Andrew Babyak March 5, 2015
Chem C Odd Mr. Ippolito
New York State Changes Plan to Reduce Its Swan Population
By Lisa W. Fodaro
Foderaro, Lisa W. "New York State Changes Plan to Reduce Its Swan Population." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Mar. 2015. Web. 05 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/nyregion/new-york-state-changes-plan-to-reduce-its-swan-population.html>.
This article describes the outrageous and inhumane plan to significantly decrease the population of mute swans in New York. In response to public pressure and complaints, the New York state environmental officials have proposed a plan to get rid of the large number of swans in the New York area. This plan includes several possible methods for killing the birds. However, plans such as shooting and gassing the birds, have been denied due to the State Department of Environmental Conservation. In response to the rejected proposal for shooting and gassing the swans, the state environmental officials have suggested “nonlethal methods” to get rid of the birds. However, these “nonlethal methods” are very expensive and will not get the commitment of funding and assistance that is needed to make the plan succeed. There is more to this plan than the state dealing with the mute swans, “destroying the habitats of native ducks and geese, polluting waters with their feces and even attacking people” (Fodaro, 2015). The new plan is also calling for education programs that will inform the public about the dangers of the mute swans as well as a ban on feeding the swans and listing them as migratory game birds that hunters can shoot. This plan is over the top and will not succeed.
Surprisingly, this issue plays a big role in my life now as well as when I was little. In Southampton, I would always hang over the fence, feeding the graceful swans in the pond that the park had. Feeding swans and ducks is one of the favorite pastimes of tourists and children. If the plans to reduce the population of the mute swans occurred, a portion of many peoples’ enjoyment would be taken away. In addition to how this issue affects me, it also affects many other people for a different reason. Killing innocent animals is always a sensitive issue that disturbs many people. Killing the swans would attract a lot of animal rights organizations and create a sense of sadness for many animal lovers. “Complete elimination of mute swans from New York is not a viable option, given the expressed public opinions associated with these birds” (Fodaro, 2015).
Overall, I think that this was a fairly well written article. The author Lisa W. Foderaro, did a good job of describing the plans of the state environmental officials and what was preventing the plan from happening. One thing the author could have done to make the article better, is to specify who the state environmental officials are. Also, this article does not include specific facts. In some areas of the article you cannot distinguish whether the statement is a fact or an opinion. By specifying who the state environmental officials are as well as including supporting facts and distinct opinions, the reader will have a better understanding of the article and be able to further relate to the issue and perhaps be inclined to submit an opinion before the April 24 deadline for public comments.
Throughout Andrew's interpretation of the article "New York State Changes Plan to Reduce its Swan Population," Andrew does terrific job in setting a true belief from the outset, in the fact that this preposition is outrageous. In past reviews, it was very common for writers to summarize the article without truly supporting a side to the argument. While guidelines at times push writers towards only summarizing the article in the opening paragraph, I believe Andrew's incorporation of fairly new aspects to the development of this review indeed heightened my interest in his own topic and in the way he wrote so beautifully. Furthermore, Babyak's use of quotes when providing evidence for his beliefs was an element that cannot go with recognition. When negatively describing the proposed use of nonlethal methods on swans, Babyak vitally includes the authors opinion in stating that the government intends on, "destroying the habitats of native ducks and geese, polluting waters with their feces and even attacking people.” This transition not only was quite smooth, but it provided the reader with textual reasoning proving his ideas validity. Along with these elements to Andrew's review, Babyak mentions a personal experience in which he had interacted with the swans, and contrasted experiences like these to the proposed swan laws in saying these rules will disrupt some of the great memories in his own life. While Andrew clearly has an understand of his topic and what it means to be a great writer, at times, it appears Andrew lacks the presence of reasoning when explaining his knack for swans. Although he does mention the fact that he loves swans, I would still wonder what the cut in the population of these magnificent birds would do to his own life. Also, Andrew does explain why he believes this article is very well written. These are just a few minor errors that Andrew might considering fixing in future assignments. However, I still stick by my belief in saying that this is an exceptional paper. I cannot say I would know of this environmental preposition without the information provided in this review.
ReplyDelete