Yesterday many residents of the communities surrounding Jamaica Bay had a party on the sandbar. The sand bar is a man-made island in the middle Jamaica Bay that is composed of fill that was dug up when digging a shipping channel.
The sandbar when I was a kid 20 years ago had no trees on it at all, and maybe a little bit of grass. Now there are trees on it, and it is important nesting ground for gulls and terns! That is ecological succession at work!
At this party which takes place once a year, many people arrive with their boats; have refreshments and enjoy the music and dancing and playing the water. Some people think that this much commotion destroys habitat.
For example, this disruption may cause the terns and gulls not to nest and reduce the population of the species.
Additionally, if the partygoers are irresponsible, they may leave trash behind which would further damage the environment.
However, an alternate point of view is that if people are allowed to enjoy their natural resources they will appreciate them and care for them more.
Which do you think leads to greater conservation of natural resources:
1) prohibiting people from using natural resources
2) allowing people to do whatever they wish
3) permitting people to use natural resources but educating them to do so in a responsible way?
I think the obvious answer is choice 3, but who is responsible for educating the public? Does it cost money? Are you willing to pay the money?
Speak up! What are your thoughts?
The sandbar when I was a kid 20 years ago had no trees on it at all, and maybe a little bit of grass. Now there are trees on it, and it is important nesting ground for gulls and terns! That is ecological succession at work!
At this party which takes place once a year, many people arrive with their boats; have refreshments and enjoy the music and dancing and playing the water. Some people think that this much commotion destroys habitat.
For example, this disruption may cause the terns and gulls not to nest and reduce the population of the species.
Additionally, if the partygoers are irresponsible, they may leave trash behind which would further damage the environment.
However, an alternate point of view is that if people are allowed to enjoy their natural resources they will appreciate them and care for them more.
Which do you think leads to greater conservation of natural resources:
1) prohibiting people from using natural resources
2) allowing people to do whatever they wish
3) permitting people to use natural resources but educating them to do so in a responsible way?
I think the obvious answer is choice 3, but who is responsible for educating the public? Does it cost money? Are you willing to pay the money?
Speak up! What are your thoughts?