather than a living creature in its habitat, trying hard to survive and reproduce.

In the case of big animals that are not exploited at the same rate, the tendency to “take things out of the world” can sometimes be replaced by the romanticization of wilderness (Tempest Williams). For instance, when efforts to protect a marine mammal are needed, people can get a full picture of the situation – the silent call for help in its eyes, its drying skin, the inability to echolocate, and a beautiful beach as a battlefield (Keegan). Judging from such heart-searing stories, observing wildlife and its suffering in context leads to a more humane approach to animal rights.

In the modern world, there are two approaches to wilderness and wildlife, both of which represent extremities. Striking the right balance between the mutually exclusive needs of two separate groups can be extremely difficult, but they need to do it is obvious. Reflecting on the aesthetic and conceptual value of Damien Hirst’s works, Tempest Williams demonstrates the ugliness of wild animals’ suffering presented as something beautiful and criticizes people who normalize the exploitation of animals in art.

Similar to Keegan’s article, “Once the Wild is Gone” by Bill Adams demonstrates the reverse of the coin. According to Adams, people’s willingness to deify wild nature can manifest itself in different forms, ranging from indispensable conservation initiatives that bring positive results and prevent further reductions in biodiversity to the neglect of people’s well-being.

The ways to define the value of wild nature concerning the human race greatly vary, and it impacts both trends in art and the character of the conservationist rhetoric. Adams argues that “the tunnel vision of wilderness preservation” is an approach that can be harmful both to people and wild animals since focusing on one particular species without considering inter-species connections and people’s rights does not solve the problem of natural resource exploitation.

For instance, more than twenty-five years ago, many people lost their houses and farms due to the creation of the Mhaginga National Park in Uganda to increase the population of mountain gorillas in the region (Adams). Although such cases are not extremely common, both Adams and Keegan demonstrate the opposite side of modern animal rights advocacy by pointing at activists’ selectiveness. In her discussion, Tempest Williams encourages people to see the beauty of nature as a continuum. However, people make choices emotionally and apply their aesthetic preferences to any situation. As a result, some animals such as elephants and whales are considered more charismatic and deserving help than the others, which is hypocritical (Adams; Keegan).

To sum it up, people’s attitudes to wildlife, the proper way of depicting it, and animal rights are among the problems that can easily polarize society. The very fact that there are mixed opinions about provocative artworks that illustrate the gap between animals and people demonstrates that such issues are complicated and multidimensional. The majority of people, including the authors mentioned above, say that nature is precious and it should be studied, glorified, and protected. However, analyzing popular opinions in a detailed way, one can note that there is no consensus regarding the most balanced approach to wild animals’ rights. Given the complexity of the problem in question, this dialogue is to be continued.

Works Cited

Adams, Bill. “Once the Wild is Gone.” AEON. 2012. Web.

Froelich, Amanda. “Animal Taxidermy with Human Faces? This Activist Is Going Far to Prove a Point…” True Activist. 2015. Web.

Keegan, Marina. “Keegan: Why We Care about Whales.” Yale News. 2009. Web.

Tempest Williams, Terry. “A Shark in the Mind of One Contemplating Wilderness.” The Nation. 1999. Web.

Problem Statement

The article in question addresses the correlation between the value of property prices and the proximity of open spaces. In particular, Neumann et al. examine the association between property value and the proximity of the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located in Massachusetts (1011). The authors address two research questions, investigating the possibility of a correlation between the proximity of the NWR and property price premiums. The researchers also examine the extent to which property prices correlate with the proximity of other types of open spaces such as recreational parks, agricultural land, golf courses, conservation land, and cemeteries. An underlying problem (associated with both economic and environmental issues) is related to views regarding taxation. Some believe that the commercial use of open spaces could increase tax revenues, which could lead to a dramatic decrease in the area of NWR lands.

Methods

Employing the quantitative research method, Neumann et al. use a semi-log linear specification to address the research questions (1013). The dependent variable is the sale price natural log. For the purpose of open space measurements, the researchers use diversity and distance indices, also applying the hedonic method to examine the correlation between property price values and open space proximity. In this study, the researchers assume that residential property prices have been affected by the proximity of open spaces. Importantly, different types of open spaces correlate differently to the prices.

