Research Update
I am starting to eliminate states. I decided to not place the wolf population in CA because the single county they would have available is relativity small, and because there are not surrounding areas they could gather resources, they would have many interactions with people. These interactions could pose a threat to people. I also decided not to place a new population in ID, MT, MN, WY, OR or WI. These states already have a current wolf population, and the public may not like additional wolves in the area. Plus, too many predator species contained to one area would drastically effect hunting, which would also affect that stakeholder group.
For now, although there were wolves reintroduced to NM, I will keep the counties that I could place the population because it is far away.
The states I will look at more closely will be ND, SD, NB, CO, KS, OK, NM, and TX.
For now, although there were wolves reintroduced to NM, I will keep the counties that I could place the population because it is far away.
The states I will look at more closely will be ND, SD, NB, CO, KS, OK, NM, and TX.
I think it is a good idea for you to narrow your research because it will allow you to focus in on your analysis of these specific places. I did something similar with my project. I originally wanted to look at asthma and ozone throughout the entire state, but dealing with that much data can be overwhelming, and making your data set smaller will still allow you to achieve the goals you have set out for yourself.
ReplyDeleteI think its a good idea to narrow down your states for this project, you can always add states later!!
ReplyDelete