Using Facts .com



Developing an ArgumentTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of FormThere's nothing like a good argument to get the adrenaline flowing and the brain cells clicking. Whether it's you and your brother arguing about the latest pitcher acquisition for the Red Sox or your banker brother-in-law and Aunt Glad (former union organizer and socialist) having a grand set-to about the incredible salaries of American CEOs, arguing is a fundamental and exciting activity. It doesn't exactly set us apart from the other animals — cats and dogs have been arguing for eons — but the allegedly high level of our discourse and our ability to sustain argument and to change our behavior based on what we learn from argument is surely a hallmark of what it means to be human.How, though, do we argue in a paper, where there is only one of us, the writer? The argumentative essay has to take into consideration the fact that the writer is the only one who has permission to speak; he or she holds the floor, the gavel, and the microphone all at once. What counts in an argumentative essay, then, is the writer's ability to create a sense of interior debate, of allowing other voices their say, and maintaining equilibrium among those voices. It's a matter of fairness and reasonableness.One stylistic point: it is probably more true of the argumentative essay than it is of the other kinds of essays that we must be very careful of transitions, the devices we use to move from one point to another, to hold ideas together for comparison's sake, to create and organize landmarks along the path of our thinking. Before writing an argumentative essay, it might be a good idea to review the section on Coherence: Transitions Between Ideas. (Later, we will see transitional devices at work in a sample argumentative essay.)In this section of Principles of Composition we will explore some of the techniques of argument that might come into play in argumentative essays.The sub-sections of this part of Principles of Composition should probably be read in the following order: HYPERLINK "" Citing AuthoritiesUsing Personal ExperienceUsing StatisticsUsing FactsUsing AnalogiesLogic: An Introduction to FallaciesAnticipating the OppositionA Sample Essay (with commentary)Citingan AuthorityTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of Form"My daddy's bigger than your daddy!" So it goes. It's always nice to have someone to back you up. Not only does citing an authority help establish the validity of your arguments, it shows that you're not alone, that you're not a singular crackpot who dreamed up this idea over breakfast. It also reveals your reasonableness: you took the time and effort to discover what other people have to say on this matter and you're willing to share your discoveries with your reader. You're a member of the Community of Scholars.Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. Perhaps we assume too quickly that the opinion of someone with degrees after her name and someone who works for a prestigious university should have more weight that the opinion of good old Uncle Ronnie, but the writer should learn to take advantage of that assumption. Our reliance on authority needs a more substantial hold on reality and credibility than the world of advertising, where retired baseball stars tout mortgage lenders and golfers assure us of a tire's reliability and safety. On the other hand, beware! The Professor of Nutrition at a large midwestern university may take a position on farming practices because he's desperately trying to get a research grant from an agribusiness mega-farmer. Be especially careful of authorities you cite from the internet (with the exception of this one). The library at the University of California, Los Angeles, has put together a document on the evaluation of resources on the World Wide Web. It might be wise to review that document before you rely heavily on internet research for any college papers that you write. There is also a site put together by librarians called Teaching Critical Evaluation Skills for World Wide Web Resources from Widener University. A tutorial document on evaluating resources of all kinds comes from Cornell University. Hope N. Tillman, Director of Libraries at Babson College, has published an extensive online essay on this subject: "Evaluating Quality on the Web," which contains several useful examples of evaluative choices. If you ever have any doubts about the reliability of your resources, consult a librarian.Citing an authority also requires us to learn the habits of proper documentation. Study the Guide to Writing Research Papers for help. Learn how to use that wonderful phrase "according to": "According to Mary Darling, Associate Professor of Nutrition at the University of Minnesota, . . . ."Or, "As Professor Darling points out in the Journal of Native American Nutrition. . . ."Using Personal ExperienceTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of FormUsing the impact of personal experience may not have scientific merit or statistical clout, but it can be very convincing. Reading the autobiography of Olaudah Equiano — the story of his capture in Africa, his transport to America and his life as a slave (you can read excerpts of Equiano's account from a collection of slave narratives available on a University of Houston web-site) — is an overwhelming experience, convincing us — on a personal level — much more readily of the evils of slavery than a whole volume of statistics and demographics about the Atlantic slave trade could do. Still, citing