Summary of Results

The researchers found a distinct association between property prices and the proximity of open spaces. Neumann et al. discovered that property situated within 100 meters of the NWR had a price premium of almost a thousand dollars compared to residential units located farther than 100 meters away (1011). The price value associated with NWR proximity was larger than that of the proximity of cemeteries, as well as agricultural and conservation lands. The values found in proximity to the NWR, golf courses, and recreational parks were similar. Such findings confirm the authors’ assumptions and are consistent with existing research. People tend to prefer living close to open spaces, and this drives the growth of property prices.

Economic Reasoning

As mentioned, US taxation presents a problem in this scenario. Although NWRs provide certain funds to the budget, some view this kind of revenue-collecting policy ineffective, claiming that open spaces should pay similar taxes to those paid by the owners of commercial spaces. In spite of this problem, Neumann et al. stress that the findings of their study indicate the proximity of open spaces of certain types increases property price values, resulting in significant tax revenues for the adjacent communities. In simple terms, communities receive higher tax revenues even though open spaces render less money in taxes (1011). Thus, the study results can be used in making policy. Policymakers can refer to the research as evidence supporting smaller taxes for open spaces. These lands often have limited resources, and increased taxes or fees could undermine their proper functioning or maintenance.

Critique

The article under analysis provides valuable insights into the role open spaces can play in property price formation. The findings can also be used to develop policies aimed at any increase in public spaces and such open spaces as NWRs. The major contribution of this paper is associated with providing evidence of the specific economic relevance of public spaces that have traditionally been linked to financial losses rather than benefits. The primary strength of the study is its use of sound tools for assessing property price values. However, the research is characterized by a significant weakness as the authors chose only one geographic location for their study. The map provided in the article shows clearly that different types of open spaces are located at similar distances to residential areas. Therefore, the value of the NWR might be overestimated as the proximity of golf courses and recreational zones could be the primary factors affecting property prices. Irrespective of this limitation, the study is relevant as the authors use effective instruments that can be used in other settings.

The authors’ assumptions are supported by the findings of their study as well as evidence collected in previous research. The authors established clear objectives and fully addressed the research questions. As for the overall presentation of the results, the authors provide sufficient details that enable other researchers to duplicate the study. The paper is clear and concise, and the use of graphs and tables is appropriate. All these features make the article convincing and relevant. Further studies could examine the possible correlation between the proximity of open spaces and property prices in other states. Importantly, researchers should make sure that the spaces they compare are far from each other. It could also be effective to use qualitative methods to explore price values, revealing people’s attitudes about different types of open spaces. The methods used in the article can help students to implement their studies and can contribute to the knowledge base for various environmental and economic issues.

Work Cited

Neumann, Bradley C., et al. “Property Price Effects of a National Wildlife Refuge: Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts.” Land Use Policy, vol. 26, no. 4, 2009, pp.1011-1019.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a protected area located in North Eastern Alaska, North of Fairbanks, which was established under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. It borders Beaufort Sea to the North, Prudhoe Bay to the West and Brooks Range to the south. It is roughly 20 million acres or 78000 square kilometres big. Eight percent of the roughly 20 million acres is 1002 area: an unexplored, onshore area with commercially viable oil deposits (United States Department of Energy).

Currently, onshore drilling can only take place with congressional authorization due to a raging controversy between proponents, who claim that the oil will ease United States dependence on foreign oil, create jobs and expand of business opportunities; and opponents who argue that drilling will lead to irreversible damage to a delicate ecosystem that supports unique biodiversity.

Though economic benefits of such drilling are obvious, they do not outweigh the need to preserve the pristine nature of the area o the benefit of thousands of animal and plant species that depend on it.

To begin with, the refuge should be preserved since it supports a rich due to its undisturbed status. The Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act recognizes the need for protection of resources such as fish, birds and caribou since they rely on the refuge for spawning, nesting and calving respectively.

