Wild Tofurkey

tofurkey was new for me
tofurkey was a smashing success for all at this year's Thanksgiving at the shackman residence

i will post the majority of my essay to date (all that is fit to share)
nameste


Justin Blumberg
English 505
December 08, 2008

Essay

Background Information
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has elicited strong responses from both its supporters and its detractors. The ESA is a federal law, passed in 1973, which “bans the hunting or killing of endangered species and protects against significant habitat loss” (Salzman 277). It was born out of earlier attempts by the U.S. government and its citizens to preserve wildlife, plant species, and habitat. The idea behind the law was to establish an institutional, wide ranging means for wildlife conservation, which grew out of a growing national consciousness of the beauty, usefulness, and preciousness of the natural world and prompted the creation of this unique and influential law.

Other Part
Rhetorical situations are invaluable and inevitable realities. It is through these fleeting confluences of events which create the impetus, the necessity for rhetorical response. Lloyd Bitzer argued that “human relations operate[d] in the context of rhetorical situations governed by exigencies, that is, social, political, economic, and ethical urgencies that invite[d] discursive responses” ( ). Whenever someone accepts the invitation for verbal or written response to the exigency then a natural union is made between an ambiguous something we call rhetorical situation and our acknowledgement of that something through that which we call rhetoric.

These moments of inspiration are ever present in the universe and within our own personal sphere of interactions. Just as rhetorical situations exist in the air so to does rhetoric. It is through rhetoric that we humans are able to make sense of, and interact with, each other and our environment. Rhetoric is broadly defined as “the art or the discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience, whether that audience is made up of one person or a group of persons” (Corbett 1). Ultimately, though, rhetoric is a means for persuasion by a speaker or writer. When we consider these contexts when analyzing two opposing arguments, it helps us understand the influence of, and the purpose of, the rhetoric being utilized.
It is my objective, then, to shed some light on the role of rhetoric in the contentious arguments in recent debates about the Endangered Species Act (ESA). When the ESA was up for renewal in Congress in 2005 a controversial bill was passed in the House that year, one which spread concern throughout the scientific, wildlife preservation and environmental communities. They feared that the Senate’s bill, which was presented the following year, would lead to a much weakened version of the ESA. For my purposes, I have chosen two documents that present two different opinions about the success of the ESA at conserving endangered or threatened species. It is my contention that it is through rhetorical situations that rhetoric is given the fuel for action/life and that each rhetorical situation dictates a course for a particular rhetorical response.
In this instance, we may identify the rhetorical response for these two documents to be, on the one hand, all of the recent activity in the U.S. Congress pertaining to the renewal and revision to the Endangered Species Act, yet, more specifically, the concern that the Senate would pass the Crapo Bill or some other like bill that would be interpreted as unwise and or ineffectual.

Long have arguments been made, throughout the history of the U.S., supporting the preservation of wildlife which have regularly butted up against the interests of other individuals, governments, and industries that revere property rights (as supported by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), industrial progress and business profits. These arguments have been brought to public attention more recently through the Bush Administration’s attempts at weakening the ESA and other environmental laws and Congress’ role in facilitating that.

The House of Representatives passed what has come to be known as the Pombo Bill named after its author Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) on September 29, 2005. Critics of the bill are many and include biologists, wildlife and environmental groups, and members of Congress including members of Pombo’s own Republican Party such as Rep. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI). Opposition voices to the bill speak of the revisions as being detrimental to the environment and wildlife. Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has said that the revisions “systematically strip all of the recovery tools from the Act” (Jim Motavalli e-Magazine.co m). This House bill “calls for the elimination of habitat protection for endangered species, weakens oversight of federal agency actions and undermines the use of sound science in decision-making about imperiled wildlife. It would also require taxpayers to pay developers not to kill endangered species” (Defenders of Wildlife web article).

But there are supporters of the bill within the House and Senate, and among hunters, farmers and property rights activists. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) spoke about his bill in a written statement saying that “Upholding this right (property rights as described in the Fifth Amendment) and partnering with the landowner is the only way we are going to improve the Endangered Species Act’s failing results for recovery…This legislation does just that” (redorbit.com/news/science/ 256999/pombos_bill_clears_house_hurd le/ & Denis Cuff, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.).
Each document has its genesis in the form of a direct response to congressional bills, the Pombo Bill passed in the House, and the Crapo Bill, which is up for a vote in the Senate. The exigencies are one and the same here with the actions of the Senate being top-most on the minds of the authors. Will the Senate pass a bill that would complement the one passed earlier in the House? Perhaps, the Senate would pass a bill that would be at odds with the House’s bill? Just the same, the Senate could decide not to take any formal action and the issue, for the moment, anyway, could die. With any one of these scenarios being equally plausible why have the authors of these documents chosen to write? Why have they made their particular rhetorical choices? One argument is made in support of the ESA while the other argues that the ESA is a failure. Which, of any, argument is more successful, and why? In order to answer these questions let us evaluate these two documents.

