Rights

The issue of rights in regards to my issue of Animal Conservation can be very ambiguous. I believe that a right of animals is a right to live and reproduce. Of course there will always be natural selection, and the food chain. Some animals will always eat other animals as a food source, but when it comes to excessive poaching their rights are being taken away. Animals become endangered because they are being killed at a much faster rate than they can reproduce. Eventually this leads to extinction. Not everyone would agree that animals have a right to live and reproduce, as they would argue that humans have a right to hunt animals, and that this is what they were put on earth for, or we have become superior and therefore should be able to use our resources and knowledge to do as we please with them. But i have to disagree, there is a point in which our superior attitude is throwing off the balance of the earth, and I do believe it is the right of a species to live and reproduce, as it can seriously harm the earth when they cannot.

Facts

"In America's youth, the most numerous bird on Earth was very likely North America's passenger pigeon. Today, incredibly, all are gone: the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction by 1914." I found this information on the NRDC website. The NRDC, or Natural Resources Defense Council, is a very large and widely known and trusted environmentalist group. Although some people may not want to trust a group, or the news blindly, there is always room to do research. After looking up "extinction of passenger pigeon" on google, I found numerous sights supports NRDC's claim that passenger pigeons are in fact extinct. Many groups have done research on passenger pigeons, and have found that there are no remaining passenger pigeons living anywhere in the world today. I also did not find any claim that the passenger pigeon is not extinct. The extinction of passenger pigeons is a fact because there is research to support it, and absolutely no debate on the subject.

Rules

In my opinion many of the rules that are in place that govern behavior of the targets of nature and animal conservation are good. Such as the stopping of drilling for oil in the arctic national wildlife refuge, or poaching being illegal. Rules such as this are put in place to prevent animals from becoming endangered or extinct. These rules are put in place to protect our environment. Generally they do accomplish their purpose, but sometimes it is hard to enforce them. Such as illegal poaching. In Africa elephants are poached for their ivory tusks. Although this is illegal, it is hard to enforce because there is always a chance of someone breaking the law and not getting caught. Although the number of elephants being killed is decreasing, it is still being done, because there is not enough man power to enforce the laws in place.

Inducements vs. Sanctions

I feel that, for my policy issue, sanctions would be better than inducements. With inducements the people gaining the benefits are generally the people doing harm in the first place. If major companies were given rewards for polluting less than they were, or cutting down less rain forests, then they are being rewarded for something they should not have been doing in the first place. There need to be consequences for their actions, not benefits for fixing them. Another issue is raised from this as well. Where would the benefits come from? If it is money, where is the government going to get enough money to pay major companies to lessen their rate of pollution when we are already in major debt.

Targets

The targets of my policy study, animal conservation, are constructed using a regulatory approach to the policy. Which causes more conflict. When there are more rules and regulations, even ones that are needed, people feel like they are not in control, and somebody is always going to be unhappy. The targets are the people that are doing harm, whether it is intentional or not. But everyone needs to be aware. If the targets of my policy got to use their "local knowledge" to make policy on their own, there would be many, many problems. People only can make decisions based on what they know, and what they have experienced, if you do not put the information out there about the issue, then people are forced to make decisions from what they already know, or don't know. The targets need the full story to make rational decisions, instead of decisions based on self interest or emotion.

Interests

The interests involved in Nature and Animal Conservation are objective. Many people don't realize the effects that things like pollution and rainforest deforestation have on their lives. There are many interests that should be involved in Animal and Nature Conservation some of them being subjective, but mostly they are objective.

"The population of tigers in the last century has declined by 95 percent...tiger numbers have dwindled to between 5,000 and 7,500. The Bali, Caspian, and Javan tigers are already classified as extinct." This piece of data is a very good example of endangered animals. There are many, many endangered species in the world, this data about tigers helps paint the picture of how quickly animals are dying out. Although there are laws in place to protect endangered animals, something more clearly needs to be done. Tigers are endangered species, yet their population is still declining due to illegal poaching and trade. We desperately need to take action if we want animals to continue to live in our world.

People in many countries view using animals to fight against each other as entertainment, and they don't see anything wrong with it. They feel that animals are inferior to humans, therefore they do not matter in the world, and can be used as play things. People on the other side of the debate, know that hurting animals, and using them for entertainment is wrong, and they need to be protected just as humans do.

Frames

The public has a generally accurate picture of what is wrong with animal conservation, but they are still missing a lot of key points, our government does not put a lot of weight on this issue, because it is not directly affecting the people of the United States, or the people around the world. But it is still a major issue. Keeping animal species in balance affects if nature is in balance, and although it doesn't seem like a very pressing issue to a lot of people, it will eventually lead to worse things, and then there will be no way to fix the damage that has already been done to the earth.

Freedom

Freedom in the case of animal conservation is a little bit hard to define. Freedom for animals would include freedom to reproduce and freedom from being hunted, or becoming endangered. Of course the natural food chain will still take place to keep all animals from overpopulating the world and throwing things out of balance, but over hunting puts everything out of balance as well. The best way to achieve a free outcome is through the polis.

Security

Security is a major part of any public issue. The first question that comes up when we talk about security is "What specific securities are needed?" On the topic of animal conservation, one of the main securities needed is the right to live and reproduce. And the best way of achieving this security would be through the polis. Animals all need the same chance to be able to live and thrive in their environment, without the right to protection being based on how endangered a specific species is. 

Efficiency

Efficiency is based on how much work you put into something, and how much you get out of it. As you have less and less input, and more and more output, your efficiency increases. The most efficient way to achieve my goal of animal conservation, is by simply putting laws in place to prevent the killing of animals. If laws are in place before animals become endangered, then there is no need to spend extra time, effort, and money trying to help the animals reproduce quickly. You have to prevent the problem, not fix it after the fact. 

An Equitable Outcome

Pollution, nature conservation, and endangered animals are three very important issues in the world today. I believe the best way to achieve fairness in these situations, without destroying aspects of the economy, is through the polis. Although obviously the world is not going to put a stop to hunting, cutting down trees, and other similar acts, limits can be placed on how often they are done. Such as how many fish each fisherman can catch of a certain kind, or how many trees a paper company can cut down in a period of time. Such limits would help the environment, without taking away the livelihood of people who depend on these products. Such limits are critical for the environment to thrive.