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.