National Forest
There are many National Forests in the United States, and they are spread over the whole country. National Forest also have a huge variety of climates. Ranging from the very cold weather of the Chugach National Forest in Alaska to the warm weather of the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana or even to the intermediate weather like our on Wayne National Forest in southeastern Ohio. National Forest are also very helpful towards humans and the way we live. On the other side of the hand they may also be harmful to us. Indeed there are many interesting things in the world of National Forest today.
Like I said before the climates in National Forest are different that means that the animals that live there are also different. For example Polar Bears won’t live in Florida and alligators won’t live in Alaska. The Chugach National Forest has animals likes the moose, the black bear or the elk and has a huge variety of fish to go with it. But the Kisatchie National Forest has the wild turkey to go along with many different other kinds of birds, and fish, and deer. The Wayne National Forest has animals from deer to foxes to turkeys and even some black bear, it also has many birds and fish.
Some of the good things about National Forest is that they give us plenty of oxygen to breath to begin with. They also give us some really beautiful scenery for us to look at and many animals to admire. Without them every tree in the United States would probably be cut down and used for probably useless things. The National Forest give plants for animals to eat and give animals for humans to hunt and kill with some regulations in the process then you can eat them. Not only can you eat the animals that you hunt you can eat the animals that you fish for just make sure that the fish isn’t poisonous before you eat it or else. It gives you beautiful plants and trees that gives us oxygen to breath and it also gives us plenty of fish and animals to hunt and fish for and eat if we want.
Then there is some of the bad things about the National Forest. Like protecting how many of the animals we kill witch could feed many starving people in other countries. Also by not letting people kill a lot of animals the animals could get really over populated and overrun the city streets.
These are very difficult questions for me personally to answer because I live in the Pacific Northwest, and I have seen the beauty of the old growth forests first-hand.
Imagine a scenic, wild landscape with animals that roam freely, cascading waterfalls, and mountains that seem to scrape the pale blue sky. This is what one thinks when first hearing the name Yosemite National Park. Unfortunately, the reality is completely opposite. Yosemite is now under a federally regulated Class 1 area under the Clean Air Act, which is equivalent to the pollution of Los Angeles (“National Parks Service”). It is a sad comparison to the past John Muir, who first documented Yosemite Valley, to today’s reality. The condition of Yosemite National Park should be introduced to the American public in order to protect its historic beauty and significance, eliminate current pollution, and prevent future repercussions.
National Parks are the cornerstone of every country because it preserves the rich cultural and natural resources of a nation, such as Yellowstone in the United States of America. Yellowstone National Park is the World’s First National Park which brings millions of attraction each year, it is larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combine and have over a thousand species of plants and animal (Yellowstone Media). However, a very important type of species has been missing in Yellowstone National Park for a very long time. Wolves, which got reintroduce back into Yellowstone National Park, should stay there because without them the ecosystem would be out of balance.
The Forest Reserve Act reduced destructive logging and preserved watersheds which led to the establishment of national forests’.
John Muir believed that for the future of America that the natural world should be protected. Muir felt that the environment of much of the United States was not protected properly and the locations that were protected were not managed adequately. Muir felt that Americans had much to gain from the protection of their national resources and park lands. In John Muir’s book Our National Parks, written in 1901 he states: “Awakening from the stupefying effects of the vice of over-industry and the deadly apathy of luxury, they are trying as best they can to mix and enrich their own...
Approximately ninety percent of the forests in the Pacific Northwest have already been harvested. In order to protect the current owl population. remaining forests would have to be preserved, but this would have a serious impact. negative economic effect. Such a decision would affect jobs, regional economy.
First, one must understand the concept of a nation park and wilderness. Yellowstone became the first national park. President Ulysses S. Grant designated Yellowstone, as a national park in 1872. The law establishing Yellowstone as the first National Park declared the area would be preserved "for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." All "timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders" would be kept "in their natural condition" (McNamara, 2014). The natural state of the park is a wilderness area. Although wilderness is often taken to mean a wild or untamed area people have held various perspectives of wilderness throughout history. Some of these historical perspectives of wilderness in the United States are: 1."The Puritan model encouraged an aggressive and even antagonistic attitude toward wilderness. The wilderness must be tamed” (Dejardins, page 154). Wilderness was, as an area to be feared but yet an area where one could escape from oppression. 2. “The Lockean model sees the wilderness as real estate, a commodity to be owned and used” (DesJardins, page 154). 3. “The romantic model views the wilderness as a symbol of innocence and purity” (DesJardins, page 155).
