Killing endangered species will save them.

[mburbank]

White House eyes change in endangered animals policy
Proponents claim move will help poor countries and their rare species
By Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries.

Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitats.

This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the endangered straight-horned markhor in Pakistan; license the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina; permit the capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S. circuses and zoos; and partially resume the international trade in African ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected.

Conservation groups counter that killing or capturing even a few animals is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, and say the policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal exploitation. "It's a very dangerous precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is in the best interest of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group for endangered species.

The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that deviates radically from the course followed by Republican and Democratic administrations since President Nixon signed the act in 1973. The law established broad protection for endangered species, most of which are not native to America, and effectively prohibited trade in them.

[kellychaos]

I can't speak for this particular program as the dynamics are quite different but here in Michigan they allow for extended deer hunting seasons in certain areas to cut down not only on the vehicular accidents but also to limit the competition amongst an already starving deer population. It sounds odd but as long as they stick to hunting the older deer as prescribed, it actually makes for a younger, more robust and healthier deer population.

[The One and Only...]

Sounds like a good thing.

I am opposed to any regulation of the hunting of any animals, save in certain areas (obviously, no squirrel season in New York City).

I do not care about animals, save that I enjoy eating them. Squirrel is rather good, actually.

[mburbank]

Kelly, the big difference here would be wildly overpopulated species (deer) due to extermination of all their natural predators except for us. SO of course it means we are left to weed them.

Endangered species? Not so much weeding called for.

And one and only, are you being stupid again?

[sspadowsky]

Why Max, I'm surprised at you! This initiative makes just as much sense as the one that will promote healthy forests by cutting down trees, and the one that will clean up the air by allowing more pollution! Have you no faith in our leadership? Goddamn liberal.

[mburbank]

I guess I have no faith based inititiative.

I'm waiting for anti-discrmination that will protect the rights of minority groups by rounding them up into centralized protection camps.

[The One and Only...]

And one and only, are you being stupid again?

No.

The only possible incentive I see for keeping the animal laws is scientific research. Of course, repealing such laws would make scientific reacher quicker: medical companies would release scientists to run abound trying to catch these creatures before they were killed off so they could conduct their studies. If this didn't happen, it never would, making it a moot point.

Plus, most land owned by hunting groups or individuals would not be hunted on 24/7. Hunters, believe it or not, do care about nature's other creatures; if the land were owned by individuals, only they could hunt on it, and if the land were owned by groups, some sort of consensus about when, how, and what to hunt would be reached.

If if they didn't, it would just make industrialization of the entire planet that much faster. *insert evil capatilist laugh*

Then again, I don't hold some kind of illusion that the repealing of these laws would help protect the animals.

[kahljorn]

when i read kelly's "Robust" statement I thought we were talking about hair.

[mburbank]

You are being stupid.

First, the greater the diversity the more stable the ecosystem. That's not theoretical.

Second, if you can't see the aesthetic, historical, moral importance of tigers, asian elephants, bald eagles, wolves, friggin snail darters, then God or nature left a piece out of your heart, brain or soul.

Third, you're only being stupid to provoke me.

Fourth, in what way would your stance argue against people hunting each other for sport or profit?

fifth, I'm sorry, I just can't give any credence to you actually being this stupid as opposed to layering on idiocies that at this moment in your life you think of as in some way lgiving you the personlity most people your age aquire getting a tattoo or a really keen jacket.

[Jeanette X]

Oh boy, yet another reason to hate Bush. >:
Like I fucking needed one. :explode

[Rez]

You are being stupid.



Second, if you can't see the aesthetic, historical, moral importance of tigers, asian elephants, bald eagles, wolves, friggin snail darters, then God or nature left a piece out of your heart, brain or soul.

.

you beat me to it.

[The_Rorschach]

Burby baby, I'm with you on this one. I sometimes think Conservatives just have a kneejerk reaction against anything which sounds like a vaguely Liberal concern. . .Like SUVs.

What possible defense is there for them?

