1. Groups that are involved in this issue are mostly made up of hunters and the California government. Pretty much there are two groups, those who support the use of lead in hunting and fishing and those who oppose.
2. Some of the major speakers in this issue would have to be Game and Fish, and several hunter associations that so not support the ban.
3. Game and Fish has a more political power since it is a government agency that deals with the management of different aspects of our environment, while the hunters have a more of a social and cultural power since it is made up of citizens who are expressing their rights to use this type of ammunition.
4. Game and Fish values all natural resources and its well being, while hunters value their right to hunt and use guns.
5. I believe that there is, since Game and Fish is a government agency then I think that it has more power than any hunter association.
6. There isn't really any acknowledgment in common, they both have their separate belief on whether or not lead is really as bad as it is said to be.
7. I don't believe that there is no common ground between these two groups, you either believe that lead has negative effects on the environment or you believe that these effects are exaggerated and not as dire are others want you to believe that they are.
8. They do listen to each other, I have come across some sources that are replies to other sources who voiced opposing opinions. This is the case with many scholarly journals as well.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Evaluation of Social Media Sources
1. Breaking Charlottesville News
-Credibility: This source seems pretty credible, it is part of a news organization.
-Location: No they are posting about the ban on lead ammunition in California and the location of this source is in Charlottesville.
-Network: It seems that they are followed by people who are probably from the community in which this is related to, people who this news most likely affects.
-Content: Yes, it is pretty much know that California is indeed banning the use of lead ammunition for this upcoming 2015 hunting season.
-Contextual updates: No they do not, they mostly post about knew that is is happening in their area,
-Age: It seems to be relatively new, and it doesn't have that many followers.
-Reliability: It seems like it would be reliable since it is a News source.
2. Munrieusa.com
-Credibility: This source seems to be pretty credible since it is an ammunition supplier and is effected very much by the ban on lead ammunition.
-Location: Though they are involved and affected, they are not directly involved location wise because this is located in Texas while this issue is occurring in California.
-Network: People that follow them seem to be mostly made up of hunters and people who own guns.
-Content: Yes, it is pretty much know that California is indeed banning the use of lead ammunition for this upcoming 2015 hunting season.
-Contextual updates: They have posted on topics like this before, such as how groups such as Game and Fish have been fighting the ban for years but have not gotten the support that they really needed, and now this ban in California can possible lead to lead being banned in other states.
-Age: I can't seem to find how old it is, but id does have a lot of followers so Im assuming its not too new.
Reliability: I feel like this source can be considered reliable since it deals first hand the effects that come from banning lead ammunition or not.
Evaluation of Scholarly Sources
1. "Are there legitimate reasons to retain lead ammunition and fishing gear?"
-Purpose:
The purpose of this article was to explain the need of using non-lead alternatives instead of the traditional lead ammunition that is used for hunting and fishing purposes in order to protect land, wildlife and humans populations from lead poisoning.
-Published:
This source was published by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
-What sources does it cite?:
It cites many sources such as The California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California- Davis, and many more.
-Who is the author?:
The authors are Robert H. Poppenga, Pat T. Redig, and James G. Sikarskie
-Who is the intended audience?:
The intended audience of this source I believe are people who are in this field or people who participate in hunting. The reason that I believe this is because it uses a lot of terminology that I believe is probably not common knowledge.
2. "THE ANTI-HUNTING MACHINE"
-Purpose:
The purpose of this source was mainly to report on the opposition to hunters by different campaigns that were started by the Human Society of the United States which want to end the use of lead ammunition and hunting across America.
-Published:
Outdoor Life. Vol. 221 Issue 11
-What sources does it cite?:
This article did not cite any outside sources.
-Who is the author?:
The authors are Tony Hansen, Frank Miniter, and Alex Robinson
-Who is the intended audience?:
I feel like the intended audience was geared more to hunters than to people who support that lead ban. The reason that I believe this is because I felt like it was more sympathetic to their cause then to the benefits that the lead ban can have on the ecosystem.
Evaluation of General Sources: Source 2
2) My second source is from California's Adventure Sports Journal. In this article is discuses the ban on lead ammunition and bait in California. In this source it describes all the negative effects that lead has on the environment, on wildlife, and the human population.
