Sarah Whitney
Mr. Ippolito
Biology D-Odd
16 October 2016
Robbins, Jim. "America’s Gray Ghosts: The Disappearing Caribou." The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Oct. 2016. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
In the article “America’s Gray Ghosts: The Disappearing Caribou” by Jim Robbins, it clearly states that caribou are in danger and their numbers are rapidly decreasing. Since they are so few and rarely seen, these caribou are known as “gray ghosts.” These animals are currently one of the most endangered species due to wolves and cougars. Though the “Selkirk herd” has been seen in the United States, it spends around 90 percent of its time in southern Canada. The threat there is so serious that canadian sharpshooters have resorted to killing some wolves from helicopters, though they have only killed 19 so far. But, in order to save the “Little Smoky caribou herd” around 1,000 wolves were killed over a decade. The steep mountain forests had been affected by humans cutting trees and searching for oils, but when they recently grew back, many deer, elk, and moose were drawn back. Wolves then started to move back to the surrounding area due to the abundant prey. The number of caribou dived due to the increasing number of wolves.Wolves focus primarily on moose and deer, but in the last two years, wolves have killed two caribou in the Selkirks; cougars killed another one. Yet another was killed by a car on Highway 3 in Canada, where salt on the road lures wildlife. Some entire wolf packs have been killed to try and keep the species from going extinct. To protect pregnant caribou, “maternity penning” has been used. This is where a pregnant caribou is moved into an enclosure until her calf is old and strong enough to fend for itself. Protection for the caribou is controversial in the United States partly because snowmobilers want to ride on the 30,000 acres that have been set aside for the endangered species. Many biologists fear that it will be too late before they can act to save this species.
The endangerment of this species can affect today’s society because it could change the food chain, affecting even more species. This affects us because we could lose money and resources while attempting to save these animals. If our attempts fail, we could lose a lot of money so it is up to scientists and the government to decide if it is worth the risk. The author stated, “In 2012, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to set aside more than 375,000 acres of critical habitat for the caribou. Opposition to the plan forced officials to reduce that to some 30,000 acres.” If we had given up the 375,000 acres, it would have cost the US government and taxpayers money to take care of the land so it is suitable for the caribou, thus pushing officials to reduce the amount. Though it is not much compared to the alleged proposal, at least the caribou are being helped in order to keep them from extinction.
This article has many strengths, the author included facts that corresponded to the statements. He also included quotes such as, ““Right now, predation is the biggest problem, primarily wolves and cougars,” said Norm Merz, a wildlife biologist with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho”. Though the author had many strengths, there was also one thing that I noticed that could be improved. While reading this article, I noticed that the author would state one thing and later, state a point that would fit better with the first. For example, the author said, “Canadian government sharpshooters began killing wolves from helicopters. In the Selkirk Mountains, they have killed just 19 so far.” But later in the article, he mentioned, “Widespread wolf culls further north in Alberta are credited with saving the Little Smoky caribou herd in the Peace River region. But the price was high: About 1,000 wolves were killed over a decade.” I feel that these two points would better fit together and that would be a way to improve this article. Overall, I found this article very interesting and informative. I believe something can be done to help these caribou but we need to act fast.
Ellie Parson
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology D-Odd
16 October 2016
Citation for Article:
Robbins, Jim. “America’s Gray Ghosts: The Disappearing Caribou.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Oct. 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/science/endangered-caribou-idaho-british-columbia.html?rref=collection%2fsectioncollection%2fearth&action=click&contentcollection=earth®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentplacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
Citation for Review:
Whitney, Sarah. “The New York Times.” The New York Times, 3 Oct. 2016.
My classmate Sarah Whitney wrote an excellent review on “America’s Gray Ghosts: The Disappearing Caribou” by Jim Robbins. This article focused on endangered caribou and the issues they face that enables their population to decrease. Caribou are victims of car crashes, excess amounts of wolves within their community, and the disappearance and reappearance of forests on mountains. One aspect Whitney succeeded in while writing her critique was including a sufficient amount of detail and explanation about the decrease in caribou in her summary. The more the reader reads her summary, the less questions they should have about the article, as she had supported her claims with appropriate information to justify them. In her article, Sarah stated that the decrease in Caribou would affect society because if the species fully disappeared, there would be a missing spot in the food chain. A similar idea was briefly touched upon in the original article, but she expanded on it using her own words and thoughts. By doing this, her connection to society was unique but also correct. It shows her ability to wholly analyse the article and her understanding of the issue. Lastly, she had made the claim that certain parts of the article involving wolves should have been placed together, and then quoted the author’s sentences to back up her idea on how to reconstruct the article. This was a very insightful and daring choice for her to make, since this article was published in The New York Times, a professional nationwide newspaper. But her courage allowed her to express her opinion, and her reasoning was beyond acceptable. She understood that the two point would sound better in the same paragraph, and if that was so more reader might be able to understand the problems scientists, wolves, and caribou face.
Even though Sarah’s review was strong in most aspects, there were some weak spots. One was that she did not cite her quotations from the article correctly (according to some teachers). To fix these errors, at the end of the quote she could have used, in parenthesis, the author's name and page number separated by a comma to express where the quote came from. Without it, the incorrectly cited quotes could possibly be victim of a copyright law. However, Sarah did include a citation of the article. Within her review, there are multiple punctuation errors. They do not completely interrupt the readers in their comprehensions and understandings of her summary, but an excess or a lack of commas can shift a sentence in an awkward position. An easy way to fix punctuation errors is to have someone else read the review and point out mistakes the author may not have seen while writing their article. If there is no one else to reread the article, Sarah could have reread it herself after a small break.
From this review and article about the decrease of caribou population, I learned how the struggles scientists endure while saving an endangered species. They have to take in consideration the predators of the animal if there is any, the food that it takes it, the health of the habitat it lives, and many other factors. Scientists cannot just simply take an animal out of their habitat and monitor it; they have to meet the animal’s specialized needs. I have recently gone on a trip to Alaska and witnessed caribou life firsthand. I had little expectation of them being endangered as they were one of the more common animals to find in the tundra.