[Helm]

Second, if you can't see the aesthetic, historical, moral importance of tigers, asian elephants, bald eagles, wolves, friggin snail darters, then God or nature left a piece out of your heart, brain or soul.


There's no moral importance in a tiger. Scientific, historical or aesthetic sure, but there's no moral importance there. At least I think so. If you mean the morality that deals with how a society is called to treat a tiger, maybe, but you were not clear.

[mburbank]

That's exactly what I mean.

[kellychaos]

There's no moral importance in a tiger. Scientific, historical or aesthetic sure, but there's no moral importance there. At least I think so. If you mean the morality that deals with how a society is called to treat a tiger, maybe, but you were not clear.

How about morality in the sense that we should consider ourselves the custodians of the planets resources because, as far as we know, we're the most intelligent life forms on the planet ... but don't always show it.

[kahljorn]

If this were a perfect plane, the most intelligent life form on a planet would indeed be the Responsible party, like the parental control-- but unfortunately that is not the case. The damage done to the ecosystem is not the animals fault, nor is the needless extinction. Although some is inherently natural do to the natural whims of fate or whatever you may call it, most of the current dwindling population is attributed to us. The parent. We have molested and beaten our starving child.
So we are at best an irresponsible parent, and at worst children ourselves for we have destroyed without taking responsibility for our actions. Gotta rebuild your lego sets.

[kellychaos]

Oh well. The world's going to go on whether we're here or not. Some people don't know that. My money for the next dominant life form is bacteria. You have to start somewhere after we screw things up.

[kahljorn]

Bacteria was already technically the dominant life form, and in many senses it still is.

[The One and Only...]

First, the greater the diversity the more stable the ecosystem. That's not theoretical.

Your point being what? All we really need are domesticated animals and green plants.

Course, the rate in the amount of vermin, insects, etc. would rise, but then again technology is already coming up with ways to get rid of them. Plus, I don't think you will see many more snakes, etc. or even game animals killed than before.

Second, if you can't see the aesthetic, historical, moral importance of tigers, asian elephants, bald eagles, wolves, friggin snail darters, then God or nature left a piece out of your heart, brain or soul.

Probably, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Third, you're only being stupid to provoke me.

If that is true, then it worked.

Fourth, in what way would your stance argue against people hunting each other for sport or profit?

If you consider humans and animals to have the same level of importance, then you are mistaken.

I would not complain if those being shot were willing, but to do otherwise would not only be immoral but not very practical. If the world were full of murderers and vigilantes, we would live in chaos. The government would most certainly be overthrown. Private property rights would not be protected. The only benefit I see is a reduction in population.

fifth, I'm sorry, I just can't give any credence to you actually being this stupid as opposed to layering on idiocies that at this moment in your life you think of as in some way lgiving you the personlity most people your age aquire getting a tattoo or a really keen jacket.

I'm not sure I followed that, but I'm guessing what you said was that I only think this way because of my youth?

[glowbelly]

this doesn't make any sense to me.

the only solution i see is to send the people who are backing this out to the habitat where these animals live so they can take them out themselves. the catch? no firearms. survival of the fittest. let's see who would win.

[Big Papa Goat]

People have been killing animals before firearms. Opposable thumbs+Convoluted frontal lobe = Fittest

[The One and Only...]

this doesn't make any sense to me.

the only solution i see is to send the people who are backing this out to the habitat where these animals live so they can take them out themselves. the catch? no firearms. survival of the fittest. let's see who would win.

Mental ability and a system of trade are part of human nature, thus fitting in the "survival of the fittest". As widespread firearms resulted from this, they should be allowed.

[kahljorn]

Large claws+sharp teeth=holes in your neck

[FS]

There would be a whole less surviving going on if you'd have to get up close and personal with all the delicious animals, rather than pick them off from 50 feet.

[Mike P]

I'm okay with people hunting for food and stuff, but if we just let rich guys go after tigers with shotguns for thier skin, what would be done with the rest of the animal?