-URL: California's Adventure Sports Journal
The URL end with .com which then leads me to believe that this can be or not be a credible source since .com site can sometimes be owned by an individual.
-Author:
The author is unknown which makes me think that maybe this isn't the most credible source since there is no one to really take credit for the words that are being written. And also I can't be able to see if the author is knowledge and what credentials this author has on the subject.
-Last Updated:
I also can't find the date in which this article was published and there are no links that can help me to see if the material is out of date. The only reason that I know that this article is recent is because it is talking about a topic that is fairly recent.
-Purpose:
The purpose of this source was to inform the audience on why lead is being banned in the first place. It goes over some of the negative effects that it has on several populations, including humans. I actually don't feel like this article is trying to promote or dissuade people from using lead, it seems like its only purpose was to educate on the effects that lead has.
-Graphics:
The only graphic that there is, is a picture of a hunter out in the wild. Which I believe that is there to illustrate the people that are being affected by the ban on lead.
-Position on Subject:
Though I didn't think that this source was very biased it was pretty one sided in just talking about the effects that lead has on the environment, and it didn't discuss the negative effects that can occur from banning lead use. But I can verify the information that I read with other sources as well.
-Links:
There are not other links that lead to further reading or information and there are also no cited sources.
-URL: California's Adventure Sports Journal
The URL end with .com which then leads me to believe that this can be or not be a credible source since .com site can sometimes be owned by an individual.
-Author:
The author is unknown which makes me think that maybe this isn't the most credible source since there is no one to really take credit for the words that are being written. And also I can't be able to see if the author is knowledge and what credentials this author has on the subject.
-Last Updated:
I also can't find the date in which this article was published and there are no links that can help me to see if the material is out of date. The only reason that I know that this article is recent is because it is talking about a topic that is fairly recent.
-Purpose:
The purpose of this source was to inform the audience on why lead is being banned in the first place. It goes over some of the negative effects that it has on several populations, including humans. I actually don't feel like this article is trying to promote or dissuade people from using lead, it seems like its only purpose was to educate on the effects that lead has.
-Graphics:
The only graphic that there is, is a picture of a hunter out in the wild. Which I believe that is there to illustrate the people that are being affected by the ban on lead.
-Position on Subject:
Though I didn't think that this source was very biased it was pretty one sided in just talking about the effects that lead has on the environment, and it didn't discuss the negative effects that can occur from banning lead use. But I can verify the information that I read with other sources as well.
-Links:
There are not other links that lead to further reading or information and there are also no cited sources.
Evaluation of General Sources: Source 1
My two sources will be on the controversy of using lead in both hunting and fishing.
1) My first source is from Field & Stream, which is a site that deals with hunting, fishing, survival, and guns. In the article that I picked it discusses how California is planning on banning the use of lead in this upcoming 2015 hunting season. Then it goes on to discuss the negative effects that this decision can cause, so clearly this article is for the use of lead in hunting and fishing.
-URL: Fieldandstream.com
I feel like this domain can be both credible and not, since .com can be used by individuals it really depends. I feel like this site can be credible but I also feel like it might be a little biased since it is a pro-hunting site. I believe that it would be more credible coming from an .edu or .gov site.
-Author: Kristen A. Schmitt
Though I can verify who the author is, when I looked to see if she had more information about herself and credentials, I was not able to find anything. So although she does back her work by adding her name, I still don't know how qualified or reliable she is in this subject matter.
-Last Updated: April 8, 2015
The only links on the page are ones that lead to articles that are from the site as well. Other links lead to the actual Game and Fish announcement that bans the lean ammo and the other link is to a report of a survey done by the National Shooting Sports Foundation(NSSF) in which it summarizes the results that deal with California hunters and this ban; both links are functional.
-Purpose:
The purpose of this article was to discuss the ban that California has put on the use of lead ammunition in the 2015 hunting season. It was created in order to inform the readers on some of the negative effects, such as increased ammo prices and decline in hunter numbers, that can occur due to this ban. I feel like it is promoting the idea that this new regulation is doing more bad than good because it only discusses the negative effects and does not mention at all what this ban is trying to accomplish or what good it could cause for the environment and wildlife.
