Annotated Bibliography

Don't ask me why the links won't post, but they won't, so I put them down at the bottom of the page, posted separately. Sorry. I have no clue why it did that.

1.


"Frequently Asked Questions from ATV Riders." Regulatory Announcement September 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
24 November 2008

This article, published by the EPA is a 2002 announcement of rules and regulations of ATVs. It talks about what regulations have been set up by the EPA, how they effect owners of ATVs, what emissions controls have been set, how much the controls cost and safety issues as well. It also talks candidly about how much emissions ATVs emit.

I plan to focus particularly on the emissions emitted by ATVs and cite that information in my research paper. It gives a lot of statistics information in an organized form. I want to condense that down to smaller, easier numbers to understand and use it to show how ATV's negatively affect the environment.

2.

Palazzolo, Rose. "Sinful Emissions" Environmental Defense Fund 30 July 2002.
24 November 2008

This article is about the emissions that are given off by SUVs. It mentions that SUVs have done damage to the environment for over a decade. It also shows trends of what SUVs are doing to the air and even gives helpful charts that show which brands of SUVs do the most damage.

I am going to show that ATVs indirectly hurt the environment by requiring less fuel efficient vehicles to pull them from place to place. I will show the damage that SUVs do to the environment and then make the connection that ATVs are a major reason that many people buy SUVs in the first place.

3.

"Utah Hunting. www.Utahh.com 2008. Utahh.com.
24 November 2008

This article was helpful in helping me find out exactly which types of animals are hunted in Utah. It gives information about what types of hunts are done in Utah, how ones goes about obtaining a license and what the seasons are. It is not helpful in finding anti-hunting information, but gives me a basic overview of hunting in Utah.

I plan to simply relay some of the information found in this article to my audience in the paper. I used this article to find out what kinds of animals are most prevalently hunted in Utah, and I will be mentioning that information in my paper. I will also be using this site to find more information about hunting in Utah because it has good links to other websites.

4.

"Hunting's Contribution Helps Environment Thrive." Countryside Alliance 9 March 2006. Countryside Alliance.
24 November 2008

The information that I got from this article is mainly just for my own information. The article talks about how hunting animals helps the environment in its own way by reducing the number of predators as well as the eaters of certain species of plants. It talks specifically about fox hunts in England and the good that has come out of them and concludes that hunting is good for the environment.

I will use cite this information in my research paper to give my audience a brief overview of what the advocates that oppose my view say about hunting's effect on the environment. I may quote or just paraphrase certain statistics mentioned in the article and then try to pick it apart. Mostly, I'll use the article to give the audience background information and to give both sides of the story so that my article doesn't appear too biased.

5.

"The Myth of Trophy Hunting as Conservation." A League Against Cruel Sports December 2004. A League Against Cruel Sports.
24 November 2008

This article is an anti-hunting add given by an environmental organization in the UK. They talk about how poaching is a major problem in Africa and other areas. They also argue against hunters' position that animals can only survive if they have an economic value and show that the better way is to photograph animals and leave them unharmed.

I plan to use this article for much of my argument against hunting. I want to relay some of the facts and figures pointed out in the article about how much more lucrative tourism is than animal hunting. I will use this to take away credit from hunters who say that they are "conservationists."

6.

Martin, Glen. "The Lion, Once King of the Vast African Savanna,Suffers Alarming Decline in Population." San Francisco Chronicle 6 October 2008.
24 November 2008

This article talks about how the population of lions has significantly dropped over the years in Africa. He mentions that hunting is the primary reason for this major drop in population. He also mentions that eco-tourism has played a role in the decline of lions in the areas in Africa that he knows.

I will use this article to show again that hunting is not helping the environment or wildlife in any way, but in fact is doing harm. There is one specific line of his that I will quote directly. I will do this so that I can further prove my position right and hunters' position false. I'll use this article to back my argument up that hunting hurts, not helps, the environment.

7.

Sims-Castley, Rebecca, Kerley, Graham I H, and Geach, Beverley, "A Questionnaire -Based Assessment Of The Socio-Economic Significance Of Ecotourism-Based Private Game Reserves In The Eastern Cape", Terrestrial
Ecology Research Unit, November 2004
24 November 2008

This is another article that opposes the sport of "trophy hunting," which is one of the issues brought up in my paper. It talks about how South Africa is exploiting wildlife because of commercialism. It also gives an overview of what trophy hunting is and speaks against the violence that is displayed by trophy hunters every year. It gives some good statistics as well.

