Luke Redman
Mr.Ippolito
AP Biology
Current Event 18
Nuwer, Rachel. “U.S. Lifts Ban on Elephant and Lion Trophies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/trump-elephant-trophy-hunting.html.
In the article that I read, “U.S. Lifts Ban on Elephant and Lion Trophies” by Rachel Nuwer, she talks about the recent legislature that was passed by the Fish and Wildlife Committee. Before the legislation, there was a strict ban on big-game hunting in certain countries of Africa, placed by Obama. Now, “Rather than evaluate lion, elephant and bontebok (a type of antelope) trophies on a nation-by-nation basis, the agency now will consider imports of these animals from six African countries on case-by-case basis, as it already does with the majority of species hunted on the continent.” These are some examples of big game that would be affected by these changes. This decision was heavily endorsed by “Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association, which had filed the lawsuit against the agency.”
Some immediate effects on the world around us would be the decreasing populations of big-game animals such as elephants and lions, which are already quite low as it is, and encouraging hunters to kill these animals would harm the local ecosystems. ““These are animals that our country has decided we’re going to protect, and we should all get to have a say in their protection,” said Elly Pepper, deputy director of the wildlife trade initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council.”
Some of the strengths of the article is presenting both sides of the story along with using accurate quotes that have some sort of relevance to the article. She also weaved in these quotes in smoothly that made for a very interesting and enjoyable read. The points brought up in the article are extremely well thought and detailed, which made the article extremely informative. I look forward to reading another article by Rachel Nuwer
Olivia Doyle
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
18 March 2018
Nuwer, Rachel. “U.S. Lifts Ban on Elephant and Lion Trophies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/trump-elephant-trophy-hunting.html.
This week, I read my classmate Luke’s review of the article “U.S. Lifts Ban on Elephant and Lion Trophies”. The article discussed the recent US decision to permit imports of big-game trophies. Luke did a good job of incorporating quotes into his summary, which gave his review credibility. Additionally, Luke described the effects of the lift of this ban well, discussing the long-term problems for local ecosystems. Lastly, Luke provided a good analysis of techniques of the author’s style, which provides the reader with insight into Luke’s personal opinion on the article.
Although Luke had a very well-written review, there were some areas which he could have improved on. For one, I think Luke should have described the legislature in more detail so the reader is properly informed. While reading his review, I found myself confused as to what the ban called for. Secondly, I think Luke should have discussed both sides of the argument in his second paragraph, so that the reader could understand that the lift of this ban could potentially promote wildlife conservation. This would have strengthened his review overall.
I found this article and Luke’s review very interesting and informative. I never thought about the benefits that big-game sportsmen could provide to conservation efforts. I am interested to see if the lift of this ban is enforced, and what its effects will be on wildlife.
Nuwer, Rachel. “U.S. Lifts Ban on Elephant and Lion Trophies.” The New York Times,
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times, 7 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/trump-elephant-trophy-hunting.html.
Luke Redman did a great job reviewing his article ““U.S. Lifts Ban on Elephant and Lion Trophies.” from Rachel Nuwer. I particularly enjoyed how Luke gives information about the when the legislation passed a strict ban on big-game hunting in certain countries of Africa. Additionally, I enjoyed that Luke included some immediate effects this ban and the lift of this ban will have on the world around us, which would be that there will be a decrease in populations of big-game animals such as elephants and lions, which would harm the ecosystem. Lastly, I enjoyed how Luke added quotes in his review in order to add credibility and provide his opinion as long as the article’s opinion and purpose.
However, I do believe that Luke had two areas in his review in which he could improve upon. Primarily, I would recommend that he go into more detail about how the ban came to be and why exactly it was passed by President Obama, which would display more urgency for this problem. Additionally, I would encourage Luke to state the “both sides of the story” that he says that the original review includes. By doing so, I believe that he would be able to give a more accurate review for his article.
Overall, Luke did a great job creating a well written review that illustrates the importance of this ban and the effects it can have on society and the ecosystem if animals such as lions and elephants go extinct. I personally chose to read this article because of the title and how important it is to care about our wildlife because it ultimately affects and is crucial to the way humans all live as well.
Cory Ramundo
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
19 March 2018
Nuwer, Rachel. “U.S. Lifts Ban on Elephant and Lion Trophies.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/trump-elephant-trophy-hunting.html.
For this current event, I read Luke Redmans response to Nuwer, Rachel. “U.S. Lifts Ban on Elephant and Lion Trophies.” In this response, Luke does many good things including adding quotations to strengthen his argument. By doing this, it allows the reader to believe what Luke is saying, because it is backed by actual proof from the article. It strengthens Luke’s credibility while also giving the reader a better understanding about big game trophies. Another thing Luke does well is give a good critique paragraph that analyzes the strength and weaknesses of the article. This shows that look is being objective and again strengthens his credibility. Lastly, Luke does a good job of showing the importance and impact this ban would have on the world. By doing this, it creates interest and reveals the true magnitude of the ban and the effect it carries.
Although Luke doe many good things in his response, there are some areas in which he could improve. First off, he did not give great background to the topic and more specifically the bans and how they came to be banned. This left me a bit confused, but if he had given more context this could have been solved. Additionally, Lue did not necessarily dive deep into both sides of the argument. If he had done this, it would have allowed the reader to get a full sense of what was happening. Instead, it felt bit biased, because he only discussed one side of the argument and did not explain the other.
Besides these two points, this was a very well-written article that showed the impact of the ban and how important it is. The most interesting part was to see how one animal going extinct could affect the ecosystem as a whole. I did not realize how important one animal or organism was to an ecosystem and how pivotal it can be to an ecosystem. All in all this was a very informative response from which I learned a great deal about the ban and ecosystems.