personal experience is seldom enough to make a truly compelling and convincing argument. If personal experience is all we have to go on, our argument could be dismissed as being merely anecdotal or idiosyncratic. Personal experience can accompany or reinforce an otherwise sound argument, but it is seldom entirely persuasive in itself.UsingStatisticsTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of FormA well-placed statistic can be very helpful in convincing an audience of the validity of your argument. Knowing how people are often cowed by a writer with math at her command, it is, in fact, tempting to overwork the power of statistics. A little arithmetic can go a long way. In our essay on the dearth of news in today's news programs (click HERE), we could have used some statistics to back up our point — using a stopwatch to record the actual minutes spent on advertising instead of the news, spreading this statistical study over several evenings and weeks, seeking some statistics on industry standards on advertising time, etc.As everyone knows, the trouble with statistics is that it's so easy to lie with them. Citing the average annual household salary in the state of Connecticut — approaching $100,000 — makes it sound like everyone in the state is rich. The real truth behind that statistic, however, is that there is an alarming disparity between those who "have" in Connecticut and live in some of the nation's richest communities and those who "have not" and live in some of the nation's poorest neighborhoods. Averages sometimes don't mean very much. A graphically represented statistic can also be made to lie. If one country has three times as many soldiers as another and we represent the difference this way —Their GuyOur Guywe've told a lie. The soldier on the right isn't just three times as tall as the soldier on the left; we stretched Our Guy out proportionally (width as well as height). We didn't multiply one times three to get three; we squared three and got nine, so Our Guy ended up being nine times as big as Their Guy. A similar lie can be told with a bar graph in which we chop the bottom off the graph (not starting at zero) so that disparities will seem much greater than they really are. (Pie charts are usually harder to cheat with.) In the top version of the chart below, the difference between the total number of graduates and the graduates entering chemical engineering doesn't seem nearly as dramatic as the difference in the bottom version of the same chart. We have truncated the bottom half of the chart in the bottom version and we've doubled the space between the numbered lines. The numbers say the same thing, so the bottom chart doesn't lie, exactly, but it does graphically distort the facts.Statistics need to be fresh — the number of high-schoolers who smoked cigarettes in 1977 doesn't mean much unless we have more recent statistics to show how things have changed — and the statistics need to be taken from a respected resource. Generally, government and academic resources are reliable, relatively unbiased providers of statistical information.There's a wonderful online resource on using statistics in writing — eminently readable, even by people who fear statistics — that everyone should read: Robert Niles's "Statistics Every Writer Should Know." It covers the basics like average versus median and explores topics such as sample sizes and margin of error. This document will make you a more intelligent reader as well as a more intelligent user of statistics in your writing.Using FactsTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of FormThe ability to distinguish between fact and opinion, between fact and interpretation or judgment is paramount to successful thinking and writing strategies. In fact, some people would argue that this is what education is really about. In an argumentative essay, it is essential to know what is fact and what is only asserted as fact. What kinds of statements can we make that our readers cannot reasonably dispute? Historical TruthsThere is no reason to get excited over someone saying that the American Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. If you found some evidence that it was actually signed on July 3, that would be exciting, but historical truths are those that are generally accepted by your readers as common knowledge. Be careful, though, where you push your historical evidence. It is widely accepted, for example, that six million Jews died in the holocaust of World War II (except by some neo-Nazis with unspeakable agendas), but can we claim in our essay, then, that this is the worst display of humankind's systematic cruelty to other humans? Others could point to genocide in other parts of the world; over a much longer period — of centuries — it is estimated that sixty million Africans were killed in the slave trade. It is wise not to inflate a historical truth into a claim where it becomes debatable. Let the historical fact speak for itself and it will probably do its job quite nicely.Scientific FactsNo one would dispute the fact that the depletion of the ozone layer is a bad thing or that the loss of the ozone layer would prove catastrophic to humankind and other living things. People will dispute, however, the evidence that there is, in fact, a hole in the ozone layer that threatens us or — even more debatable, they might claim — what causes ozone depletion and what measure should be taken to halt or reverse the process. A writer would have to be very careful in citing something as established scientific truth in