Wolves- Friend or Foe?

By Emily T

In the early 1900s, the wolf population declined throughout the United States, including areas of Montana, due to loss of habitat and extermination by humans. Wolves were once even hunted in the national parks. They were viewed as a pests because they were a major threat to livestock and a vicious predator. However, as most people know now, the extermination of any species due to human interaction is extremely harmful to an ecosystem, as it also changes other species within that ecosystem.

However, when the major extermination of wolves was taking place, the idea of an endangered species was not very relevant at the time. It was not until 1973, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared the northern Rocky Mountain wolf as an endangered species. Yellowstone National Park was then designated as a place where the wolf population could recover. From 1995 to 1997, 41 wolves from Canada and northern Montana were released into the park. Since then, the population within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has risen to about 500. The following link is to a video by National Geographic explains how the wolf has positively affected the ecosystem at Yellowstone:

http://education.nationalgeographic.org/media/wolves-yellowstone/

While in many ways it is viewed positively that the wolf population is going up, many of the reasons that people used to hunt wolves for remain. While there may be no harm to wolves on territory owned by the National Park Service, wolves naturally stray from this land.

The problem arises with the people living outside of Yellowstone. There are a number of ranchers trying to raise livestock just on the outskirts of the park. Many of these ranchers are living on land that their family has owned for generations, and they depend on their livestock for their living. Wolves attack the livestock these people raise. Many ranchers believe that they have the right to protect their livestock from wolves by killing the wolves. The following link is to a video which displays a few different perspectives on the wolves in Montana, including a rancher’s perspective:

https://vimeo.com/36581236

The sad reality of all of this is that both groups are advocating for justly causes. We need to take care of our wildlife and maintain an ecosystem, but ranchers and farmers need to protect their livestock and living. With the wolf population increasing in other areas of the United States and moving to different areas, including the lower peninsula of Michigan, ranchers and those advocating for protection of the wolves will continue to debate over the issue.

Work Cited:

Schwier, Alexandra. "Searching for Middle Ground: Montana's Wolf Controversy." Vimeo. N.p., 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

United States. National Park Service. "Wolves in Yellowstone." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 11 Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

"Wolf Reintroduction Changes Ecosystem." Yellowstone Park. N.p., 21 June 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

"Wolves in Michigan." DNR. State of Michigan, 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

"Wolves of Yellowstone." National Geographic Education. N.p., 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

Images:

"BLOG." RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

United States. National Park Service. "Wolves in Yellowstone." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 11 Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

The Traumatic Experiences Guide

By Janae S.

         A traumatic experience in difficult situations becomes a traumatic event when it is a sudden, extreme, and a fearful experience. Traumatic experiences causes emotions or psychological trauma that may be difficult to cope with and can result in many other psychological disorders. People who have suffered  traumatic experience such as abuse, being in an explosion, a terrible week, or maybe even a war may show signs of post traumatic stress disorders and many more causes.

        Unfortunately when bad things happen, the mind sometimes naturally takes a while to get over the emotional pain that is dealing with a traumatic experience. It could take weeks or even months before the individual feels safe again, but the pain may take many years to go away. Depending on the severity of the traumatic experience, the age of the individual and dealing with the situation may take various types of treatment may be offered in order to help an individual to recover from the emotional and psychological trauma associated with traumatic experiences.

       For example a child that may suffer from a traumatic experiences is likely to have a long lasting effect emotionally and psychologically. Certain traumatic events such as being abused physically or sexually can cause changes in the child’s life that can sometimes last into their adulthood. Children who have unstable living shelter or who live in an unsafe environment, may have serious emotional and psychological damage. Childhood trauma that is left unresolved can carry into adulthood and may even cause trauma as an adult

      

       People who go through traumatic experiences often have symptoms and problems afterwards. Knowing that some trauma survivors are not familiar with how trauma affects them, they have trouble understanding what is happening to them as well. They may think the trauma is their fault, they are going crazy, or something is wrong with them. Survivors may turn to drugs or alcohol to make themselves feel better. They may even turn away from friends and family who don't seem to understand or know what to do to get better. 

       There are treatments available for those who have suffered from a traumatic experiences. Apart of the healing process from trauma their could be a long term process involving being faced with feelings and memories that the  survivor may want to forget about. One type of treatment that may be involved is therapy. This treatment in particular helps treat emotional and psychological trauma. Also therapy maybe used to help an individual who has suffered traumatic experiences to cope with the pain. 

Sources:

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/ptsd-trauma/emotional-and-psychological-trauma.htmhttp://www.psychguides.com/guides/trauma-symptoms-causes-and-effects/

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/copingafteratraumaticevent.aspx

Images:

13638.jpg

therapy-session-treatment-trauma.jpg

Grain fed vs Grass Fed Beef

Abbie W.

