Paying landowner easements to restrict development on their property is another way to protect habitats (Terris). However, it is still feared that these measures may be inadequate. The most popular solution appears to be controlling growth development to lessen the impact of future urbanization. This means making better use of already developed areas, and providing mixed land uses (Terris). Environmentalists agree that strategic planning is the best solution to help curb further destruction in the future. Human Rights, not Animal Rights

Numerous wildlife encounters where animals appear in suburban areas make the news headlines at an increasing rate. This would appear to be good, as it indicates that animals are adapting to their human neighbors, and that they are thriving despite the invasion. However, wild animals in the burbs pose a hazard in terms of automobile collisions with deer, and even human deaths by bear attacks (Shaw). Not everyone agrees that humans are the invader, or that wildlife is being threatened by urban sprawl. They cite the number of incidences of animal-human encounters as support for their argument.

Natural reforestation due to a decline in farming, particularly cotton production is creating a documented natural reforestation of the eastern United States (Shaw). When farms are abandoned, forests quickly retake the area, increasing habitat, and thus the number of animals in the area. Over a 100-year span beginning in the 1880s, the amount of forested land in New Hampshire increased 36% (Shaw). This is referred to as the re-greening of America (Shaw).

The counter argument to habitat destruction by suburban expansion is that it creates habitat, such as...

It is argued that these habitats are different, but friendly to wildlife (Shaw). The comeback of the key deer due to increased "friendly" urban habitat is sited as an example of this phenomenon. Now the problem seems to be deer overabundance, rather than species decline (Shaw).
Some scientists hypothesize that deer can survive in suburban environments better than they can in urban ones. The reason may be that dark forests do no allow the light to allow for undergrowth and vegetation necessary for the deer's survival (Shaw). A number of wildlife thrive in suburban niches, such as red-tailed hawks, robins, crows, opossums, chipmunks, rabbits, and many others (Shaw). However, the new population is much less diverse than the one that was once there, even supporters of development must admit that this factor exists (Shaw). Supporters of suburban development claim that humans and animals can live together in suburban environments are little detriment to either (Shaw).

Opinions on the dangers of urban sprawl depend on to whom one talks. One side feels that it is a tremendous problem that will lead to a heavy loss of our natural resources. Others feel that the problem is not as bad as environmentalists claim. Both sides have evidence to back their positions and cite population studies of animals as evidence. However, with so much conflicting information and so many different conclusions, it is difficult to decide which side is correct. What is clear is that the problem needs more research before a definitive answer can be reached. Studies need to be conducted based on actual losses and gains, rather than conjecture and theory. Impartial impact studies are the only way to know the real truth behind the affect of human urbanization on wildlife. Until this can be done, both sides continue to have a compelling argument and only the animals know who is really right on this issue.

Works Cited

Shaw, Jane. Nature in the Suburbs. (SMG 261-65) http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/BG1724.cfm (Accessed November 4, 2008).

Terris, Jutka. Unwelcome (Human) Neighbors: The Impacts of Sprawl on Wildlife. (SMG 256- 61) http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartGrowth/pwild.asp (Accessed November 4, 2008).