The creation of these laws did not stop the decline of the alligator population, specifically in Florida. If anything, the poaching itself continued, it only became illegal. Meaning that the locals who relied on alligator hunting as one of the primary sources of income were forced to break the law in order to fulfill their livelihood. To the Floridians who relied upon this practice for the sustenance of their livelihood, many of whom worked in agriculture or hunting, and were not extremely educated, this series of legislations and bi-laws were seen simply as words on sheets of paper. Therefore, the practice continued illicitly. After the establishment of the Everglades International Park, legal hunting was barred in over 1 million acres of land. This resulted in hunters evolving to practice new techniques, allowing them to blend in seamlessly with the …show more content…
This this is a logical assumption considering the impact twenty to thirty hunters would make as opposed to the impact that a direct shift in the environmental living conditions would make. A shift in living conditions would not only alter habitat and food supply, it would make the alligators more susceptible to hunters. This combination proved to be detrimental to the alligator species of this area. However, while this argument is logical, Ogden is unable to prove her thesis since it nearly impossible to gather the pre-drainage population statistics of the alligator species. This flaw in the work is not a mistake on Ogden's part as it is not her fault that the necessary statistics were not available to her. Nevertheless, it devalued her thesis to an extent as her hypothesis is technically