Lagoons, barrier islands, river deltas and coastal tundra host migratory birds such as swans and geese. During summer, caribous inhabit coastal lands to escape from numerous flies, feed on shrubs and most importantly, give birth before winter sets in. Others animals include, musk oxen, moose, grizzly bears and arctic squirrels.

Further South, wolves, lynxes, grizzly bears flourish. The act also identifies the delicate interdependence among these species as a vital element of their survival. Consequences of accidental spills would be unimaginable and disastrous to the fragile ecosystem if the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and 2010 Deepwater Horizon disasters are anything to go by: food chains are interrupted and species take long to recover.

In addition, construction of oil platforms, pipelines and necessary infrastructure will damage the area irreversibly. Even if proponents of drilling might argue that it is possible to minimize such impact using new technologies, possibility of structures such as pipelines, roads and airports constricting land and disrupting migratory patterns for caribous cannot be ruled out.

The Trans Alaska Pipeline System continues to face allegations of blocking migratory caribou herds not to mention the disruption of dens and lairs for numerous animals that happened during its construction. Tied to this issue is the plight of native Alaskan people who depend directly on caribous for their meat and hides.

Perhaps proponents of drilling oil in the refuge on the basis of its ability to reduce United States’ reliance on foreign oil should consider assessment by the United States Department of Energy to the effect that the oil is not expected to have a large impact on world crude oil prices and US economy.

A report by US Energy Information Administration projects that if fully developed, 1002 area will have a capacity to produce 1.9 million liters of oil per day in 2020. This will account for a paltry 0.7 percent of the world production. The report adds that this will reduce US net oil import from 62 to 60 percent which is not very significant.

It is therefore necessary to put drilling oil in 1002 area on hold since negative impacts far out weigh possible economic and social benefits. Wildlife and the rich tundra vegetation are equally important to United States of America.

Works Cited

United States. 96th Congress. “Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.” 1980. Web.

United States. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. “Petroleum Basic Statistics.” 2010. Web.

United States. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. “Independent Statistics and Analysis.” 2010. Web.

From a Western Judeo-Christian perspective, the question of whether drilling for oil in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge should occur is a complex and controversial issue that raises important ethical, moral, and religious questions. One perspective within the Judeo-Christian tradition views the natural world as a gift from God that should be protected and conserved for future generations (Wintz, 2018, p. 27). As such, drilling for oil in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge would be seen as an exploitation of God’s creation and an act of environmental degradation that would harm the delicate balance of the ecosystem. Proponents of this view might argue that we have a moral obligation to preserve the environment for future generations and that we should prioritize the protection of God’s creation over the pursuit of short-term economic gains.

From a Buddhist perspective, the question of oil in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge would be evaluated in light of the Buddhist teachings on interdependence, impermanence, and non-harm (Chapple, 2017). Buddhism teaches that all things are interconnected and that actions taken in one place can have far-reaching consequences. Therefore, drilling for oil in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge would be seen as an act that could potentially harm not only the wildlife and ecosystem in that location, but also affect the well-being of other beings and the wider environment.

I agree with not drilling for oil in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge for several reasons. First, the Alaska Wildlife Refuge is a unique and delicate ecosystem that is home to a wide range of wildlife species, including migratory birds, caribou, and polar bears. Drilling for oil in this location would pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of these species, as well as the ecosystem as a whole. Second, the Alaska Wildlife Refuge is also a valuable source of recreation and tourism, with visitors coming from all over the world to experience its natural beauty. Drilling for oil would negatively impact the recreational and tourism industries in the area, as well as the local economies that depend on them.

References

Chapple, C. K. (2017). Buddhist interdependence and the elemental life. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Religion and Ecology, 90-103.

Wintz, J. (2018). Saint Francis and the Birds. Franciscan Media.

The term ‘urban wildlife animals’ refers to those indigenous animals living in an environment such as towns and cities. Indeed, majority of Australians are urban dwellers who encounter urban wildlife animals as a genuine subject for research and study rather than light description studies of Australian animals in countryside (rural places) or natural reserves and national parks.

Actually, urban places are metropolitan habitats where people: build their moral principles of care for indigenous animals, promote preservation of remnant living plants and focus for re-establishment of degraded environment. Due to this justification, metropolitan wildlife environment deserves its own strategy for continued existence.