I plan to use mainly the section that talks about what trophy hunting is to give some authority to my paper. These people know much more about trophy hunting than me, so I will either quote them directly or briefly summarize what they say in the article. I will not quote much of the article, but just enough to show that I'm not making up my own definition of what trophy hunting is.

8.

Garrison, Ronnie. "PETA's Efforts to Ban Fishing." About.com 2008.
24 November 2008

This article talks about how PETA, a famous environmentalist group, is trying to ban fishing. It talks about the measures they are going to to try to get fishing outlawed because of their care for animals.

I don't plan to delve too deep into PETA's position on fishing, but do want to point out that there are others that feel strongly against fishing for sport. I will quote one or two of their letters that were published on their website. Though PETA is a little crazy, they do give me a passionate response that I can put in my paper.

9.

"The Canyons Resort" Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau 2008.
24 November 2008

This page is simply informing me some information on the canyons ski resort in Park City Utah. It gives a general overview of how big the canyons is and summarizes the commercial buildings that have gone up, such as the grand summit hotel, lodges, etc.

I want to give the audience a general idea of how large ski resorts are and how many commercial things go up in the ski resorts that would displace wildlife and harm the environment. It will help them to get a good idea of how large scale ski resorts are. I will probably cite the website directly to do so.

10.

Beavins, Rachel. "Ski Resorts' Environmental Impact." www.Suite 101.com 2008.
24 November 2008

This article gives some basic information on my last outdoor sport that I will discuss that hurts the environment in Utah, which is ski resorts. It talks about how ski resorts can relate with climate change, development and open space, forest and wildlife management, waste, water management, etc.

I will use this article as my main source for relating to the audience that ski resorts can do damage to the environment. I will cite this article, probably several times to show what damage is done and perhaps suggest solutions as I go.
The links:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/2002/f02038.pdf

http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=2218

http://www.utah.com/hunt/

http://www.countryside-alliance.org.uk/hunting-campaigns/hunting-the-facts/hunting%27s-contribution-helps-environment-thrive/

http://www.league.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_279.pdf

Sims-Castley, Rebecca, Kerley, Graham I H, and Geach, Beverley, "A Questionnaire -Based Assessment Of The
Socio-Economic Significance Of Ecotourism-Based Private Game Reserves In The Eastern Cape", Terrestrial
Ecology Research Unit, November 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/06/MNG1UF392D1.DTL

http://fishing.about.com/od/fishermensside/a/aa041605a.htm

http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/Sfc120.pdf

http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/ski_resorts_environmental_impact

November 24th Post (Chapter 8)

Chapter 8 covered several good elements of style in writing effective rhetorical papers. The first one covered was clarity, which I think is some of the biggest issues my writing has. My ideas are good, but sometimes I have a difficult time relating that back to the audience.
The second element covered in chapter 8 was coherence, which goes hand in hand with clarity. I like the way the book put it: "if there is any way for your readers to get lost- they will." So obviously, it's important for writing to make sense to the audience. The book mentions form and cohesion as means to create a coherent paper.
Conciseness is also pointed out as being important. In short, there shouldn't be unnecessary words in sentences or unnecessary sentences in paragraphs and so forth. This is also a major problem I can see in my own writing. I tend to use words that don't necessarily need to be there.
Voice is extremely important in determining whether or not the reader will continue on reading, according to the author of chapter 8. Voice is what makes the author unique from other authors. Obviously, better voices are better for different situations, but it can make or break a paper.
The rest of the elements dealt with delivery. The author first mentions punctuation and shows how the lack thereof can detract from the author's credibility. Afterwards, usage, more commonly referred to as word choice, is mentioned. One must be careful not to say anything stupid in his or her papers, which is where usage comes in.Finally, an appropriate layout is mentioned, which makes the paper more inviting for the paper to read.
As mentioned, I could be a little bit more clear in my writing. I consider that to be my biggest downfall. Conciseness is also an area I can improve on in my research paper. It is a goal of mine to improve on those two areas in my research paper. In order to do this, I will need to make sure to have my rough draft peer reviewed by several different people to make sure that it is clear. As far as being concise, the trick with a long paper like this will be doing a lot of research and having a lot of information. It is better to relay a lot of information than it is to drag a little information out for too long. Those are my two biggest goals for this research paper.