this area; there are people with political and economic agendas who would love to argue the point.It is interesting to watch the ebb and flow of what is acceptable scientific evidence. There are very few people who still hold that the earth is flat; in fact, we tend to ridicule those who do. But there was a time when many great minds accepted the notion of a flat world. Although it would be folly to accommodate the views of the Flat Earth Society in our astronomy reasearch paper, a wise writer respectfully allows opposing but legitimate viewpoints their space in his or her essay; it only makes the writer seem that much more reasonable. On the other hand, there is no point in citing scientific evidence in an argument so fraught with high feelings as the nation's ongoing debate about abortion, say. Although we should listen to them, scientists probably have no more right to say "when life begins" than anyone else. The same could probably be said about arguments over euthanasia and when life should be allowed to end.Geographical TruthsGenerally, a statement based on geography is on firm ground. If we assert that building expensive homes on the sand and glacial till overlooking California's coastline is a mistake, that's something few can argue with. Be careful, though, not to confuse geography with politics. The use of demographics — a statistical picture of large groups of people — is a lot more shaky than the descriptions of landmass and political borders.Using AnalogyTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of FormWhen we argue from analogy, we say that something is like something else. For instance, we could argue that having two women's professional basketball programs — the American Basketball Association (ABA) and the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) — is a big mistake for the future of the sport. We can say this is like the experience of the two men's leagues in professional football in that back in the early 60s the National Football League (NFL) and the American Football League (AFL) were killing each other off in terms of divided fan support and media attention until they decided to merge and combine the merits of both leagues into one super league.The writer must be fair in claiming likeness, however. Has the time passed since the merger of the two football leagues changed the climate of the country, the way that people watch sports? Is there something different about men's and women's sports that would make two leagues in a women's sports feasible where it wasn't in a men's sports? Would the enormous difference in the price of tickets make a difference?Another example: Is it fair to say that those who resist the argument that we must do something at once about the depletion of the ozone layer are like those who refused to see the "truth" about smoking or those who refused to accept scientific evidence about evolution? You can argue it, but it is still only an analogy and may not prove anything at all. Be careful in your use of analogies in your argument paper. It may prove helpful, but it may be misleading. An inappropriate analogy is a fallacy known as the false analogy.Being LogicalTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of FormWe don't have to be on the high school or college debate squad to be logically consistent and valid in our argument. Most of the time, we use good logic and demand good logic from others. Sometimes, though, we get lazy and see that it is easier to play on someone's emotions than it is to debate on the trickier fields of intellectual play. We have to be as logically consistent and fair as we demand others to be. We can't try to get away with something in an academic paper that we would abhor in a political debate (or worse yet, in a political advertisement). In our writing, we must learn to look out for the rotten apples known as fallacies, bits of rhetorical fakery that just about every writer succumbs to from time to time. If our readers catch us in a fallacious statement or conclusion, our entire argument becomes flushable. Here are several of the most common fallacies. Most of them have fancy names — some even in Latin — which we ought to become familiar with.Non Sequitur ("It does not follow")Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("After this, therefore because of this")These two fallacies are close cousins. We cannot assume that because something precedes a later development, the first event causes the later event. Causes not immediately evident to us and intervening causes between the first cause and final result may exist. Review the Cause and Effect Essay section for additional help."John and Mary became vegetarians last fall and they've been sick all winter. The absence of meat in their diets must have weakened their immune systems." A lot of other things could have made John and Mary sick this winter. Maybe they've been around a bunch of sickly kids or they started working in a hospital and their immune systems aren't used to all those germs. Maybe their immune system is fine; they're just temporarily overloaded or tired. The non sequitur fallacy means that you've made a conclusion that is not justified on the grounds given. