Respond

Main Point (thesis):

Conservation and preservation. Steinberg’s article in chapter nine of Down to Earth encompasses a discussion on how conservation and preservation of nature in the U.S. has evolved over the time. It began with its initial theories of good intentions, but nature had its way of proving the necessity of every living creature and plant around for all else to survive.

Discuss ways in which author develops the ideas:

Steinberg developed the story on a sort of timeline as things happened. Such as when Yellowstone National Park was created, when the military was brought in to protect the wildlife inside and when the U.S. Forest Service began and took over operations. Each event had a story of why and what Roosevelt and Pinchot were thinking and theorizing about conservation. Then how they would make the change to help conserve the wildlife and a sort of evaluation of that of what went well and what may need to be done differently.

For example, Pinchot learned that, “Forestry is handling trees so that one crop follows another” (Steinberg, 142). Because before he was involved, entire forests were cut down for wood and there was nothing left for the future wildlife or even humanity. Soon enough, the animals would be affected and that would lead to their predators’ death. For instance, the moths in the Oregon Blue Mountains fed on the pine needles of trees and were wiped out causing the death of birds, wasps, spiders and flies who fed on the moths (Steinberg, 143).

Why/why not persuasive?

Steinberg was very persuasive in my opinion. He had good, effective evidence from stories of the importance of everything happening in nature; from rain and sun to fires and predators. A key quote Steinberg brings forth gave the purpose of conservation the level of importance everyone needed to know, “We have here conservation of the few at the expense of many” (Steinberg, 154). He explains very well how efforts to conserve the elk, deer or bison can just lead to a bigger issue later. This, of course, does not mean that trying to save the bison from being killed any more than they were was wrong; this is not what he is saying. It is that killing or stopping the predators of these such as coyotes and wolves just led to a bigger sacrifice and imbalance in nature than does good. It is nature for every animal to have a predator.

What his work eventually came to led the Secretary of Interior, Franklin Lane to mention how “The national parks must be maintained in absolutely unimpaired form for the use of future generations” (Steinberg, 155). That statement makes it clear how people have learned for experience how interference with nature’s cycles leads to an unbalanced environment and possibly extinction if it goes too far. Without Pinchot’s work in understanding this, I can understand how unique and great of an experience it is to see the big bison of Wyoming today.