Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Friday, October 3, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Ethics Essay 2
Bioethical Issue: Protecting Bighorn
Sheep----Write 10 sentences about your opinion of this issue. Be sure to use information from the text to
support your opinion.
To protect
the stat’s declining bighorn sheep populations, the New Mexico Game Commission
approved a plan that calls for killing scores of mountain lions over several
years. The commission pointed out that
the lions have killed 36 of 43 radio-collared bighorn sheep released into the
wild since 1996 and have increasingly turned to killing sheep as the state’s
deer herd has declined.
Lisa Jennings, director of
Animal Protection of New Mexico, said that mountain lions and bighorns have
long coexisted and that, rather than killing mountain lions, the best way to
increase the bighorn sheep population would be to consider a restoration
management plan that would improve the ecosystem. Then, too, the state recently engaged the
Hornocker Wildlife Institute of Idaho to study the situation. The institute’s report concluded that the
number of lions does not necessarily affect the size of the sheep
population. Rather, diseased from
domestic livestock graving in the area are responsible for more than 50% of the
deaths in some bighorn sheep populations.
In reply, Bill Dunn, a state
game department biologist who specialized in sheep, said that the plan to kill
mountain lions was solidly based in science.
He said that killing lions in selected areas will give the sheep
population a chance to rebound because there are 2000 lions and only 760
bighorn sheep in two separate populations.
Do you approve of taking steps to protect bighorn sheep from mountain
lions? Why or why not? How would you proceed in controlling the
mountain lion population?
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Ethics Essay Unit 1
Write 10 sentences in your journal explaining your opinion about the issue.
Bioethical Issue: Oil Drilling in the Arctic
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to a diverse array of wildlife, including migratory birds, caribou, grizzly bears, Dall sheep, polar bears, and musk oxen. The nearby continental shelf provides the coastal waters with a rich nutrient base that supports a wide variety of marine mammals during the summer months.
Those who favor oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge suggest that it would affect only an area the size of an airport within a state. They contend that the effect would mainly be underground because new techniques allow us to go lower and spread out beneath the surface to get the oil. Acquiring the oil, advocates say, would also protect jobs and security in the United States by lessening dependence on foreign countries for oil. If these countries were to stop supplying the United States with oil, it would cause economic hardships, including a high price of gasoline.
Those who do not favor oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge believe that U.S. citizens can reduce their need for energy by adopting simple efficiency measures. They suggest that this would save many times the oil that could come from drilling in the Arctic refuge and that, by using a renewable energy resource, the environment in the lower 48 United States would be protected, in addition to protecting the wildlife in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
How should citizens go about making a decision on this matter? What do you think is the best option for America? Would you vote for a president that felt differently than you on this particular issue? Why or why not?
Mader, S.S. (2007). Biology. McGraw Hill: New York, NY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)