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy means that you have concluded that because something happened earlier, it must be the cause of a later event. These two fallacies are similar to yet another fallacy known as Jumping to Conclusions or Hasty Generalization which means that the evidence provided is not yet substantial enough to warrant the conclusion we've arrived at.Stereotypical ThinkingTo indulge in stereotypical thinking means that your brain has slipped into idle; you're accepting as truth a tiresome, commonplace (if not downright idiotic) assumption about people. "Women make lousy drivers. Asians are naturally good at mathematics. Scottish people are tight with money. White men can't jump." The next time you meet a tall African American youth, ask him or her if he or she plays basketball. You'll deserve the icy stare you get in return. (Or ask Dwight Stones or Patrick Sjoberg why white men can't jump.)"Vegetarians are weaklings. They don't have good muscle strength because they don't eat meat."Guilt by AssociationIf something gets categorized with something else that is "guilty" of something awful, there is a tendency for everything to be tainted by the guilty party. Remember how unfair it seemed when Mother accused you of stealing Mrs. Young's necklace just because you hung out with Jerry Biggsloff, who she knew was up to no good?"I read somewhere that most cults are made up of vegetarians. We know that cults are filled with kooks and weirdos. John and Mary are vegetarians so they must be weirdos."Argument Ad Hominem ("To the man")"To the Man" — sorry, but Latin is even more sexist than English — means that the writer attacks the character of his or her opponent rather than the opponent's ideas or argument. This is what politicians are good at, and radio talk-show hosts are even worse. As an exercise, count the ad hominem attacks used by Rush Limbaugh on a good afternoon as he piles up references to "feminazis" and "environmentalist whackos." A good hair-pulling, eye-gouging scrap on Saturday morning cartoons is fine, but it has no place in academic discourse. Stick to the issues."State Secretary of Health Saunders recommends vegetarianism. But Saunders is the same guy who hands out condoms at high school assemblies and he has been arrested on drunk driving charges. I think it's pretty obvious we shouldn't listen to Joe Saunders's advice on diet."Circular ReasoningCircular Reasoning is similar to a definition that restates the subject in its predicate: a computer virus is a virus that infects a computer."Vegetarianism is not healthy because it is not healthy to cut meat out of your diet."Petitio Principii ("Begging the Question")This fallacy has an enduring hold on our thinking strategies because it is so easy to fall into this habit. It is similar to the child-parent argument we've all heard before:"Why?""Because!""Why because?""Because because!""Why because because?""Because I said so!"An argument cannot be built on a premise that simply claims to be true but whose truth is not established."People who adopt vegetarianism as a lifestyle are asking for health problems. Therefore, the Office of Student Services should set up a nutrition program to advise students not to become vegetarians and the cafeteria should not be allowed to offer meat-substitute foods."Shifting the Burden of ProofIf we assert a statement as truth, it is up to us to establish its validity. We can't make the opponent of our argument responsible for proving its opposite (although we'd like to)."Vegetarianism is a stupid, unnatural lifestyle, and I'd like to see anyone prove me wrong on that."Stacking the Cards andSlanting the EvidenceThese two fallacies are similar in that they're brutishly unfair to the opposition. Stacking the cards means that we pile up the evidence on our side of the argument and cheat the other side of a fair representation. See the section on Anticipating the Opposition. Slanting the evidence means that we use words in our description of the opposition's argument that taint our readers' perception of the opposition before they even read it.Another, more thorough, description of logical fallacies (with definitions and easy to understand examples) is Stephen Downes's Guide to the Logical Fallacies. Downes is an instructor, media design specialist, and webmaster at Assiniboine Community College in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada.Anticipatingthe OppositionTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of FormWriters of an argumentative essay must consider what others will say to refute their argument. (That's why it's called an argumentative essay!) This is the source of energy for this kind of paper. Raising the objections of your opposition and then — carefully, kindly, perhaps even wittily — showing how your way of seeing things is better reveals you, the author, as a thoughtful, reasonable, thorough individual. Don't cheat by raising only the weak or silly arguments that your opponents might raise; your paper becomes strong by taking on the strength of the opposition. (You hear this sometimes in the commentary of a football or basketball game — how the weaker team "takes it to" the strength of the stronger team, knocks them back on their heels. It's a good strategy.) Also, never belittle or threaten your opposition in any way. What is the point of defeating someone who isn't as strong or even stronger than you are? Respect for the opposition goes beyond sportsmanship; giving the enemy its due makes your argument all the stronger.In considering your opposition's argument(s), it's a good idea to prepare a chart that graphically represents your main points and the points that your opposition might try to make against you. Try that exercise as you read the sample student essay below. Notice how the author of that essay sounds most reasonable, most persuasive, when she is conceding the fact that the opposition might