Research Paper

Ty's interests
-Basketball
(Fact) Does basketball have a bad affect on the environment?
(Definition) Is it real wood or is it fake wood?
(Definition) Is the leather used to make basketball floors real or synthetic?
(Definition) What kinds of things about basketball hurt the environment?
(Quality) How devastating is the damage done to the environment because of basktball?
(Procedure) What is being done to prevent damage to the environment?

-Snowboarding
(Fact) Does snowboarding have a negative effect on the environment?
(Definition) What are the negative effects?
(Quality) Does snowboarding pose a significant threat to the environment?
(Procedure) What, if anything, should be done about it?
(Procedure) Who is responsible for seeing that skiing and snowboarding does not hurt the environment?

-Golf
(Fact) Does golf have adverse effects on the environment?
(Definition) How do golf courses harm the environment?
(Definition) What happens to the wildlife that would otherwise live there?
(Quality) What damage has already been done to the environment by golf?
(Procedure) What can or should be done about it?

-Four wheeling
(Fact) Do four wheelers hurt the environment?
(Definition) How much gas do the four wheelers use?
(Definition) Are wildlife affected by the use of four wheelers?
(Quality) How badly are the animals being affected by four wheelers?
(Procedure) Who is taking action to protect wildlife from four wheelers?

-Nintendo games
(Fact) Are nintendo and other game systems environmentally safe?
(Definition) What, if any threats do they pose on the environment?
(Quality) How environmentally unsafe are the components used in building them?
(Procedure)What should be done about protecting these resources?
measures be taken, and if so, what?

-Dentistry
(Fact) Does dentistry hurt the environment?
(Definition) What kind of tools are used in dentistry and how do they hurt the environment?
(Quality) What damage can be done to the environment because of dentistry?
(Procedure) What can be done to make dentistry more environmentally friendly?
(Procedure) Who is responsible for making dentistry more environmentally friendly?

assignment #5

This is an interesting letter written to a Buffalo New York newspaper. The author is a guy named Marty Essen. To say that the Buffalo newspaper is his only audience would be inaccurate. In all reality, the audience is more generalized to Buffalo residents and those who read a Buffalo paper.
In this article, the author has several different messages, some of more import than others and some receiving more attention than others. The main message that I take from it is that drilling in sensitive regions, specifically ANWR in Alaska, is not the right decision for Americans to make. The author talks about a trip to the region and even contrasts the beauty of the natural region and the ugliness of regions that have been developed for oil drilling. He also seems to have some other messages in the text. He talks about how Americans are “addicted” to fossil fuels, and that alternative energy sources could and should be used by Americans more-so than they are. And finally, his message and claim is that drilling or oil does significant damage to the environments of those areas.
The first apparent claim for ethos in this article comes pretty early in the article. He approaches this argument as “beyond politics” and introduces himself as someone who has “seen [with his] own eyes” the damage that is being done in certain Alaska oil regions. This almost obligates the reader to respect his opinion. Not many Americans readers have actually been to Alaska and so they depend immediately on the author to present this in a fair, honest way.
More ethos is added when he goes into politics. He talks about how George W. Bush’s policies on the environment have “disappointed” him. This is going to create a lot of authority when aimed at people who are anti-Bush, which at this point, is a large part of the country. Of course, there are many different calls for ethos throughout the paper. They are good because they are pretty subtle.
As with most arguments, this one is loaded with emotional appeals. The author uses very vivid imagery and contrasts to create emotional appeals to the reader. For example, he talks about the beautiful scenery of a non-drilled plot in Alaska. He almost makes it out to be kind of a paradise. Soon after, he has shipped off to an oil field in a different part of Alaska. However, instead of everything being good this time, he is overwhelmed with how ugly and terrible the place is. This plays at people’s disgust. No one wants to see a pretty place go ugly, and that’s what the author suggests has happened in that particular region in Alaska.
He also plays at our sense of shame. He talks about how Americans are “addicted” to fossil fuels. In this way, readers feel like they are a part of the problem in a way. Sometimes, there is nothing more effective than the guilt trip, and the author seems to have it down pretty well.
Finally, we get to the Logos. If there is anything that I am disappointed in with this guy’s argument, it is the logos. He seems to have spent a good portion making a sound argument on how drilling is bad for the environment and then he switches gears before you know it. A major thing said about drilling in ANWR shouldn’t be done because it wouldn’t even help that much. The reader is left to say, “well if it doesn’t help that much, then why do it? I think that this is the author’s intent. He obviously doesn’t want to see Alaska drilled in any further. Since he is trying to convince others that that is not the right thing to do, his logical argument is that even if we were to drill in these areas, it wouldn’t be helpful. He talks about how oil is on a work market and that drilling our own oil in the states would only be minimally helpful. I think that this is a logical enough argument, but that more time and focus could have been spent on it. All in all, it is a good article and makes some very good points. It seems convincing enough and provides some good information. But it obviously only tells one side of the story.