In today’s world it seems everyone is looking for a new way to eat healthy. From using Pinterest to try numerous new workout challenges to drinking soy milk versus your typical dairy milk. One question that arises is; whether grass fed beef is healthier for you than grain fed ground beef? Grass fed would be cattle that are entirely raised on forages and water. While grain fed cattle are fed forages along with concentrated mix rations. People automatically assume grass fed is better for you because it doesn’t have antibiotics or hormones in it or the extra fat from grain. The real accuracy is there are no antibiotics in any meat as USDA guidelines prohibit antibiotics in any animal product that is sold (this is another discussion though). There is really only one real study out there that has proven whether or not grass fed is better for you than grain fed. This study was done by the Texas A&M department of Animal Science who compared the cattle to risk factors for cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes.

The study proved that grain fed cattle were in fact not healthier for you than those fed grain. Much of Americans consume a high amount of their total beef intake through ground beef. This particular cut of beef is higher in fat than many other cuts but at the same time has the most health benefits in terms of fatty acids you need in your diet. Grass fed beef has three times the amount of Omega-3 fatty acids than that of grain fed beef. Omega-3 is a very important fat to your diet as it has many health benefits. Omega-3s have been shown to lower blood fats that cause heart disease. To continue, it can improve mental skills in children who have ADHD. However, one downfall of this is that it is higher in saturated fats along with trans fat. Trans fat has no benefits to your body, it is the unhealthiest ingredient you can have in your diet. Saturated fat is right behind that with the fact it is the biggest cause of high blood cholesterol and can lead to heart disease and stroke. Saturated fat is different in the fact it may not actually hold as much medical issues for those who are active and regularly eat healthy.

Ground beef from grain fed cattle was found to have significantly lower saturated and trans far. Where is higher in oleic acid. Oleic acid, other wise known as Omega-9, preserves the food and is often found naturally in avocados, olive oil, beef tallow or lard. Omega-9 is beneficial to those that have been diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes, in relation to controlling the disease. Oleic acid is often used in bakery products or for skin cream and soap. It is great for helping prepared food remain safe for consumption. In conclusion, when it comes to choosing between grass-fed and grain- fed beef, the question should not be which is the healthiest but what health benefits you are looking for.

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-ground-beef-no-difference-healthfulness

http://www.acaloriecounter.com/diet/saturated-fat-trans-fat/

http://www.livestrong.com/article/438717-what-is-oleic-acid/

Pictures:

http://hallhall.com/blog/the-booming-industry-of-grass-fed-beef/

Prompt 7: Organic vs. Non-Organic

By Micalah Blohm

One of the newest controversies in agriculture is a predicament between organic and non-organic foods.  For a long time now, we've heard that choosing an organic life style is a "commitment to healthy eating", however recent studies show that going organic might not be a commitment to anything at all.

The label "organic" refers to the way agricultural products are grown and processed, where certain requirements must be met in order to withhold organic standards. These organic crops are carefully grown in safe soil, where no modifications are made, and they are kept separated from conventional products. They are free of synthetic pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, as well as GMOs.

Society has been told of numerous health benefits that come with these organic products, and for years, this has not been questioned. People have spent big bucks on these "high-end" foods, for benefits like fewer pesticides, fresher products, more nutrient dense foods, and much more. Newer studies have shown these benefits to possibly be misleading, with the potential that organic food products actually hold no added benefits at all.

Rebuttal on the idea of healthier living through organic products has been introduced into the agricultural community. Scientists have found that pesticides can find their way into even organic products through a process called pesticide drift. Pesticides have been found to be blown by wind, carried around on clothing, and seeping into the groundwater. These pesticides cause serious health problems and even birth defects. Along with this, professionals have found that organic foods hold no strong evidence towards being more nutritious.

As we've all been told, there are two sides to every story. The controversy on organic vs non-organic foods have proven to be no different. However, only science and time may be able to show which side of this concerning fight holds the truth.

http://www.healerslibrary.com/news/articles/good-vibrations-muscle-testing-organic-nonorganic-tomatoes/

http://www.alternet.org/food/whoa-organic-food-no-healthier-non-organic-controversy-erupts-over-study

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.html

Fleming’s VARK Model

By Janae S.

        The acronym VARK stands for Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic models that are used for learning information. Fleming and Mills in 1992 suggested four models. Although there is some overlap between the four models but they all have different meanings behind them.

The Four Models:

1.Visual Learners: Visual learning is a teaching and learning style were ideas, concepts, data, and other information are associated with images and techniques. By using images students are able to focus more on the meaning, reorganize and group ideas easily to make better use of their visual memory.

2.Auditory Learning: Auditory learning is a learning style that students more effectively by listening to information delivered orally, lectures, speeches, and oral sessions. To help auditory learners with their memory they tend to use the phrases “sounds good to

me,” and “it’s starting to ring a bell.” Also when they are describing memories they will often focus on the sounds they hear, or what people are saying.

3. Linguistics Learners:A linguistic Learner is somebody who has greatly developed skills for reading, speaking, writing and tends to think in words. They are very particular in expressing themselves and can get irritated when others do not.

4.Kinesthetic Learner:Kinesthetic learning is a learning style that is exploratory by default.Which means students love to explore and understand things by participating and interacting with things around them. Kinesthetic learning is a teaching and learning style were learning takes place when the student carrying out a physically activity.