have a good point. Making up a chart of points and counter-points will enable you to see weak elements in your own and in your opposition's arguments. A good exercise is to watch the Sunday morning news programs that end with a round of debating points — like "Point, Counterpoint." Do you see any situations in which commentators anticipate their opposition's point of view before driving home their own point?Sample ArgumentativeEssayTop of FormBottom of FormTop of FormBottom of FormThe sample student essay that we are using for this section is from Roane State Community College's (Tennessee) Web-site "A Brief Guide to Writing Argumentative Essays." The essay, "Cry, Wolf," was written by Ella Bervan. We use it here with Roane State Community College's permission. If you visit our section called Forms of Communication, you will find this essay in a .pdf (Acrobat Reader) format, which will show exactly how it would appear as a hard-copy essay ready to hand in to the instructor. If you click on the link below, you will find that we have taken the text of the essay and inserted sidebars containing comments on the essay's argument and development. Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument00An Argumentative Research Paper Written forCyberspace Composition IRoane State Community CollegeThe following essay is copied, with permission, from the Web site of the Roane State Community College Online Writing Lab (Harriman, Tennessee). The copyright for this essay is held by Ella Berven, author (and recent graduate of Roane State Community College) and Ms. Berven's instructor, Jennifer Jordan-Henley. The sidebar analysis is done with the blessing of Professor Jordan-Henley. "Cry, Wolf" was the winning essay for the December 1995 Beulah Davis Outstanding Freshman Writer ments and questions in the sidebars are not meant to be critical at all, but are meant to assist the reader in thinking about how the essay is structured and how the argument develops from point to point.The little icons for transitions, , are meant to indicate those points of connection from one idea to the next — sometimes a transitional word (a word like "however" or a coordinating conjunction) or a repetition of key words and phrases, etc. Click HERE for help with transitions. Cry, WolfElla BervenThree little pigs dance in a circle singing "Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf?"What feelings does the writer create by using these examples? pro-wolf or anti-wolf?Little Red Riding Hood barely escapes the cunning advances of the ravenous wolf disguised as her grandmother.Movie audiences shriek as a gentle young man is transformed before their eyes into a blood-thirsty werewolf, a symbol for centuries of the essence of evil.Such myths and legends have portrayed the wolf as a threat to human existence. Feared as cold-blooded killers, they were hated and persecuted. Wolves were not merely shot and killed; they were tortured as well. In what was believed to be a battle between good and evil, wolves were poisoned, drawn and quartered, doused with gasoline and set on fire, and, in some cases, left with their mouths wired shut to starve (Begley 53).Why does the writer use "U.S. citizens instead of "hunters" or "ranchers" here?Convinced that they were a problem to be solved, U.S. citizens gradually eradicated gray wolves from the lower 48 states over a period of 25 years.Today many people are convinced that the elimination of the gray wolf was not only an error, but also a detriment to the quality of life in this country. There has been a public outcry to rectify the situation created by the ignorance of our ancestors. However, in seeking to address a situation created by the human compulsion to control nature, it is crucial to discern how much human interference is necessary. Human control must be tempered by respect and restraint. At the end of this paragraph, how do you feel about the writer's reasonableness so far?Programs designed for the protection and restoration of wildlife must reflect deference for the natural order rather than dominance over it.Is there a sentence or two that you could label as a Thesis Statement yet?The consequences of human actions involving the elimination of the gray wolf have been especially acute in Yellowstone National Park, where the lack of a natural predator has resulted in the overpopulation of bison, deer, and elk. According toThis phrase "according to" can be an indispensable device for introducing statements from your resources.Sharon Begley of Newsweek magazine, "Absent a natural predator, thousands of the ungulates have starved during tough winters, and there has been no selection pressure to keep deer fast and moose powerful" (53). Another issue is more subtle. As Ms. Begley points out,In this paragraph and in the next, the writer uses "As so-and-so points out" to introduce her authority's language"The wolf has been the only native animal missing from Yellowstone" (53). In one of the few places where the wildness of the west could be preserved, the wolf's absence leaves a big hole. In a world filled with skyscrapers, subdivisions, and superhighways, human beings yearn for the wolf's untamable majesty.In 1995, it is obvious that the hatred and fear which fueled the elimination of the gray wolf "Elimination of the grey wolf" is a repetition of a key phrase — a great transitional device.stemmed from a gross misunderstanding of wolves and their behavior. Cultural myths picturing wolves as scheming, aggressive beasts plotting to pounce on innocent victims do not reflect the truth. In