First is a letter written and or signed by a plethora of biologists addressed to the members of the U.S. Senate urging them to take action in support of the preservation, and the strengthening, of the Endangered Species Act.

The second document is an online article written in response to the Crapo Bill also known as CRESA (Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act), which was up for a vote in the senate. The author, Peyton Knight, uses this opportunity to both comment on the ineffectual Crapo Bill, authored by Rep. Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Rep. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) and the equally failed Endangered Species Act.

The biologists’ letter is written for the purposes of deliberative discourse. In the classical sense it would also be known as political, hortative, or advisory where one debated political affairs, but generally is the discourse used to persuade someone to do as we would like. Throughout the document are examples of the writer(s) establishing an ethos (an appeal to character) for themselves to serve as a foundation for counseling their audience on the Endangered Species Act. The document is written specifically for the U.S. Senate, an audience that may already have a sense of science and its importance in our modern society. The writers have kept this in mind when drafting this letter as evidenced in the lack of elitist language (scientific language that might only be understood by those persons who reside in that particular discourse community), an example of this would be the quote below from an article about morningglories titled Morphological Comparison of Morningglory (Ipomoea and Jacquemontia spp.)
Populations from the Southeastern United States.

“Morningglories are troublesome weeds in row crops and other agricultural areas throughout the United States. Plants of pitted morningglory, sharppod morningglory, and a fertile ‘‘hybrid’’ between pitted and sharppod morningglory (hybrid morningglory), were compared with cypressvine, ivyleaf, palmleaf, purple moonflower, red, and smallflower morningglories in greenhouse studies at Stoneville, MS. Plants from each of 76 accessions were studied for number of nodes to first internode elongation; stem color and pubescence; leaf area and dry weight of first four full expanded leaves; leaf blade pubescence on abaxial and adaxial surfaces and margins; leaf color, shape, and lobing; petiole length, color, and pubescence; sepal length, color, and pubescence; and corolla color, diameter, and length. Among these morningglories, the most diverse traits were pubescence and flower characteristics” ( ).

Instead the writers had written their letter succinctly, in very plain language, one which non-experts could make sense of. For example,

“objective scientific information and methods should be used in listing species, subspecies, and distinct population segments as endangered or threatened under the Act. While non-scientific factors may appropriately be considered at points later in the process of protecting species, their use in listing decisions is inconsistent with biologically defensible principles. Due to the fragile state of many of those species that require the Act’s protections, the listing process needs to proceed as promptly as possible; otherwise, species will go extinct while waiting to be listed” ( ).

Science has a significant role in our society, often science and scientists are perceived as the vehicle for progress and for the truth. The language used within the scientific community with its unique traits, thought of, by some, as being haughty and impenetratable may uphold this perception of power and expertise. Part of the responsibility of any purveyor of an argument is to provide adequate support for the claim. Scientists rely upon data to establish the validity of their work and to support the facts they pursue and the facts they claim. The use of data and historical perspective serves to both validate the opinions they provide and also to appeal to reason, the hope being that the senators would believe scientists claims on scientific issues, especially when backed up with data to corroborate.

From the beginning, the authors and signatories of the biologists’ letter had made it obvious that they were going to get their message out through the use of ethos. The best rhetorical weapon they could have when addressing a scientific issue to politicians would be to portray themselves as experts, and through creating this ethos, a voice of authority, it becomes an undeniably powerful form of persuasion. They include at the outset five different quotes from scientists commenting on why the ESA is important, why it should be protected. Comments such as: Scientists know we must protectspecies because they are workingparts of our life-support system.Paul Ehrlich, Entomologist, Population BiologistBing Professor of Population Studies and president,Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University,California; member, National Academy of Sciences;MacArthur Fellow; and Crafoord Prize winner in Bioscience,

andTo weaken the scientific foundation of the Endangered Species Act is to doom more species to extinction.Walter V. Reid, EcologistConsulting professor, Institute for the Environment,Stanford University, California; former director, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; and past boardmember, Society for Conservation Biologyare strong rhetoric meant to set the tone for the entire letter and serve as expert advice for senators who might not understand the significance of wildlife conservation. The added strength of any argument is to provide support for a claim. Writers and speakers alike need to provide examples, quotations, or citations in order to successfully defend their statements to an audience expecting to be persuaded or informed by the truth. For the rhetorician they would apply inventio (all available means of persuasion) and topics (means for researching arguments). For the scientists, they are especially relying on data to be the warrant for their claims. An example from their letter would be