Assignment #4

For my article that we searched for in the library, I ended up finding something on the internet that talks about offshore drilling. The article definitely seemed to have a bias to it, but did provide some good information. It was several pages out of a book called "coastal alert." It had several chapters in it, a few of which I had access to. One part talked about how the government is apparantly "selling the coasts to big oil." Other parts talked about the effects that oil drilling has on ecology and quality of life, the developing of offshore gas and oil and how energy alternatives can supposedly replace offshore drilling. The article was informative, but it's hard to say how informative it was simply because it did seem so biased and one sided and didn't seem to present both sides of the story. In short, it would be much more effective to rhetorically analyze it than to use it for legitimate research on the subject.
I tried a lot of different methods and databases to get articles on oil drilling, and they did bring a lot of things up, but I found myself either going around in circles or just frustrated altogether. Bottom line is, I lost patience. I found that google scholar and google books seemed to help me out most. Maybe it's because google has done a good job, or maybe I'm just too stupid to find anything any other way. But google seemed to be the answer ... again.
The library instruction was very helpful. I can see how the massive amount of databases could be very helpful for research. That was all very new to me. I had absolutely no experience using EBSCO or any of the other databases available through the library's site. That was the nicest thing I learned from the library instruction. That is a lot of information to have access to, and is helpful now, but will most definitely be even more helpful in the future. But like I said, I'm probably just not good enough at using EBSCO and the other legitimate databases yet, and so far, have just resorted to google books to bail me out. But that being said, google books did a very good job for me. This article that I found was only one of many that fit what I was looking for.

Assignment #3 (Rhetorical Analysis)