reality, wolves are elusive creatures who keep to themselves. The wolf's social structure is much like ours. They live in family units called packs consisting of a mated pair, young pups, and older offspring. It is through the intricate relationships and interactions within the pack that offspring learn how to live as adult wolves. As the environmentalist Charles Bergman points out, "Wolves are intensely social animals, living in packs that are structured in rigid hierarchies. In the chain of power each wolf has a defined place on a ladder of dominance and submission" (3l).Notice the development of background material and the use of authorities (Bergman) here, especially the parenthetical documentation.The entire pack works together according to position to raise and nurture the pups, teaching them a highly sophisticated system of communication used "for expressing their status relative to each other" (Bergman 31). Also, from parents and older siblings, young wolves learn not only how to hunt, but what to hunt as well. Wolves are trained early to go after certain prey and leave others alone. Since their prey is usually larger and stronger than they, wolves are taught specifically to hunt the weak and sick in order to avoid injury.Note that in our parenthetical citation, we need only the page number(s) when the resource is announced in the rmation given in Friends of the Forest describes the similarity between humans and wolves. This publication states, "Like humans, some wolves stay with their families until they die, others leave the pack during adolescence in search of uninhabited territory and a mate" (1-2). Unlike humans, "Like humans" . . . "Unlike humans": another transitional device — parallelism.wolves instinctively control their population. The number in a pack rarely exceeds twelve and is determined by the availability and size of prey in their territory. Notice how the first sentence in this paragraph sums up what was said in the prior three paragraphs and then looks forward to what comes next.Faced with the consequences of hasty actions to eliminate the wolves, as well as increased knowledge about their behavior, the U.S. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, giving full protection to the gray wolf. In Section 1531 of the Act, Congressional findings state that since certain species of wildlife have been threatened with extinction, "the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign Note the parenthetical documentation for an "unsigned" government document.state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction" (United 1, 2).However, many believe that protection has not been enough. In January 1995, the Department of the Interior flew 29 wolves from Canada to Idaho's River of No Return Wilderness Area and to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. Fifteen were released directly into the Idaho area, and the rest were put in pens in Yellowstone, scheduled to be released after an acclimation period of 6 to 12 weeks.What is the effect on the reader of the numbers in this paragraph and the next one?This program to reintroduce the gray wolf into the lower 48 states provides for fifteen more wolves to be relocated each year for the next three to five years (Begley 53).Critics of the program have raised a number of concerns. First of all is the apprehension of ranchers regarding the possible loss of livestock. Wolves have been absent from Yellowstone for 60 years. Although some statistics claim that "Less than 1% of the sheep and cattle living in wolf range in Canada are killed by wolves annually," others tell a different story. According to the policy director of the National Wildlife Institute, "In Canada, 41 percent of livestock found dead have been killed by wolves" (qtd. in Richardson 30).Notice the use of a secondary resource and how it is cited.The difference in these statistics is alarming. Obviously, statistics can be expressed in a variety of ways depending on what point one is trying to prove. However, the fact remains that wolves do, at least occasionally, prey on livestock.In addition to their concern for livestock, ranchers fear the possibility that, to help ensure the wolf's survival, wildlife managers will fence off thousands of acres now used for grazing. This could lead to the shutdown of ranches, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs.The writer seems eminently reasonable here, doesn't she, allowing or conceding a point to what seems to be the opponents at this point. At the same time, she points out that more than just livestock is at stake here.Finally, ranchers know that they have very little recourse if the wolves prey on their livestock. They are allowed to shoot a wolf caught in the act of killing a sheep or cow if the animal belongs to them. However, it is very difficult to be in the right place at the right time to catch a wolf in a kill. It is even more unlikely that a rancher would witness the kill of his own animal. Yet the penalty for defending a neighbor's property is the possibility of up to one year in prison and $l00,000 in fines (Richardson 30).Another problem critics point out is the exorbitant cost of implementing the reintroduction program. Estimated at $65,000 per wolf, the federal government will spend up to 13 million dollars to helicopter lift 200 wolves over the next five years (Richardson 28, 30). Note the use of statistics again.At a time when budget cuts are affecting food, housing and medical care for the needy, it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Even certain