Monday, October 31, 2011

Bass Pro Shop in Green Bay

Some of you have probably heard about the Bass Pro Shop that was nearly put up in Green Bay. The land that was to be developed was financed by local business men and the project was ready to take off. It was looking great for the city, jobs were going to be made and many of the laid off construction workers were finally going to get to work. There was a problem however. The land that was to be developed was wetland. As soon as Bass Pro Shop found out about the wetland issue the immediately decided against building in Green Bay (1). Governor Walker pushed the development and to fill the wetland to get Bass Pro Shops in Green Bay. Mitigation area was planned to deal with the wetland issuer (2).

So this development was going to increase employment and restore wetlands in other areas. That sounds very good to must people, but that wetland was the home to many species including the leopard frog and the wetland is located near the main highway. The wetland is filter to the run off from the highway, cleaning and preventing any flooding.

Is it ethical to fill the wetland to create jobs or is it unethical to fill the wetland and destroy it natural habitat? I feel that Bass Pro Shops did the right thing by backing out of the development. Wetlands are the earths natural water purifier. Wetlands are  the product of 100 of years of natural development.

1. Johnson, Wes. "Bass Pro Shops rejects wetlands site near Lambeau Field". Springfield, MO Newsletter. greenbaypressgazette.com. http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110128/GPG0101/101280534/Bass-Pro-Shops-rejects-wetlands-site-near-Lambeau-Field

2. "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker wants Bass Pro Shops to build on wetlands" Associated Press. greenbaypressgazette.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110128/GPG0101/110128077/Wisconsin-Gov-Scott-Walker-wants-Bass-Pro-Shops-build-wetlands
Posted by at

13 comments:

  1. Amy YorkNovember 9, 2011 at 7:33 PM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. M

    5. The field of interest on the question is not clearly stated. I'm assuming you are interested in the environment/sustainability area.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tom LewisNovember 16, 2011 at 8:37 AM

    1.M
    2.M
    3.S
    4.M


    5. You have an interesting topic with good sources, but you haven't added anything about both sides of the issue. You also didn't give us your view points on the issue

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sam WilliamsonNovember 16, 2011 at 9:49 PM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    5. You never stated your field of interest. Also, I would have stated the ethical question near the beginning before developing arguments for either side.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Caitlin BruceNovember 23, 2011 at 9:57 AM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    5. I like the comments but you didn't really state your field of interest although it van be deduce from the topic itself. I would also maybe try to develop the pros and cons a bit more and make them clearer. Overall good though very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. forthetreesNovember 28, 2011 at 5:35 PM

    1. Described field of interest and described question posed: M
    2. Both sides of argument were presented: M
    3. Appropriate references were included: S
    4. Defended position is described clearly: S

    5. One Useful comment: More information about wetland mitigation, and I think you could have described both sides of the argument better. Good job explaining the background on the project, and why wetlands are important.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnnDecember 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S
    5. Better develop the arguments for and against the building on wetlands

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kevin OsumDecember 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM

    1.m
    2.m
    3.s
    4.s

    the pros and cons were stated but not explained to a full extent. the background explanation was helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kang Z. VangDecember 7, 2011 at 3:37 PM

    1.M
    2.M
    3.S
    4.S

    5.A suggestion to improve your statement is to elaborate more on both sides of the argument. You did a great job on setting up the background information.

    ReplyDelete
  9. GerrickDecember 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM

    1. W
    2. S
    3. S
    4. W

    The reasons you think Bass Pro Shop pulling out of the development being a good thing could be expanded on to more than two points. Did they build in another location?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Danielle ThuemlingDecember 16, 2011 at 10:54 AM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    Lacking information for both sides of the argument. I feel like you could defend you position more

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don GischDecember 17, 2011 at 1:38 PM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    I thought it could have used some additional details, it seemed sort of short. Other wise it seemed pretty good.

    ReplyDelete
  12. SchwazyDecember 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S
    5. More information could have been added. Could have used more details on each side presented. Good work.

    ReplyDelete
  13. profish87December 19, 2011 at 4:06 AM

    1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    I never saw your field of interest clearly stated. Also I felt that there could have been more information within each side of the argument.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)