“According to an article in the September 30, 2005, edition of Science, less than one percent of listed species have gone extinct since 1973, while 10 percent of candidate species still waiting to be listed have suffered that fate. In addition to the hundreds of species that the Act has protected from extinction, listing has contributed to population increases or the stabilization of populations for at least 35 percent of listed species, and perhaps significantly more, as well as the recovery of such signature species as the peregrine falcon” ( ).

This is an appeal to reason (logos), to produce empirical evidence is, ultimately, what science is all about and it is an effectual rhetorical device, especially when paired with an ethical appeal. For example:

“We are writing as biologists with expertise in a variety of scientific disciplines that concern biological diversity and the loss of species… Biological diversity provides food, fiber, medicines, clean water, and myriad other ecosystem products and services on which we depend every day. If we look only at well-studied species groups, nearly one-third of native species in the United States are at risk of disappearing. Extinction is truly irreversible — once gone, individual species and all of the services that they provide us cannot be brought back” ( ).

The above quote begins by re-establishing a voice of authority (ethos) (“we are writing…with expertise”) then proceeds to offer expert knowledge backed with data (ethos and logos) (“Biological diversity provides food…[and] nearly one-third of native species…are at risk of disappearing”) ( ).

The second document, written by Peyton Knight, follows much in the same manner as the biologists’ letter. As a commentator and analyst of public policy, Knight already possesses a certain expertise that rivals that of the scientists though is quite different. His use of ethos is as an expert in interpreting the ideas and information found in documents of public policy, documents such as the Crapo Bill. Knight is traversing the same territory the scientists must traverse that of interpreting statistical and scientific data to bolster arguments (ethos and logos). However, Knight comes to a much different conclusion than do the scientists. For example, when he speaks of the failure of the ESA he provides a wealth of examples and data to support his claims.

“In the more than 32 years the Endangered Species Act has been on the books, just 34 of the nearly 1,300 U.S. species given special protection have made their way off the "endangered" or "threatened" lists. Of this number, nine species are now extinct, 14 appear to have been improperly listed in the first place, and just nine (0.6 percent of all the species listed) have recovered sufficiently to be de-listed. Two species (a plant with white to pale-blue flowers called the Hoover's woolly-star and a yellow perennial, Eggert's sunflower) appear to have made their way off the threatened list, in part through "recovery" and in part because they were not as threatened as originally believed” ( ).

The above quote is chock full of statistics, several within each sentence, bumping into each other and spilling into another sentence. This ample use of data is Knight’s way of emphasizing his expertise as an analyst by inundating the reader with data (logos).

It would be reasonable to assume that a senator, as an Everyman, would seek out the counsel of a science expert to guide their decision-making on science issues. It is no wonder then that the biologists chose to take every opportunity to communicate their expertise as biologists and to emphasize the volume of expert supporters. Yet, the same use of data, by Knight, a non-scientist, provides his opposition argument with the same, or nearly the same, power of persuasion. Data for the scientist is tantamount for the truth. But rhetoric only knows of truth, truth with a capital T through the mind/perspective of the speaker. This is no better an example of this when we have a conflict of truths or, perhaps a better way of looking at it is a conflict of rhetorical impetus.

The motivations for both authors to pen their documents are different despite sharing the same rhetorical situation (concern that the senate would pass a bad bill). For the biologists, they are addressing their concern and counsel to U.S. Senators who are directly responsible for developing and passing a bill that would have strong implications on the future of the ESA. They need to ingratiate themselves to the powers that be and persuade them to make good and wise decisions. (Something Thomas More would have aspired to do knowing full well though that Princes reject counsel that didn’t compliment their needs). For Knight, he is responding to the introduction of the Crapo Bill to the Senate. As a commentator and analyst of public policy he is serving the needs of a particular audience who reads the web articles of his employer, National Policy Analysis. But like the biologists, the rhetorical situation Knight shares is the potential creation of poor public policy (a weakened ESA).