environmentalists have questioned the advisability of capturing and relocating wolves. Recently, a lawsuit was filed by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund stating, "the grey wolves have been migrating steadily south from Canada for years. Some have already reached Montana, and wolf packs are expected to settle in Yellowstone in about thirty years on their own initiative" (Richardson 28). But some wildlife biologists say that 30 years is too long to wait. They want to reduce Yellowstone's overpopulated bison and elk herds now. These biologists also want to study wolves before they settle in naturally. However, as Richardson states, "Taxpayers might argue that, for $65,000 per animal, the Fish and Wildlife Service could afford to send the biologists on weekly junkets to Alberta for wolf observation" (30).If assurances could be made that this program would work, perhaps the cost could be more easily justified. However, there are inherent problems in capturing and relocating wolves successfully. Even biologists in favor of the program admit that the number one challenge is to overcome the natural tendency of wolves to try to get home. The only solution to this dilemma is to pen the animals up for a period of time until they get used to their new surroundings. Unfortunately, whenever wolves are penned, there is a danger that they will lose some of their wildness. But such measures have already been necessary in the case of one of the wolf families in Yellowstone. Following the illegal killing of the dominant male in one of the packs, a recent update reports:Notice how the larger quotations are set off as indented blockquotes.The alpha female from the defunct Rose Creek pack remains in the Rose Creek wolf enclosure with her eight pups. The pups are healthy, and have been vaccinated against about everything a canine can get. It is hoped that by fall (when they will likely be released), they will be big enough to fight off the coyotes. I suspect their winter mortality will be high, since they have had no opportunity to learn to hunt. (Maughan)In an effort to help the wolves form viable packs, biologists hope to solve the other problem that concerns them, "the tendency of a stressed wolf to go it alone" (Carpenter 15). A consequence of moving wolves from their habitat is that their social structure breaks down. In an interview with Dr. Marcella Cranford, proponent of wolf relocation, veterinarian and expert on wolf behavior, she explained, "Lone wolves don't make it. They survive as a family or they don't survive at all" (n.p.). A result of the breakdown is that "mates separate and some abandon pups in their haste to return to familiar turf" (Carpenter 15). Biologists believe that in order to form viable packs, they must capture wolves of different ages. The assumption is that when they calm down, the captured wolves will establish a new pack. It is evident from biologists' concerns that wolves not only are intelligent creatures, but also have ties to family and fear of change, as humans do.Notice the various uses of citations in this paragraph. Most (but not all) citing the name in parentheses.The process used to capture wolves and relocate them in Idaho and Yellowstone has attempted to address these concerns. In November 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service paid fur trappers $2,000 each to use their special talent for hunting down wolves (Begley 53). This talent included using neck snares "equipped with 'stops'" which would prevent the wolves from being killed (Neimeyer 13). Mr. Neimeyer in International Wolf further explains, "Any live wolf restrained by a neck snare was quickly immobilized with drugs injected with a jabstick" (13). Radio collars were then slipped around the animals' necks and these "Judas wolves" (Neimeyer 13), as they have been called, were followed back to the pack where agents selected the wolves of their choice for transport to Yellowstone and central Idaho. The sedated wolves were then locked in traveling cages. Each cage measured no more than 2 feet by 3 feet by 4 feet (Begley 53). A subtle appeal to emotion here, but nicely understated.Unfortunately, due to unexpected litigation, the wolves were forced to remain in these cages for more than 24 hours. In the case of the wolves bound for Idaho, they endured more than 80 hours in their crates (Johnson 17).Given the elusive nature of wolves and the strong ties which bind them to their own pack, all these measures seem invasive and extreme. Such techniques are often necessary in attempts to save animals from extinction. However, the gray wolf is in no such peril. Although the number of wolves in the lower 48 states is minuscule, 60,000 roam the ranges of Canada and about 7,000 thrive in Alaska (Richardson 30).Note use of statistics again.Even the proponents of the reintroduction program admit that moving wolves to Idaho and Yellowstone has nothing to do with "saving wolves." In a recent Congressional hearing, Renee Askins, Executive Director of the Wolf Fund, testified in favor of the plan. She explained that the restoration of wolves would not "rescue us from our economic or ecological troubles, but neither will their presence contribute to them" (Askins 16-17). Ms. Askins claimed that the significance of returning the wolf to Yellowstone resided in its power as a "deeply and profoundly symbolic act" (17). She told the House Committee on Resources:The story of this conflict is the story of how we view ourselves in relation to animals, whether we can replace the assumption of "dominion" that