The negative effects of white-tailed deer on migratory bird populations has gone unnoticed. In the article "Bambi Must Go" the author uses several rhetorical arguments to inform and persuade the reader to take action against the white-tailed deer. First, he informs us on the former plight of the white-tailed deer population and the laws that were put in place to protect our hoofed neighbors. Second, he gives us some facts on the population of the white-tailed deer. Thirdly, he used the emotions to describe how the birds can not nest on the ground because the white-tailed deer have eaten the vegetation in which the migratory birds nest.
For me the strongest argument was the use of facts to inform us on how the white-tailed deer population has increased. I know that too much of anything is bad, so whether the over population of the white-tailed deer is affecting the population or not, something should be done about the amount of deer in certain areas.
The conclusion of this article emphasizes the negative effects of over population of the white-tailed deer, and a call to action to protect the forest against the white-tailed deer. Over population of the white-tailed deer depletes the underbrush of the forest. Migratory birds nest in the underbrush of the forest; therefore, the white-tail deer are affecting the population of the migratory birds.
I fully agree with the analysis you presented. The author uses the transitive property to describe the plight of the birds, if deer eat the underbrush and some migratory birds nest in the underbrush then deer are harmful to migratory birds.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest problem remains with the method in which they describe to protect the birds, using a similar set of laws that were used to protect the deer to protect the birds instead. I guess they quickly forgot how those laws led to the population explosion among the deer in the first place.