It is not a new thought that today’s young Americans are facing issues, problems and difficult decisions that past generations never had to question. In a world of technology, media, and a rough economy, many young adults in America are influenced by a tidal wave of opinions and life choices without much relevant advice from older generations. The Generation Y, or Millennial, group are coming of age in a confusing and mixed-message society. One of these messages that bombard young Americans is the choice of premarital cohabitation. Premarital cohabitation, or living together without being married (Jose, O’Leary & Moyer, 2010), has increased significantly in the past couple of decades and is now a “natural” life choice before taking the plunge into marriage. Kennedy and Bumpass (2008) state that, “The increase in cohabitation is well documented,such that nearly two thirds of newlyweds have cohabited prior to their first marriage”(as cited in Harvey, 2011, p. 10), this is a striking contrast compared with statistics of our grandparents, or even parents, generations. It is such an increasing social behavior that people in society consider cohabitation “necessary” before entering into marriage. Even more, young Americans who choose not to cohabitate, for many different reasons, are looked upon as being “old-fashioned”, “naive”, or “unintelligent”. This pressure for young people to cohabitate before marriage is a serious “modern-day” challenge; especially when given research that states, “... most empirical studies find that couples who cohabited prior to marriage experience significantly higher odds of marital dissolution than their counterparts who did not cohabit before marriage”, stated by Jose (2010) and colleagues (as c...
Why cohabitation? One of the most popular reasons is cited as being that “couples can be sure they are compatible before marriage (Huang, et al, 2011).” Seemingly, many couples that cohabitate before marriage fear incompatibility with their current beaus and/or future spouses. Using cohabitation as a “trial period” before marriage can take away the fear of living together from both partners. It can assure both parties that they are companionable in living space, or affirm that they are not. Smock, Casper, and Wyse (2008) also point out several influences for cohabitation: there are cultural and economic influences. Young people see cohabitation as a part of life. “Two-thirds of both male and female 18-29 year olds who have never been married or cohabited explicitly disagree with the statement that ‘a young couple should not live together unless they...
On average millions of hectares of forests are destroyed each year resulting in severe consequences that will affect not only our lifestyle, but also all the animals with which we share our planet. Many species of animals and plants will become extinct and if we continue with the destruction of our forests, earth will be unable to sustain life.
One of the apps that are being used are the dating apps. Almost 91 million around the world are being used. Around 61 million (2 out of 3) are men. Along with 64 million (7 out of 10) are between the age of 16-34 years old. (4). with the use of the apps there are a couple dating apps in ranking. Starting with the highest, the IAC (Match.com, OKcupid, Tinder …) at 27%, eHarmony at 13.8%, Zoosk at 5.1%, spark Network (JDate, Christian Mingle,…) at 3,2%.(4). Also according to a popular dating site, woman who took selfies received 4% more messages but guys receive 8%. A women who take a full-body selfie receives a whopping 203% more messages.
Cohabitation allows couples to live the married life without being legally tied. While, increasing divorce rates are scaring people away from marriage. Lastly, we have the commitment issues that people face. These commitment issues are scaring people away from marriage and making them have doubts about relationships. In the end, all three of these reasons tie back to people and their decisions they make regarding marriage. Will you make a difference? Are you willing to take a chance and get married or are you going to be the typical millennial and jump on the
Bruce Wydick argued that, “cohabitation may be narrowly defined as an intimate sexual union between two unmarried partners who share the same living quarter for a sustained period of time’’ (2). In other words, people who want to experience what being in a relationship truly is, tend to live under one roof and be more familiar with one-another. Couples are on the right path to set a committed relationship where the discussion about marriage is considered as the next step. However, many people doubt the fact as to live or not together with their future partners. Some of them think about it as an effective way to have a chance to get to know a potential husband/spouse. Meanwhile, others completely deny the idea due to their disagreements with certain religious beliefs. Wydick suggested that, “the increase in premarital cohabitation is a product of a general movement within western society away from traditional ideas about marriage, divorce, birth control, abortion, women’s rights, and a host of other related issues” (4). Consequently, now people are more open-minded, meaning that they accept the idea of pre-cohabitation mainly as a social institution. People should live together before they get married because they have a chance to test their partnership and avoid the problems that may arise in the future.
Throughout the years, societies view on marriage and cohabitation has been changing, especially from the 1950s up until now. Marriage and cohabitation are in relation to social location, education, immigration and social class. In addition, these changes are influenced through socialization and their surrounding environments as people’s beliefs and expectations vary from what a defined family really is. Same-sex couples are now getting married and the divorce rate is on the rise, including non-married couples raising children. Most importantly, each individual determines who they marry or whom they share their love with through conditioning or in the course of shared similarities. People have dissimilar values, beliefs and attitudes and throughout the life course may change again, including the future generations. This paper reviews why marriage is on the decline and cohabitation is now the accepted social norm, including other aspects such as specific rights that couples have over others in the past. Religion is a powerful tool that alters minds of those who are affiliated with it. As a result, their beliefs are conditioned and marriage is valued differently than those who are not married. All in all this paper will further explain the change, continuity and
Online dating is not a recent phenomenon. Ever since the internet became widespread, it has improved and expanded the scope of human communication and this lead to the ability to selectively connect to people near and far for specific purposes. Online Dating, and it’s outlets, have become an arguably effective tool in finding viable partners for romantic relationships. The activity is so widespread that, in 2015 according to Rosette Pambakian, each day, there were at least 1.5 billion ratings on Tinder alone, which resulted in more than 22 million matches worldwide in the span of 24 hours (Loresco, 2015). Considering the nature