Actually, many types of vegetation are grown in garden places or are regenerated in metropolitan green spaces. In fact, vegetation projects are protected to provide habitat for wildlife animals. Actually, the town environment should be taken into consideration when planning for urban structures.

Moreover, I think that the achievement effort to conserve biodiversity in urban places is something that is within urban settlers’ capability. In fact, planning for gardening norms is important principles for preserving urban wildlife environment.

Many people in Australia, not only conservatists and ecologists, have developed the interest of urban biodiversity. Actually, urban dwellers have embarked on interacting with urban wildlife animals. Indeed, people have promoted their concern to conserve urban environment and to maintain management of climate, animals, landscape and plants in urban environment.

Besides that, living organisms play a significant role for human life. Indeed, living organism is great contributors of shared biodiversity, they also are resources and even companions for human beings. As a consequence, ethical relationship between animals and human being has increased due enhancement of public awareness and need for environmental management, long-term importance of sustainable and moral lifestyles.

However, cultural practices, beliefs and values have threatened ecosystem. Indeed, cultural values are biased in nature, for example, some cultures prefer certain animals while undermining and exploiting others.

Though often assumed, appreciating animals is something that is associated with understanding human nature. In fact, focusing on non-human animals give fresh insight that is intangible, and thus stimulates values of social practices with the aim of promoting conservation of wildlife species.

However, town development has, on the other hand, has decreased life-supporting capacity for ecosystem, air, soil and water. Nevertheless, generation of green places and urbanization are progressing in Australia, such progress often engulfs the environment of indigenous animals, with various impacts of their existence, locality and their lifestyle.

Actually, it is important to note that not all human developments are destructive; a focus toward taking care of or conserving animals in urban areas has promoted conservation and sustainability of environment and biodiversity. However, urban wildlife seems a contradiction since towns and cities are not featured by natural (indigenous) animals.

In fact, rural regions, national parks and reserves, coastlines, lakes and rivers are Australian natural environment where indigenous animals can be found. Though, conservation of urban wildlife still provides similar preserving principles of wildlife in natural environment.

Nevertheless, urbanization development has continued to displace animals’ habitat. Indeed, some indigenous animals are swallowed in town places and others have adopted new urban life, while others are killed or become extinct due to effects of urbanization. Certainly, indigenous animals are affected with human activities: endangered by motor traffic and pollution, human activities and interference, and lack of food.

Furthermore, some indigenous animals are confined by urban dwellers in Zoos and Museums. Moreover, some animals are domesticated like pets that live with human beings. I think it is a great move whereby people have identified their destructive nature toward ecosystem; in fact, it plausible that Australian urban dwellers are conserving urban wildlife not only for their benefits but also for sustainability of the world.

The Organic Act signed on August 25, 1916, created a law that for the effective management of national parks. The law reads in part: “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (United States National Park Service 10).

A close reading of the law will reveal that the National Park Service and other outdoor management agencies have to focus on two key areas in park management. First of all, there is a need to preserve natural resources. Secondly, there is a need to provide means for people to recreate within the park.

This mandate is easy to understand but at the same time it creates conflict in terms of managing the parks. It is therefore important to focus on conservation. If the parks are damaged beyond repair, then there is nothing that can be used for recreation.

The Organic Act was signed in 1916 but it was not the first law in favor of conservation. On May 7, 1894, the U.S. Congress approved a piece of legislation that paved the way for the creation of the Yellowstone National Park. This law changed the way Americans view nature and wildlife. It was a landmark law made more interesting by the fact that 19^th century America is not yet as urbanized as it is today.

Therefore, the need for conservation, although an important endeavor, was not yet an urgent matter. There were still large tracts of land to explore and tame. At the same time there were fewer people back then. Furthermore, the industrialization of the United States was still at its early stage.

There were only a few urban centers and pollution levels were low. When the law was signed, cars and airplanes were not yet popular means of transportation.

It is therefore important to point out the other reason why national parks were created in 1894. An evaluation of the events that led to the ratification of the 1894 law can help explain the two-tiered mandate that calls for conservation and recreation.