This model in particular examines how the human mind processes different information. Many students immediately recognize that they are drawn to a particular learning style after evaluating themselves. Others may find that the learning preferences lie somewhere in the middle.

Sources:

http://vark-learn.com/introduction-to-vark/the-vark-modalities/

http://psychology.about.com/od/educationalpsychology/a/vark-learning-styles.htm

Images:

learning_styles_and_communication_450.png

Creating S.M.A.R.T Goals For The Youth

By Janae S.

S.M.A.R.T goals begin with the premise of filling an unmet need/want. The unmet need/want is not as easy as it may sound.Typically the unmet need is the motivation of what they want.

 A S.M.ART goal setting brings structure and track-ability into your goals and objectives.

Specific

Measurable 

Action orientated

Realistic

Timely 

Specific

-A specific goal has a better greater chance of being accomplished than just a general goal. In order to set a specific goal you must answer the five questions the Who, When, Where, How.

Measurable

-Measurable goals mean that you identify exactly what it is you will see, hear and feel when you reach your goal. When you are measuring your progress it's important that you stay on track, reach your target, and continue the effort required to reach your goal.

Action orientated 

-When you identify goals that are the most important to you, then you begin to figure out different ways on how you can make them come true. It also means investigating whether the goal is really acceptable to you.

Realistic

-To be realistic, a goal must represent an objective toward which you and your youth are willing and able to work on. Your goal is probably realistic if you truly believe that it can be accomplished.

Timely

-A goal should be completed within a time frame. With no time frame tied to it there’s no sense of urgency.

Here’s an example:

Your youth is interested in photography and makeup, their S.M.A.R.T goal would be:

S-Get my youth set up in a photography program or find him/her a camera to take pictures with 

M-Each week my youth would take a picture of things that may catch their attention 

A-Have them begin taking 2 pictures each week

R-Create a photo album of all the pictures my youth has taken over the past 18 weeks.

T-Make sure you can take enough pictures to fill up the photo album within the 18 weeks time frame.

Sources:

http://www.yourcoach.be/en/coaching-tools/smart-goal-setting.php

http://topachievement.com/smart.html

Images:
smart-goals.jpg

Conservation and Preservation-is there a difference?

By Emily T

Two very important ideas in the field of sustainability are conservation and preservation. While these words may sound like the same thing to most people, they actually have two different meanings. While both very important and necessary, there has been much debate between conservationists and preservationist, and how to find a balance between the two for the sake of the environment.

Conservation has more to deal with using natural resources, but at a sustainable rate.

The Dictionary.com definition of conservation is:

The careful utilization of natural resources in order to prevent depletion.

A famous conservationist is Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the United States Forest Service from 1905-1910. Since then, the U.S. Forest Service has been growing trees and protecting forests for the uses of recreation, hunting, the lumber industry, and many more. Today, they protect 154 forests. Their goal is to maintain trees and forests, but still take advantage of the resources they provide us at a sustainable rate. Conservation covers more of what would be considered a practical use of natural resources, focusing on the instrumental value of nature.

Preservation has to do with leaving the natural world completely untouched by humans.

The Dictionary.com definitions of preservation are:

)to keep up; maintain

)to maintain or reserve

An example of a preservationist is John Muir. Muir found a spiritual connection to nature. He was one of America’s first naturalists. In 1892 he formed the Sierra Club, which was a group that went on to establish and promote America’s National Parks. The National Parks Service is a solid example of preservation, because the entire goal of these parks is to leave the areas as they always have been, as if they are untouched. All wildlife and natural elements of the areas within these parks is entirely protected. Activities like hiking are allowed, but activities like cutting down trees, hunting, and anything destructive are strictly prohibited. Preservation focuses more on the intrinsic value of nature, and protecting it because it deserves to be protected.

There has been much debate over how to sustain our environment while still taking advantage of the resources that we need to survive. This argument was often between conservationists and preservationists throughout the 20th century. However, some will argue that conservation and preservation are not as different as many think. President Theodore Roosevelt, for example, was good friends with both Gifford Pinchot and John Muir (The photo on the right is Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot and the photo below is Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir) . He promoted both the National Forest Service and the National Parks system. He believed that preservation and conservation were both very important ideas.

What do I think about this debate? While I tend to lean more toward the side of practicality, I truly understand both arguments, and I believe that balance is key. I am glad that we have organizations like the U.S. Forest Service, which protects natural resources that are used. I am also glad that we have the National Park Service, that protects beautiful places throughout the United States and preserves them in their natural state. Gifford Pinchot and John Muir were both very important men in the history of sustainability. Both conservation and preservation are important ideas to sustainability, and it is our responsibility as humans to apply these ideas to the natural world.

Works Cited

Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

"Grey Towers - Home." Grey Towers - Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

"Who Was John Muir?" About. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2016

Photos:

"Gifford Pinchot." Iz Quotes. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

"Inspirational Quotes for Hikers - Dan's Hiking Pages." Inspirational Quotes for Hikers - Dan's Hiking Pages. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

"Who Was John Muir?" About. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.