HYPOTHETICAL ANNEX OF PUBLIC LANDS FOR PREDITOR CONSERVATION
Hypothetical Annex of Public Land for Predator
Conservation of Signature Species
HYPOTHETICAL ANNEX OF PUBLIC LANDS FOR PREDITOR CONSERVATION 2
Although I fully believe in the nobility of this action, to preserve those animals that hold a picturesque or dear place in our hearts, I would like to point out my disagreement with the setting aside of public lands specifically for their habitat. It has been pointed out that this land will no longer be accessible to humans for any reason, not even to assure that they continued to exist for this hypothetical situation. Perhaps viewed as ...view middle of the document...
It does serve, however, as a means to reduce the availability of useful and available land in the hopes that some may sleep better at night knowing that there is somewhere, possibly a pristine environment left in America. It also would show the gullibility of a nation and its leaders as the predators, left unchecked, would no doubt overrun their own environment and cause themselves to be systematically eradicated by overpopulation of the species and its inherent problems
What needs to be done, and this is only the authorâ€™s opinion, is to leave them on the land that they have, in balance with the other species in the sparse but natural setting that they exist in now. Should they thrive, we can manually control their numbers. If they fade then, when left in their environment and untouched, it does not fall on us except in perhaps a moral judgment to intervene. And that intervention would be for only those that consider their own moral and egocentric importance. I doubt that these are the people who struggle to find a meal each day or clean water. It is not a selfless act that they strive for in doing this, but perhaps one of the most selfish as we pick and choose which of the thousands of species we deem fit to salvage from nature. If they were not signature species, but instead a bug or a worm would we be so quick to reach out to them to assure their preservation? If society is truly defined by that which it chooses to save then would not the noblest effort be for a society to save itself? One might ask oneself â€œHow?â€, and I will answer in small part why allowing natural selection to run its course could be most beneficial in this case especially. The land we would set aside should merit better use. And in fact we could reclaim land used for another industry that is creating more harm than good with regard to land use.
The sector of business most rapidly growing in the world involves livestock. It roughly contributes forty percent to global agricultural output. While we have grown accustomed to a good steak, the author included, it is amazing to consider that the percentage of land here in the U.S. that is dedicated agriculturally to the production of meat is a whopping 56 %. Over half of the water consumed in America for all purposes is consumed by the meat industry. Here in Texas, over 25% of the groundwater benefits the care of cattle feedlots through agricultural crop support and direct watering. This has led to surface water loss, dry wells and water shortages. When we think of Texas we think of ranches and cattle but do not stop to think of the repercussions of this industry or what reclaiming that land would do to benefit the nation as opposed to setting aside yet more acreage for wild animal habitat.
When we take a moment to consider that that the upmost efficiency of meat production farming is 34% and that contrastingly the least efficient plat production yield is 328% we find that simple
HYPOTHETICAL ANNEX OF PUBLIC...