1. Discuss the following question. Write about 250 words.

This week the readings deal in part with the "crop" mentality toward a nation's wildlife, which uses words such as natural "resources" or wildlife "inventory." In your view, does this contradict ecological views? Explain.

2. Make a comment to the following respond. It only need 3-4 sentences.

I think it's the context in which this verbiage is used that makes it acceptable or not. When speaking in regard to wildlife populations for census purposes, wildlife "inventory" is acceptable. Actually, wildlife "inventory" doesn't really bother me that much because the ways in which I can see it being used is for population count; for example, whether to know the amount of tags to issue for hunting season, or to know if a species is becoming endangered.

The verbiage that does bother me, however, is "pest control" and "pesticides" speaking specifically of animals, not bugs. I am not so naive to think that animal populations need to be controlled at times in order to prevent overpopulation and in turn decimate an ecosystem, however, by using a "pesticide" sounds horrifying. I work for the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and get calls on a regular basis inquiring if we "spray for snakes" or wanting removal of non-aggressive alligators living in a river where humans are. A lot of the calls I take make me realize that humans want to coexist with nature as long as it doesn't inconvenience them. My personal thoughts on these calls... alligators live in rivers. You wouldn't call to have a grizzly shot because it lives in a forest where you happen to be. You wouldn't call to have a 12-point buck killed because it's on your property and you're scared. Aggressive animals and reptiles are another story all together, those need to be handled with force. As for the snakes, no, we don't spray for snakes