It will also help clarify the need to support the primary purpose of conservation and not recreation. It is interesting to find out that the 1894 law that led to the creation of Yellowstone National Park was a political act:

The rise in attention to nature coincided with the search for identity and pride among American literati. When compared to Europe’s thousands of years of history, its fabric of ancient structures and sites, its rich cultural legacy built on many centuries of interchange, the United States appeared a rude, uncultured backwater …

Americans looked for elements in their own land to flaunt. In Yellowstone and Yosemite, Americans had what they needed (Dilsaver 7).

The insight provided by these statement helps explain the true meaning of the Organic Act and the reason why it has to incorporate two conflicting statements regarding conservation and recreation. It is now easy to understand that national parks were never created solely for conservation purposes only.

National parks were also established due to the need to show the world a facet of American identity. But if forced to choose between the two, conservation must be the top priority of the government.

Conservation vs. Recreation

The most important thing to consider is the conservation of the environment. A damaged environment takes years to rehabilitate. In the case of trees that are centuries old it may take several generations before authorities can bring it back to its natural beauty. The government and civic leaders have a moral responsibility to take care of the environment because the present generation is a mere steward of natural resources.

They are not supposed to utilize, exploit, and consume natural resources without thinking of the future generation. They are also entitled to enjoy the natural beauty of national parks. It is the responsibility of the present generation to take care of the environment for the future generation of nature lovers.

On the other hand, it is easy to understand why national parks do not exist for the sake of conservation alone. The name itself suggests that national parks must be accessed by people. If this is not the case then authorities should rename national parks and call it restricted areas. A desperate attempt to protect the environment from poachers and vandals can lead to laws that will prohibit the enjoyment of said national parks.

This must not be permitted because restricted access to these parks means that this area no longer serves its purpose. It can be argued that conservation efforts can be greatly enhanced if people are taught to appreciate nature. They can only appreciate the beauty of nature if they are allowed access to national parks.

Restricted access will result in an expensive government project. It cannot pay for itself and becomes a burden to society. The funds generate by the parks must be wisely used to strengthen conservation efforts. If the government closes the national parks then the funding will quickly dry up.

It will become a project that is too expensive to sustain. At the same time there is no need to spend millions of dollars for their upkeep if people are not allowed to hike through the trails, take pictures, and observer the works of Mother Nature. It is therefore crucial to develop creative strategies to balance the need for conservation and recreation.

Recommendations

The ideal solution is to temporarily shutdown national parks in order to protect it from the impact of human activity. The purpose is to elevate its status as a protected area and therefore keep it in a pristine state, untouched by the destructive forces of human intervention. But in the 21^st century Americans and foreigners long for adventure. They clamor for ways to break the monotony of urban living.

It is therefore impossible for the government to prevent eco-tourism in these areas. Nevertheless, it is important to take note of the following issues in order to develop strategies to balance conservation efforts with the need to showcase national parks. According to one report the following are some of the negative impacts of human intrusions in national parks:

1. Animals are being killed by motorists and this includes elk, mule deer and wolves;
2. Health issues for wildlife caused by humans included the risk of disease transference;
3. Disturbance to animal hunting, feeding or undertaking other routines making other sensitive species to forgo the use of critical habitat for nesting or foraging resulting in increased mortality or decline in health, fecundity and population levels;
4. Other problems include poor waste management, food refuse and feeding of animals which can greatly affect the ecosystem of the park; and
5. Indirect effects of tourism are seen through fires, vehicles damaging the soil, noise and construction of facilities which not only spoils the landscape but adds to the pollution (Newsome 26).

Human intrusions must be minimized. It is important to study the impact of communities established near national parks and find out if there is a practical way to relocate them. The entry of vehicles in the area must be significantly reduced to the bare minimum.

The designated area where vehicles can park and facilities can be constructed must also be drastically reduced. But aside from minimizing direct human intrusion, it is also important to eliminate other factors that contribute to the rapid degradation of national parks.

The problems mentioned above are the results of direct intrusions by humans. However, there are actions that create an indirect impact to the conservation of natural resources. A good example of indirect intrusion was the destruction of coyotes in Yellowstone National Park.

