Henry Min
March 23, 2021
Mr. Ippolito
Einhorn, Catrin. “The U.S. to Remove Wolves From Protected Species List.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/3/23/climate/wolves-endangered-species-list.html?login=email.
In her article "US to Remove Wolves From Protected Species List", author Catrin Einhorn discusses the US government's recent decision to no longer provide gray wolves with federal protection. For the past 45 years gray wolves have been protected by the Endangered Species Act, however, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt claims that the gray wolves have "exceeded all conservation goals for recovery" and no longer require protection. Einhorn proceeds to explain the controversy surrounding this decision. Firstly, after reading the proposal to delist the gray wolves, Carlos Carroll, an independent biologist with the Klamath Center for Conservation Research, stated that it disregarded possible genetic variation in the species (as it adapts to climate change); instead, the proposal based its decision on the low risk of extinction the wolves are experiencing now. In addition, Adrian Treves, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison explains that the proposal is flawed because it does not formulate an accurate estimate of how many wolves will end up being killed by people. In contrast, some researchers, such as Ya-Wei Li of the Environmental Policy Innovation Center believe that since wolves are not in immediate danger, the federal government should use its resources to protect the other species that are at a far greater risk of extinction. This controversial topic then forces researchers and officials to ask the question: What is the extent of the Endangered Species Act? Should it just save animals from extinction, or should it restore them until these species are able to assume an important role in their ecosystem?
I chose to read this article because I wanted to learn more about this controversial topic and the importance of gray wolves in ecosystems. I learned that the preservation of gray wolves is extremely important because these species help to enhance the growth of trees and other vegetation by eating deer and elk. Thus, the discontinuation of federal protection on the gray wolves could end up hurting ecosystems as well as cause the wolves to decrease in population and become at risk of extinction.
This article was extremely informative and well-written. Einhorn offered opinions from both sides of the controversy as well as quotes from reliable researchers. I also liked how this author provided an explanation on the importance of gray wolves in the environment and illustrated their discussed their growth in population both prior to to the introduction of Europeans in North America and after they were placed under federal protection. This background information was necessary in order for the reader to understand the large impact of being federally protected. The only improvement I would make would be to have the author give her own opinion of the matter. Overall, this article was extremely well written and engaging.
Erin Foley
ReplyDeleteMin, Henry. “The U.S. to Remove Wolves From Protected Species List.” Bronxville AP Biology
Blog, Blogspot, 23 Mar. 2021,
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/03/henry-min-march-23-2021-mr.html.
Einhorn, Catrin. “The U.S. to Remove Wolves From Protected Species List.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2021,
www.nytimes.com/2021/3/23/climate/wolves-endangered-species-list.html?login=email.
Henry’s review of the article “The U.S. to Remove Wolves From Protected Species List.” concisely describes the issue at hand as well as its societal and ecological significance. Henry introduces his topic and the surrounding controversy quickly, which in this case is effective as interest and focus are kept high throughout the first paragraph. He first explains that the US government has decided that wolves “no longer require protection”, and immediately describes the “controversy surrounding this decision”. Here, he illustrates an understanding that the reader will probably not need much background information on the well-known Endangered Species Act and instead moves straight to the point of the article. Moreover, his description of the controversy was quite comprehensive, giving multiple viewpoints from reliable sources. He cites two arguments opposing the decision from “Carlos Carroll, an independent biologist” and “Adrian Treves, a professor”, as well as a contrasting opinion from “Ya-Wei Li of the Environmental Policy Innovation Center”. Again, his description is rightly concise, but is by no means limited in its consideration of various opinions. This inclusion of different perspectives, as well as the reliability of these perspectives greatly strengthens his paper. Finally, Henry takes a good look at the significance of this decision - on a societal/environmental level as biodiversity could decrease (“wolves [might] decrease in population and become at risk of extinction”) as well as on a ecosystemic level (“[wolves] help to enhance the growth of trees and other vegetation by eating deer and elk”). His in-depth description of this article’s significance mid-way through his review helped keep my focus in-tact and allowed me to better understand the role wolves play in their ecosystem.
Although Henry’s review is nearly perfect, he could strengthen it with a few adjustments, namely, including more information on why wolves were removed from the Endangered Species list and also by giving his own opinion. Henry explains that the government removed wolves from the Endangered Species list on the basis that wolf conservation “exceeded all conservation goals for recovery”. However, if he outlined what these conservation goals actually are, the reader might be able to better understand why the accomplishment of these goals do not reflect that wolves have been “saved” from extinction, as several researchers assert. Secondly, by giving his own opinion on whether or not wolves should be removed from the Endangered Species Act, Henry would make his piece more engaging for the audience and would better illustrate the understanding of this article that he clearly has. These improvements would make for a more effective article, but even without them, this review accomplishes giving high-quality information and doing it with proper conventions.
I chose to read this review because conservation and animal extinction is a topic of great interest to me. After reading it, I’ve been given the impression that the government may at times be too quick to remove certain species from the Endangered Species list. On the other hand, I now understand how important it is for the government to focus funds on the species that need it most, thus I see how this decision could be justified. Whether or not the decision is wholly beneficial or negative to our environment, this review has allowed me to now understand that even if a species is not under threat of extinction, we should still take care to protect them in order to preserve their essential ecological roles.
Kelly Baclija
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio
March 24, 2021
Einhorn, Catrin. “The U.S. to Remove Wolves From Protected Species List.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/3/23/climate/wolves-endangered-species-list.html?login=email.
Min, Henry. Bronxville AP Biology, 1 Jan. 1970, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/03/henry-min-march-23-2021-mr.html#comment-form.
Henry’s article on “The U.S. to Remove Wolves From Protected Species List” by Catrin Einhorn is ultimately well written. He begins it by initially grabbing the audience’s attention, which brings in more readers, saying that “For the past 45 years gray wolves have been protected by the Endangered Species Act, however, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt claims that the gray wolves have ’exceeded all conservation goals for recovery’ and no longer require protection”. Next, he uses quotes from experts on the topic, strengthening his credibility; he cites “...Carlos Carroll, an independent biologist with the Klamath Center for Conservation Research, stated that it disregarded possible genetic variation in the species (as it adapts to climate change)”. Finally, he ends the summary by prompting the reader to think further and analyze the issue-- “What is the extent of the Endangered Species Act? Should it just save animals from extinction, or should it restore them until these species are able to assume an important role in their ecosystem?”.
Although Henry’s article is well-written, there are a few areas of improvement. Firstly, it could have strengthened the audience’s understanding of the situation to provide some statistics on the population of gray wolves, for example, and if it has increased enough to remove them from the protected species list. Furthermore, it could have also been beneficial to include the impact the wolves have had on the “growth of trees and other vegetation by eating deer and elk” in the past to give the audience some information so they are able to understand the topic better.
I chose this article because I was curious to learn more about the technicalities concerning the protected species list and I learned that there are in fact certain conditions a species must fulfill in order to be added to and removed from these classifications. This will change my understanding because I am ultimately more aware of the regulations the government is in charge of pertaining to extinct and protected species.