In the late 19th century, three different kinds of environmental issues became topics of public debate. Then, in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt established a federally protected wildlife refuge in Pelican Island, Florida. As a result, the National Park Service was founded, and Stephen T. Mather was appointed the first director. By enabling the 1906 American Antiquities Act, Roosevelt was able to establish 150 national forests, 51 federal bird reserves, 4 national game preserves, 5 national parks, and 18 national monuments. Today, there are six national parks dedicated to America's conservationist president. Roosevelt was a knowledgeable and insightful man who made a significant impact by saving land. To best protect the environment, federal money should be focused on protecting land because that is a system which is fairer and because that is the most logical way to make the money go farther. Protecting land instead of individual species is a more just and equal system. Saving land can ensure that every species of animal are equally protected. “Millions of federal dollars” are spent on pandas because of how adorable they are; however, the “Yangtze river dolphin went extinct because it was pig-ugly” and received no funding (Packham 52-53). This is similar to a student in a library choosing a book to read. If a cover of a book draws the student in it causes interest in the story. However, the other book on the shelf would have been just as suitable, but because of the outward appearance, one was chosen over the other. Furthermore, protecting land can ensure that funding is dispersed in an unbiased manner to every species. According to Platt, “158 species received more than one million dollars in funding while 5 species received a hundred dollars or less”
…show more content…
By saving land, federal money will go farther even though it is limited. “In 2012 only 18% of expenses were used to acquire critical habitats for conservation” (Platt 51). This budget is similar to a farmer buying 30 bags of seeds to plant but, only buying 10 feet of land. To grow the trees and make a profit the farmer must buy enough land to sustain the life he plans to grow. In addition, the world is losing many different habitats, like the “Tropical Mountain System”, that animals need to survive (Mongabay 56). Others claim that saving the species will also save the land. They argue that as species flourish so will the areas around them. However, that is not the case. Areas like the “sagebrush sea” are “home to over 300 species of wildlife” (McEnaney 54). The “sagebrush sea” was greatly impacted by “drilling, livestock grazing, mining, and wind energy development” (55). As these issues took toll they also began to decrease the population of an “imperiled bird” known as the “greater sage-grouse” (53). As the “health” and “expanse” of the “sagebrush sea” and the “greater sage-grouse began to disappear so did everything else associated with the landscape” (54). If people had chose to conserve the sagebrush sea, there wouldn’t have been issues with the species living in it. For example, instead of drilling and mining in areas that species need to survive, people need to focus on growing more trees and plants while funding these areas. By doing this, people would be conserving and benefiting land and species at the same time. Protecting land can save more than one species at once, and it can use money in a realistic
By saving land, federal money will go farther even though it is limited. “In 2012 only 18% of expenses were used to acquire critical habitats for conservation” (Platt 51). This budget is similar to a farmer buying 30 bags of seeds to plant but, only buying 10 feet of land. To grow the trees and make a profit the farmer must buy enough land to sustain the life he plans to grow. In addition, the world is losing many different habitats, like the “Tropical Mountain System”, that animals need to survive (Mongabay 56). Others claim that saving the species will also save the land. They argue that as species flourish so will the areas around them. However, that is not the case. Areas like the “sagebrush sea” are “home to over 300 species of wildlife” (McEnaney 54). The “sagebrush sea” was greatly impacted by “drilling, livestock grazing, mining, and wind energy development” (55). As these issues took toll they also began to decrease the population of an “imperiled bird” known as the “greater sage-grouse” (53). As the “health” and “expanse” of the “sagebrush sea” and the “greater sage-grouse began to disappear so did everything else associated with the landscape” (54). If people had chose to conserve the sagebrush sea, there wouldn’t have been issues with the species living in it. For example, instead of drilling and mining in areas that species need to survive, people need to focus on growing more trees and plants while funding these areas. By doing this, people would be conserving and benefiting land and species at the same time. Protecting land can save more than one species at once, and it can use money in a realistic