-Graphics:
There are no graphics on this article.
-Position on Subject:
Since it is a hunting website, and after reading the article I do believe that this article is biased and one sided. If all viewers were to believe what was being written on this site then the hunters would profit the most since it would probably cause more people to back them up on ending this ban. Although I can verify some of the information, because of the lack of any positive impacts that this ban could have, this leads me to believe that this source is biased.
-Links:
This article doesn't have links that lead to additional reading on this subject, nor does it site any sources. The only links it had was to the ban created by Game and Fish and the results of the survey from the NSSF.
1) My first source is from Field & Stream, which is a site that deals with hunting, fishing, survival, and guns. In the article that I picked it discusses how California is planning on banning the use of lead in this upcoming 2015 hunting season. Then it goes on to discuss the negative effects that this decision can cause, so clearly this article is for the use of lead in hunting and fishing.
-URL: Fieldandstream.com
I feel like this domain can be both credible and not, since .com can be used by individuals it really depends. I feel like this site can be credible but I also feel like it might be a little biased since it is a pro-hunting site. I believe that it would be more credible coming from an .edu or .gov site.
-Author: Kristen A. Schmitt
Though I can verify who the author is, when I looked to see if she had more information about herself and credentials, I was not able to find anything. So although she does back her work by adding her name, I still don't know how qualified or reliable she is in this subject matter.
-Last Updated: April 8, 2015
The only links on the page are ones that lead to articles that are from the site as well. Other links lead to the actual Game and Fish announcement that bans the lean ammo and the other link is to a report of a survey done by the National Shooting Sports Foundation(NSSF) in which it summarizes the results that deal with California hunters and this ban; both links are functional.
-Purpose:
The purpose of this article was to discuss the ban that California has put on the use of lead ammunition in the 2015 hunting season. It was created in order to inform the readers on some of the negative effects, such as increased ammo prices and decline in hunter numbers, that can occur due to this ban. I feel like it is promoting the idea that this new regulation is doing more bad than good because it only discusses the negative effects and does not mention at all what this ban is trying to accomplish or what good it could cause for the environment and wildlife.
-Graphics:
There are no graphics on this article.
-Position on Subject:
Since it is a hunting website, and after reading the article I do believe that this article is biased and one sided. If all viewers were to believe what was being written on this site then the hunters would profit the most since it would probably cause more people to back them up on ending this ban. Although I can verify some of the information, because of the lack of any positive impacts that this ban could have, this leads me to believe that this source is biased.
-Links:
This article doesn't have links that lead to additional reading on this subject, nor does it site any sources. The only links it had was to the ban created by Game and Fish and the results of the survey from the NSSF.
My Discipline
1. Students in my program are taught about the interactions and the different aspects of our environment. We are taught about the effects that we have on the environment and its inhabitants, and what we must do in order to mange them properly in order to protect its existence.
2. They usually work for agencies such as Game and Fish, The Bureau of Land Management, or the US Forest Service, to name a few.
3. My love for animals and the environment is what drew me to this field. I wanted to be a part of something that I knew would help them.
4. I'd have to say Game and Fish is the leading agency right now, most of these agencies are really unknown and a lot of the problems that they deal with are not common knowledge but they seem to be changing this. Recently there has been a lot more advertisement about Game and Fish and they seem to be getting their message out more to the public.
5. Some of the leading journals would have to be:
1) Natural Resources Journal
2) Conservation Biology
3) International Journal of Conservation Biology
2. They usually work for agencies such as Game and Fish, The Bureau of Land Management, or the US Forest Service, to name a few.
3. My love for animals and the environment is what drew me to this field. I wanted to be a part of something that I knew would help them.
4. I'd have to say Game and Fish is the leading agency right now, most of these agencies are really unknown and a lot of the problems that they deal with are not common knowledge but they seem to be changing this. Recently there has been a lot more advertisement about Game and Fish and they seem to be getting their message out more to the public.
