Draft:Conservationan and wildlife protection

Part one: Historical Context The historical timeline of Conservation and Wildlife Protection starts in the late 19th century. Specifically March 1st, 1872. This was when the first national park was established in the United States of America. The park in question? Yellowstone National Park. This has had many impacts on American soil to this date. With the protection of the landing being under a national park, the outstanding natural land features that belong to this land may exist today. The protection of this land does not only promise protection of the land but also offers safe land for their native wildlife to live in peace. This is important to wildlife protection for many reasons and the establishment of Yellowstone National Park is only the beginning of this timeline. Continuing to the early 20th century, the National Park Service was established in the U.S., to manage and protect national parks. The mission of the National Park Service is to preserve the land and its natural resources for future generations to benefit from in the form of enjoyment, education, and inspiration. In 1933, the U.S. passed the Pittman - Robertson Act. The purpose of this act was to place a tax on firearms; this tax is used to fund wildlife conservation efforts. Taking things globally in 1948, the International Union for Conservation of Nature was created (IUCN). This has a large benefit on conservation and wildlife protection because while the states had been making great efforts to make an impact on our world, global action needed to be taken. In 1973 the Endangered Species Act was passed. Protecting endangered species on American soil. Not only does this act protect the animals, but it also protects their natural habitats. Moving into the 21st century, now with the advancements of technology there are technological advancements and global initials. The World Parks Congress in Durban calls for the establishment of protected areas covering at least 10% of the world’s ecological regions. All of the initiatives taken over this timeline have made great efforts at conserving our wildlife in its natural habitats. Today ongoing efforts combat wildlife trafficking, address climate change’s impact on biodiversity, and promote sustainable development. On June 20th, 2022, Margaret Renkl submitted an essay to the New York Times on “Washington finally doing something right for American wildlife”. In this essay, Margaret takes a deep dive into the recent legislation regarding wildlife. Specifically the RAWA act, if passed $1.39 billion will be distributed among all 50 states and used for wildlife protection. Part two: Opposing Viewpoint While morally there should not be opposing viewpoints on conservation and wildlife protection, there are. Some of these include economic development vs conservation. Points of argument/disagreement regard things like how having protected land is slowing down economic development and growth. The claim on the table is that not being able to use this land is taking away from possible farming land, logging land, and infrastructure projects. Therefore hindering economic growth and job creation. In “The Economic Perspective: Conservation against Development versus Conservation for Development” the author Carl Folke states that “both perspectives tend to treat humans and nature as separate.” Folke follows up by discussing how it’s because of nature that humans are here. If we look at evolution and how we as humans are here today. Folke does a good job of playing devil's advocate for both sides of the argument. Stating if we look at the economic perspective there would be more direct benefits to American citizens. Whether that be to benefit from more jobs available or benefit from using the land for plantations of some sort that would contribute to society today. Part three: Reductionist Thought Reductionist thought in the context of conservation refers to a perspective that seeks to simplify complex ecological systems and biodiversity issues into isolated components or individual species. This approach focuses on addressing specific problems piecemeal without fully considering the broader ecological context. Reductionism can sometimes lead to a narrow understanding of conservation issues that may overlook the interconnectedness of ecosystems. Moving on to a technological fix, a concept that is associated with reductionist approaches in problem-solving. It involves relying on technological solutions to address complex issues. Often without fully considering the social, economic, or ecological implications. In conservation and wildlife protection, a technological fix may include developing and implementing advanced technologies to address specific conservation issues such as habitat loss, poaching, or invasive species. More specific examples of technological fixes for conservation and wildlife protection could look like using drones for anti-poaching surveillance, using genetic engineering to modify species for conservation purposes, or employing advanced monitoring technologies to teach wildlife movements. A website that goes by the name of Treehugger released an article labeled “12 innovative ways technology is saving endangered species”. One of the 12 solutions included using Google Earth for better mapping and visualization. The author, Derek Markham, highlighted how this tool has already helped by allowing scientists to discover new species and get a better look at natural habitats without inviting said habitat. Part four: society and its impacts on science There is more than one scenario where society has an impact on science regarding conservation and wildlife protection. One large one that is hard to get away from is legislation and the law. Social values and political priorities influence the development of conservation policies and legislation. Public opinion, driven by environmental awareness and ethical considerations, can shape the regulatory landscape. The impact: funding and policies made can limit what scientists can do with their research regarding conservation and wildlife protection. However, vice versa it can also be what grants scientists the ability to pave new research in said field of conservation. Social aspects play a large role in this because policies that are currently implemented in today's society were made by policymakers we as American citizens voted on. Depending on what conversation is popular at the time of the vote, society without even knowing it is having a direct impact on what we can and can not do in the science field in terms of conservation. An example of this is the Endangered Species Act. At the time this was a large topic of debate among Americans and there was a large spotlight on this act. The act was passed in 1973, as previously discussed in the historical timeline of conservation and wildlife protection. This act was passed in a 390-12 vote. This reflects the impacts society had when voting those 390 individuals into office who decided to pass the vote. This is a direct influence of society on science concerning this topic. Part five: science and its impacts on society Flipping the script and focusing on how science influences society, the research used to inform policymakers on the detection they are voting on is provided by scientific research so that they have concrete evidence on which to base their decisions. More specific examples of the direct influence: policymakers rely on scientific research and data to formulate evidence-based conservation policy. Scientific assessments of endangered species habitat degradation, and ecosystem services inform legislative decisions aimed at protecting the environment. Regarding the reading from week two: Science and its Ways of Knowing, the authors John Hatton and Paul B. Plouffe discuss in great detail the thought process behind scientists and how they get to the conclusions of their research. Mainly stating the belief that the actions of science are based on logic, evidence, and reasoning. This relates to science influencing society because this belief allows scientists to not have opinions or biases impacting the science they provide for our society. Often we have issues with information that’s released being false or hindered due to political motivation. However, this text looks at how science eliminates a piece of invalid information if scientists stick to the script. This allows scientists to provide evidence and facts on conservation and wildlife protection for our society to make their decisions based on.

References

• Endangered Species Act at Ballotpedia.
• Folke, Carl. “The Economic Perspective: Conservation against Development versus Conservation for Development.” Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no. 3, 2006, pp. 686–688, www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3879231.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec. 2023.
• Hatton, John, and Paul Plouffe. Science and Its Ways of Knowing. Simon & Schuster, 1997.
• Markham, Derek. “12 Innovative Ways Technology Is Saving Endangered Species.” Treehugger, 11 Oct. 2018, www.treehugger.com/ways-technology-saving-endangered-species-4858581.
• Renkl, Margaret. “Opinion | Washington Might Be about to Do Something Right for America’s Wildlife.” The New York Times, 20 June 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/06/20/opinion/recovering-americas-wildlife-act.html.
• ​​OpenAI. "Exploring Conservation and Wildlife Protection." ChatGPT, Version 3.5, OpenAI, 4 Dec. 2023, https://chat.openai.com/c/8d5047ad-46e6-4e0c-8d09-fa3189b8d8e6