In the course of human survival, there are trade-offs that are made in order to gain advantage over the elements. Humans as a species historically would hunt animals, use land for #agriculture, and displace local wildlife to make room for settlements. However, as progressions in science and agricultural efficiency flourish, the means of developing new methods of ensuring basic survival shrinks the severe effect on the environment. In the case of South Dakota, contemplating a ban on pesticides that affects wildlife is a sound move, which people should workout to accept. 

The ecology of a specific biome is surprisingly intricate and all animals present in that biome are interconnected. A change in one of the species may result in a domino effect that will also affect other more complex animals in an area. Pesticides are chemicals used in agriculture to limit the population of pests that can damage crops. However, in many cases, pests are not the only ones killed by these chemicals. Small animals that have beneficial parts in the environment are also targeted by these pesticides, which may cause an imbalance. 

There must be a way for everyone to win. While South Dakota may be discussing a ban on one of the most common pesticides in the industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should step up the research on pesticides and offer alternative measures on how to protect crops from pests. The use of pesticides that unintentionally kill small animals in the process should be banned. 

Food is one of the basic necessities in life and it is imperative for any government to ensure that the constant food supply is safe. Farmers must be constantly advised by the FDA on pesticides that may be harmful to health and offered alternatives with incentives to help them make the shift. All animals matter, and so it is an obligation for farmers and the government to provide alternatives to keep crops safe from damage due to rodents and insects.