My rhetorical analysis I did this weekend was kind of an interesting and unusual public service ad. It was designed to be funny at times, but eventually, it turns into a sarcastic, yet highly effective ad on registering to vote and then voting.
The ad was sent to me by a friend as a link from collegehumor.com, I believe. The audience is definitely towards young adults at voting age. I imagine this is the audience because a lot of times, younger audiences have a difficult time with voting. They ask what the point is, and this add directly brings that up. It appeals to the younger college-age crowd by using several celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Jamie Foxx, Halle Berry, Ellen DeGeneres, several other comedians, Toby Maguire, a few rappers and other celebrities that would be considered "cool" to this age-group. In reality, it's a good move by whoever made the add to use people like this. All the celebrities make a sarcastic, yet highly effective add as to why college students should vote.
The add is fairly long. The first one minute and twenty seconds of the add is a series of celebrities saying things like "don't vote," "whatever you do, don't vote," "what's the point?" and other things like that which would appear to discourage the audience from voting. This turns out to be entirely sarcastic in the end and the whole attitude of the argument changes into a "this is why you should vote" argument.
An interesting thing about this add is that there is not a very strong, or at least reliable call for authority. There seems to be an entire lack of ethos altogether. The biggest claim that the add can make towards having ethos is something to the effect of, "Look! Celebrities! Celebrities are cool, so listen to the celebrities tell you to vote." However, this kind of ethos, weak as it might be, is probably perfect for the audience. College students do not generally care about what an intellect has to say to them. But they do have a respect and admiration towards hollywood celebrities. So ironically enough, the add's apparant lack of legitimate ethos acts as an ethos in and of itself to its intended audience.
Despite a seeming lack of ethos, this add is not lacking in pathos at all. After the first minute of the add, the emotional appeals seem to be coming at the audience in every second until it turns into a large and highly effective guilt trip. As mentioned earlier, the first part of the add it celebrities sarcastically saying, "don't vote." However, at about 1:20 into the add, Halle Berry changes things up by saying, "Don't vote ... unless you care about health care." The add then completely changes. A montage of celebrities go on to say, "if you care about gun control, women's rights, civil right, rising gas prices, social security, the war ... then you should vote." All of those issues play at a broad audience, but will hit pretty much everyone with at least one thing that would bring out an emotional response. Like I mentioned, the way this is put forward is almost a bit of a guilt trip. It is as if the add is saying, if you don't vote, you must not care about all these super important issues. And that is playing at shame or guilt as an emotion in and of itself, not to mention all the emotions that the various issues play at.
The logos of the add is subtle. It goes right along with the pathos. The logos can be summarized by saying that voting is the way for an individual to show that they care about these things. The audience is left to decide for themselves as to why caring and voting are connected, but the add assumes that the audience will be able to put that together for themselves. And in reality, college students should be able to pick up on that. The subtlety of the logos seems to add to the sarcastic nature of the add, which is one of the major strengths of the add to begin with. It is a very coy add.
In my opinion, this add was highly effective. In fact, it informed and convinced me that I should vote. It wasn't that I was against voting, but that I hadn't really thought about it before. The makers of the add seem to know that there are many people in their intended audience that are like that, and thus, take a "snap out of it" approach to the apathetic audience. And I'll be honest, it did snap me out of it. I believe that the add is effective because it concentrates on what will be effective in a political type argument to its audience. It focusses on emotions as opposed to authoritive figures in suits. The war, gasoline prices and other issues at play in politics can bring various strong emotions out of people, including the college age students. This add does a good job of bringing all those emotions closer to the surface and playing on them in a way that makes the audience say, "wait a minute! I do care about that. I should vote." All in all, I was very impressed with the effectiveness of the add.

Second assignment

My opinion editorial is still a work in process. Coming into the assignment, I thought that I would be able to get away with the one draft scheme that I generally could do in High School. But looking at my rough draft, I realize that there are still several things that I would like to change or improve before I hand in a final draft and call it my best work.
Coming up with the idea for the assignment was the easy part. I really wanted to write against the BCS, and my opinions and ideas are not new ones. These are ideas that I have had for several years now. I guess the lesson learned there is that it is tough to play devil's advocate in an opinion editorial. One has to write about something that they really believe in. I really believe that the BCS should be changed, so arguing it, for me, is not difficult.
As easy as arguing it might be, putting it into a well-organized format was a different story. I found that organizing my ideas was a necessary evil of sorts. As much as I wanted to just start writing and let the ideas flow, I found it pretty much ineffective to do so. I could do that of course, and I did try it, but was unhappy with the way it originally came out.
Once the final draft came out, it was time for the peer review. I was surprised at how helpful the peer review was. I really needed that! Not only nice was it to have others judge my paper, but I found that as I heard them critique my paper, I also became my own critic finding things that had not bothered me yet, but that need desperately to be changed. I came out of the peer review thinking, "thank heavens that I have more time to change this draft."
I am still looking forward to getting more peer reviews so to speak. I meet with Mr. Keeley on Monday and will be looking forward to hearing any advice that he has to give. I also think that I will spend a little time in the writing center next week so that I can get any additional help necessary to make a good opinion editorial.
There is a lot to be learned from my first writing assignment in college. I guess lesson number one that I've learned is that High School writing assignments are a thing of the past. I can't get away with a one draft final product anymore. The standard of writing has been raised. Unlike the past, I need to buckle down if I want a good final product. This is different from my past experiences. In high school, I could round off a rough/final draft in 30 minutes and it would be worthy of an A. However, the process has not changed in that my first draft simply is not as good as the final draft will be. I never regretted writing multiple drafts if and when I did in high school, and I imagine this will be the same way. I must make this very clear. I want an A out of this assignment. But I realize that this requires a little more work than it has in the past. But the bottom line is that I do want to do that work and I will get my best work out before Wednesday of next week.