5. Some of the leading journals would have to be:
1) Natural Resources Journal
2) Conservation Biology
3) International Journal of Conservation Biology
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Time Management
Time management has always been something that evades me. Some concerns that I have for the summer session is balancing ENG 102, MCB 181, working, and going to the gym. I have always been used to doing school work but considering that this is summer school and that its a lot of work in very little time I know that I am going to have to change my schedule a bit. For one, my work schedule has already been changed to help me concentrate on my school; instead of working Sunday-Wednesday, I will now only be working weekends. I also have cute down my gym time from 3 hours everyday, to 3 hours everyday. I am hoping that with this extra time I will be able to get a good grade in both my classes. I believe that as long as I don't put things off to the last minute and maybe get ahead, then I will be successful in this course.
My Thoughts on Comments
1. I would describe these fears and anxieties as unnecessary and a bit over the top. For example the article was about a comment that Trump made about Mexican immigrants that was supposedly misinterpreted, yet in this comment this person expresses other fears about issues going on in our country that are not related to the article at all. Also another fear expressed in this comment section was how pretty much anyone can run for president, whether this is that case or not, just because "anybody" can run doesn't necessarily mean that an "anybody" will win.
2. Well I believe that they can be separated by people who are for Trump and his comments on Mexicans/immigrants and people who oppose him and his ideals. Some commenters agree and think that the US should be "cracking down" on immigration regulations and not working with the corrupt Mexican government. On the other hand, the people who oppose and feel that his comments are racist, he is hypocritical, and that his comments about immigrants are not very factual.
3. The two comments that came across as more reasonable to me, which are one from each point of view, were the ones made by the ex-officer (Jake) and the person who shares his family's history (Al'n). The reason that I believed this was because they have first had experience with what is being said and they give reasons to support their point of views.
4. One commenter that came across as lacking credibility or trustworthiness went by the name Paul. The reason that I think this was because he just stated where he stood on this topic but didn't give and more information on why he believes what he does. His comment to me was more of an invitation to start an argument then to actually state what he truly thinks.
2. Well I believe that they can be separated by people who are for Trump and his comments on Mexicans/immigrants and people who oppose him and his ideals. Some commenters agree and think that the US should be "cracking down" on immigration regulations and not working with the corrupt Mexican government. On the other hand, the people who oppose and feel that his comments are racist, he is hypocritical, and that his comments about immigrants are not very factual.
3. The two comments that came across as more reasonable to me, which are one from each point of view, were the ones made by the ex-officer (Jake) and the person who shares his family's history (Al'n). The reason that I believed this was because they have first had experience with what is being said and they give reasons to support their point of views.
4. One commenter that came across as lacking credibility or trustworthiness went by the name Paul. The reason that I think this was because he just stated where he stood on this topic but didn't give and more information on why he believes what he does. His comment to me was more of an invitation to start an argument then to actually state what he truly thinks.
'Deflategate’ Controversy
Article:
What is the ‘Deflategate’ controversy?
The Boston Globe
My Writing Process
 |
| Wiertz, Sebastien. "From Chaos to Order" 10/13/13 via flickr. Attribution. |
2. My writing does include some of the approaches mentioned in this student guide. In the heavy planning section, I can identify with this section because there has been times in which I feel like I have created my whole paper in my head and all there is really left to do it just write it. But I feel like I identify more with the heavy reviser section because more often than not, I start off a project by just writing absolutely everything that comes to mind. It is through this process in which I plan how to set up my paper and what I keep and delete. As for being a sequential composer, I feel like I can relate to this style because I do have the habit of taking extensive notes and making things such a timelines and webs to help my writing process. Lastly, I have the horrible habit of also leaving work to the very last minute. I do feel like I work well under pressure and have managed to get good grades with this approach, but this approach always leaves me feeling drained and with the feeling to never procrastinate again. Yet it still manages to creep up on me sometimes. In the end, my approach really depend on what I am working on.
3. I feel like my writing processes work for me. The approach that is probably the least successful for me is when I procrastinate. Thats mostly because I always end up feeling like I could have done better or more, but I didn't give myself enough time to actually work. Other than that I feel like the approaches that I take have worked for me so far in my life.
4. Honestly, I don't think that it would. I feel like I really need to stop procrastinating but other than that I feel like the approaches that I take while tackling a new paper have been very successful for me and I wouldn't want to change them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)