There was a time when people feared the presence of coyotes in national parks (Lindenmayer & Fischer 12). The coyotes were hunted down. The authorities were oblivious to the fact that they are upsetting the delicate ecological balance of the park (Prato & Fagre 25).

The recommendations made can greatly affect ecotourism. It is important to also consider the value of ecotourism even if there is a need to limit human intrusions. Although it is of crucial important to intensify conservation efforts, it must be made clear that the Organic Act was a law that allows for conservation and recreation. It is also important to consider sustainability.

These parks generate funds that can be used for their upkeep. According to one report, “Ecotourism generates as much as $20 billion in revenue each year” and a significant portion of that is generated in U.S. national parks (Newsome, 27). There is a need to improve management techniques and conservation strategies but it is also necessary to allow people to recreate within these parks.

One strategy is to educate visitors so that they will do their best to limit activities that directly affect the natural environment. It is therefore important to share the burden and not simply depend on the actions of the U.S. National Park Service.

Conclusion

National parks are places that showcase the natural treasures of the United States. Thus, it is important to conserve these areas and at the same time allow for recreational activities. There is a need to limit human intrusions but at the same time there is a need for open access to national parks. It is a difficult challenge for conservationists and managers of national parks.

There is a need to carefully balance these two goals. Conservation efforts are enhanced if more people come to appreciate the beauty of national parks. They will not be able to know if they are not allowed to explore the mountains and streams.

They will not be able to appreciate if they are not allowed to observe wildlife in their natural habitat. On the other hand unrestricted access can destroy the environment. It is difficult to accomplish both goals. However, the Organic Act of 1916 allows conservation efforts and recreational activities.

Works Cited

Dilsaver, Lary. America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1994.

Lindenmayer, David and Joern Fischer. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2006.

Newsome, David. Wildlife Tourism. New York: Channelview Publications, 2005.

Prato, Tony and Dan Fagre. National Parks and Protected Areas: Approaches for Balancing Social, Economic and Ecological Values. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional, 2005.

U.S. National Park Service. Management Policies 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Abstract

In recent decades it has become clear that man has to learn to co-exist with nature. Even in urban areas it has become imperative to understand the principles of wildlife management. Ignorance and negligence of wildlife will one day lead to a rude awakening, of a world reeling from the impact of a major ecological imbalance.

This is because wild animals that are conserved and managed will play a significant part in the earth’s ecosystem. Urban centers need not be a place where wild animals are doomed. The community must learn to develop programs so that wild animals and human beings can co-exist in a world of biodiversity and beauty.

Human beings are oftentimes dictated by their impulses rather than sober thought. If there is a need for more land, they would not think twice in destroying forest cover or transforming farmlands into towns and cities. If they find other living things in that area that they believe is a pest or nuisance then there is no hesitation and once again irrational impulse leads them to kill and eradicate.

However, in recent decades it has become clear that man has to learn to co-exist with nature. This is why it is important that even in cities they should learn the intricacies of wildlife management. There is a need to understand these things because ignorance and negligence will one day lead to a rude awakening, of a world reeling from the impact of a major ecological imbalance.

It is understandable when humans act irrationally whenever they are faced with something they do not understand. Man would act on impulse especially when they are fearful. And there is nothing more terrifying than wildlife, such as carnivores with sharp fangs and vermin that carry diseases.

Thus, the next logical step is to exterminate. This is where man is greatly mistaken because wildlife, properly conserved and managed play a significant part in the earth’s ecosystem. A wanton disregard for the natural system that was built in to ensure balance in the ecological sphere will surely create catastrophic results.

Ecological and Social Impacts

The end result of reducing the number of predator and carnivores in a given ecological system will cause an imbalance that allows organisms in the lower levels of the food chain to multiply to the point of becoming pests. Their population becoming a nuisance to others competing for the same resources. The same can create problems for humans living in areas wherein this delicate balance has to be maintained. In other words biodiversity will benefit every living thing whether in a national park or in an urban setting.