has been so destructive to us and the natural world with a world view that recognizes that we live in a state of reciprocity with the birds and the beasts—that we are not only the product of nature but also part of it. Our attitudes toward wolves and our treatment of them cut to the very marrow of how we view our relationship to the natural world. (17)Notice how the writer restates and redefines the position of others here, summing up and moving forward at the same time.If the driving motivation for the reintroduction of wolves into Idaho and Yellowstone is the symbolic act of restoring a relationship of respect and cooperation with nature, the actions of capture and relocation do not fit the symbol. Capture shows no respect for the highly developed social structure of the pack. Relocation denies the wolf's natural tendency to seek new territory when its own territory is overpopulated. The action appears to be more representative of a different kind of "dominion" rather than reciprocity between humankind and the animal kingdom.With the best of intentions, it is all too easy for human beings to cross the line between necessary concern and unnecessary controlNote the nice use of parallel form here: "necessary concern" — "unnecessary control.". The environmentalist and author, Charles Bergman, makes this point in his book,Wild Echoes:For all the pure motives of most of our wildlife managers—and I honor and respect their good intentions—wolf control nevertheless derives from the same world view that has enabled Americans to dominate nature wherever we have gone. Humans are superior to nature. If we no longer try to conquer or eliminate wolves, we at least try to control them. (29)The conclusion seems appropriately understated, yet strong. There is no clear call for action, but the writer has made her point and we are probably convinced that the wolf relocation program needs further scrutiny.The majestic gray wolf—skillful predator, nurturing family member—has been misunderstood to the point of endangerment. Fear, hatred and the need These words recast what was intimated at the beginning of the essay — not the identical statement but recalling enough of it so that we know we've arrived where she said we would.to control the wolf's untamable wildness created an environment in which slaughter was not only acceptable, but advocated. There is no doubt that human beings bear responsibility for the protection of these magnificent creatures. However, the awe and admiration which have replaced the fear and hatred have not removed the human need to control. When this need to control results in tactics which are invasive and which disregard the very nature of the wolf itself, the danger is that human interference will unintentionally diminish the very wildness environmentalists seek to preserve.AppendixThe following interview with Dr. Marcella Cranford, veterinarian and expert in wolf behavior, was conducted by telephone on November 30, 1995, Berven: What is your opinion of the reintroduction of the gray wolf into Yellowstone National Park?Cranford: Well, it's one of the missing links. The overpopulation of the elk is a problem. Right now, we're feeding them. Not having wolves in Yellowstone is like a tear in the fabric of nature. Someone said that.Berven: What do you think are the repercussions for packs in Canada from which the wolves are taken?Cranford: I'm hoping they're going to do it right. If you kill the best ones, the hunters, the pack won't make it. Lone wolves don't make it. They survive as a family or they don't survive at all.Berven: What about the ranchers? They're very upset from what I have read.Cranford: The ranchers should shape up! I mean, after all, we're paying money to subsidize their cattle.Berven: What about their concern that the wolves will kill their sheep and cattle?Cranford: They have more of a problem with feral dogs. Wolves prefer ungulates. They don't want to come near us. They're not like the coyote.Berven: I know you are short on time. Is there anything else you can tell me?Cranford: I have a magazine, International Wolf. It has all the information concerning the Environmental Impact Statement and how this whole thing got started. I know it started in 1991, so there have been years of debate and controversy about it. There were 160,000 responses to it [the reintroduction]. It was one of the largest responses on a proposed government action.Works CitedAskins, Renee. "Releasing Wolves from Symbolism." Harpers April 1995: 15-17.Begley, Sharon with Daniel Glick. "The Return of the Native." Newsweek 23 Jan. 1995: 53.Bergman, Charles. Wild Echoes: Encounters With the Most Endangered Animals in North America New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.Carpenter, Betsy. "A Precarious Return of the Wolf." U.S. News and World Report 16 Jan. 1995: 16.Cranford, Marcella. Personal interview. 30 Nov. 1995. Friends of the Forest Ketchum, Idaho: Wolf Education and Research Center, 1993.Johnson, Mark. "Dual Citizenship Awarded to Transported Wolves." International Wolf 5.2 (1995): 17.Maughan, Ralph. "Yellowstone Wolf Update." Return to Wolf Home Page. maugralp@cwis.isu.edu (27 Nov. 1995).Neimeyer, Carter. "Precapture Operation—Snaring and Radio Collaring of `Judas' Wolves." International Wolf 5.2 (1995):13.Richardson, Valerie. "Decrying Wolves." National Review 20 Mar. 1995: 28-30.United States. Department of the Interior. Endangered Species Act. 1973. Section 1531.? 1995 Ella Berven Instructor: Jennifer Jordan-Henley ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download