I chose to analyze the article written by Ike C. Sugg, “The Endangered Species Act Must Be Reformed.” Just by reading the title it is obvious that Mr. Sugg is against the Endangered Species Act and what it stands for. Throughout his argument he gives multiple examples showing how the ESA has punished us as human and failed to protect those species that are supposedly protected by the act. Mr. Sugg makes use of different emotional appeals to try and persuade his reader to his view. He tries to make us feel sorry for those who were wronged by they Interior Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), but doesn’t stop there. Once he has us feeling sorry for what happened, he turns our emotions against the FWS. He attempts to persuade us to his view by portraying the FWS as the bad guys who wronged these people in many different ways. He uses this moral issue to aid him in his goal; persuading us that the ESA should be repealed or at the very least, reformed.
Mr. Sugg starts by comparing the U.S. environmental establishment to the “kings, queens, feudal lords, and dictators” who, “used to decide who, if anyone, could use which resources, for what purpose, at what price, and to what extent.” He explains that those kings of the past determined everything. They had complete control over everything within the bounds of their kingdom. They could control what people did what resources they use. He states that the U.S. environmental establishment is now trying to do that exact same thing. They are turning in to their monarchial ancestors sharing their same view and desiring that same power for complete control. He blames them for wanting to control the citizens of the United States and what they do with their land. He is against this, because that is the exact opposite of the values by which this country was established. People emigrated here to escape that kind of rule. He blames this want for complete control for the rebellious nature of the farmers and ranchers who are against the ESA.
He then goes into different situations in which different farmers were punished for using their own private land. The FWS came in and fined and punished these landowners for supposedly invading on the land of endangered species. Not only were these landowners fined, but also they were forced to discontinue any use of their lands for agricultural use. These land owners suffered huge economic losses as well as being fined as result of the banned use of their land.
Mr. Sugg uses these two different approaches to attack the same thing: our emotions. In the part where he relates the government to the monarchs of the past, he tries to get at our resent to those who try to exercise complete control over us. No one likes to be bossed around and told what to do. He then tries to make us feel sympathy for those people who suffered do to those restrictions placed by the FWS. I feel he was extremely successful in the emotional attack. The stories may be completely biased but the average ready wouldn’t know any different and would mostly likely side with the farmers who were punished. I sided with them after reading the stories and want to get revenge on the FWS and I wasn’t even the one that they punished.
Mr. Sugg for the most part is very effective in the way in which he presents his argument. He is easily able to reach our different emotions to persuade us to see the ESA from his point of view. Though there are some inefficiencies, such as not defining what a success of the ESA would be or what it means for a species to recover, his article was fairly well written and efficient in trying to turn us against the ESA.