A good example is the efficient conservation and wildlife management of coyotes. Predators such as these limit the number of organisms that will grow and multiply in a given area. For instance, a coyote will serve as an ecological tool to control the prolific multiplication of a bird called grouse (MacDonald & Zubiri, 2004). Even if this bird specie manages to multiply aggressively, the presence of coyotes will make sure that their population will always be in check.

As a result grouses will never reach a number that will cause scarcity of food supply for other birds that have the same preferences for that same food resource (MacDonald & Zubiri, 2004). Even if there are no competing animals the possible runaway population of grouses will pressure the insect population that they feed on thereby causing a possible extinction for the said insect group (MacDonald & Zubiri, 2004).

The need for wildlife management is not only justified in the context of biodiversity and some other ecological principles. Another importance of wildlife management is due to the connection between managing wildlife and health and safety impacts.

According to one expert many wild creatures are carriers of diseases and he added that animals like raccoons and skunks can carry diseases such as rabies and Lyme diseases (Landry, 1994). Furthermore, there is also the psychological impact because people has to feel safe in their homes and they need not be an anxious that animals will attack them in their homes or when they are taking a walk in the park.

Aside from health and safety impacts there is also the social impacts of managing wildlife. There are those who strongly believe in the preservation of endangered animal species while there are those who will give more importance to urban development and therefore wildlife management takes a second priority.

In New Jersey there was a divisive issue regarding the management of the black bear population (Gehrt, Riley, & Cypher, 2010). This has created obstacles that prevented the residents and government officials to effectively deal with a burgeoning black bear population (Gehrt, Riley, & Cypher, 2010). In other words no one benefited from such conflict.

Wildlife management need not be a contentious issue. The community can see it from a health and safety vantage point and to some extent a tourist attraction.

In Louisiana for instance concern for the black bear population in the region prompted the creation of a coalition comprised of more than 60 organizations that resulted in a massive campaign for the support of the black bear and was instrumental in the creation of a habitat for the animals (Gehrt, Riley, & Cypher, 2010). This means that wildlife management can produce positive social impacts.

Wildlife Management

As one considers the variety of environmental, social and even psychological impacts of wild animals in urban areas, the need for a successful conservation and wildlife management program becomes more urgent. The challenge is two-fold. Community members must find a way to protect and conserve wild animals.

It is imperative to maintain biodiversity and hence ecological balance. On the other hand it is also of utmost importance to do it in such a way that urban areas are kept safe primarily from carnivores and even other reptiles that may carry diseases or attack humans when provoked.

One way to do this is to increase funding when it comes to studies related to wildlife management. Scientists were able to determine that disturbances in the natural habitat of the animals are creating long-term consequences but there is still much to learn (Morrison, 2006).

This is part of the long term solution. But when it comes to creating immediate change in wildlife management there are some urgent measures that need to be implemented such as the creation of suitable habitats for wild animals so that they can co-exist with human beings even in an urban setting.

There is also a need to initiate projects that will determine the extent of the problems. For example coyotes are vulnerable in urban areas because there is scarcity of food. In addition coyotes have to deal with pest and parasites such as mites and ticks which may have been transferred to them when they come in contact with other animals (Wobeser,2006).

In other words the community must get involve in creating measures to increase the survival rate of these animals or else the extinction of some wild animals will become a reality much sooner than expected.

Conclusion

The importance of effective wildlife management in urban areas is something that will benefit not only the present generation but also those who are to come. There is a need to maintain biodiversity because changes in the ecological balance does not only mean the extinction of a particular species, this can also mean the aggressive multiplication of undesirable wild animals.

It is therefore important to learn how to balance conservation as well as the proper management of wildlife to prevent the early extinction of some of the endangered animals. Urban centers need not be a place where wild animals are doomed. The community must learn to develop programs so that wild animals and human beings can co-exist in a world of biodiversity and beauty.

References

Landry, Sarah. (1994). Peterson First Guide to Urban Wildlife. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Morrison, Michael. (2006). Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gehrt, Stanley, Riley, Seth, & Brian Cypher.(2010). Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Macdonald, D.W. & C.S. Zubiri. (2004). Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wobeser, G. (2006). Essentials of Disease in Wild Animals. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing Professional.