I'm also sure there would be a regulation on how many tigers coudl be brought over to die as well, so that some would be left in their native habitats... and I know this has to do with more than tigers, just to clarify.

[mburbank]

One and the Same; you're only showing your ignorance regarding ecology. The wider the base, the more stable the system. Not farm animals, as many different animals as possible. Not one strain of goats, as many strains as possible. Not green plants, as many different strains of green plants as possible. Smaller sytems are weaker systems, vulnerable to damage in all sorts of ways. Your faith in technologies ability to keep pace is charming, but faith in God to rescue you would make more sense, since religous faith requires only faith, and quite sensibly needs to physical evidence.

I don't think your viewpoint is due to your youth, I think your degree of faith in the workings of your own brain is due to your youth. You think you've stumbled on some sort of iconoclastic realism when in fact your only wading through the same swamp a gajillion other half way bright college kids have waded through before. It's all very daring I'm sure. It's also self centered, overly proud, glib and absurd. Any scientist worth their salt would tell you we have only scratched the surface of understanding eco systems, how they work, and their effects on and relationship to our own survival. Proceed with caution. Even if you don't give a shit about beauty, wonder, the rights of other species or any of that other vaguley sugary happy crappy, you don't need to be a dunce. We're messing with things we have a very poor understanding of and every day we reduce our chances of understanding any more.

[Jeanette X]

:love Max! :worship
http://www.dougsdiving.com/image/baby%20otter%201.jpg
The otter pup thanks you on behalf of animals everywhere for articulating that so well. :)

[The One and Only...]

You seem to forget something. I don't care about the ecosystem.

I only care about the human race.

I would love to see your opinions backed up by scientific claims. If we can eliminate every undesirable species, keep some for food, and keep plants so as to maintain producers, the ecosystem would be perfectly fine - aside from the fact the the majority of earth would be industrialized.

You do realize that it is not so far off that we will need the earth at all, right? Soon (if not now), we won't even need soil to keep plants.

That is not some college kid's claim, that is just common sense. Even you must realize that, considering our population growth, we will need to leave this planet or go to sea after another century or so.

[Jeanette X]

I would love to see your opinions backed up by scientific claims. If we can eliminate every undesirable species, keep some for food, and keep plants so as to maintain producers, the ecosystem would be perfectly fine - aside from the fact the the majority of earth would be industrialized.
So who is going to decide which species are "desirable" or not? You?
I also can't believe I have to actually prove something so fundamental as the importance of biodiversity to you. It is appalling that you have no idea why people emphasize it so much.
I suppose that this would be good place for you to start: http://www.fathom.com/special/biodiversity/

[kellychaos]

I would love to see your opinions backed up by scientific claims. If we can eliminate every undesirable species, keep some for food, and keep plants so as to maintain producers, the ecosystem would be perfectly fine - aside from the fact the the majority of earth would be industrialized.
.

Briefly. Animals expel carbon dioxide and plants use this. Plants expel oxygen and animals use this. Too much of either in the atmosphere in which we live is equally deadly to both life forms. It's a delicate balance that we, as intelligent beings, are basically screwing up. While it's true that, regardless of whether we're here or not that life on earth will go on, I'd rather not have the status quo turned upside down by our own stupidity.

[The One and Only...]

You must realize, kelly, that this planet must already be tipped in favor of carbon dioxide. Between pollution, a much higher population of animals on earth, and a much lower population of plants, this planet has to get rid of carbon producers.

Would it not, therefore, be logical to kill off as many creatures as possible?

Species that are undesirable are species that cannot be used as food, etc.

[FS]

I'm okay with people hunting for food and stuff, but if we just let rich guys go after tigers with shotguns for thier skin, what would be done with the rest of the animal?.

Well, their penises would probably be ground up for jungle-viagra.

[kellychaos]

You must realize, kelly, that this planet must already be tipped in favor of carbon dioxide. Between pollution, a much higher population of animals on earth, and a much lower population of plants, this planet has to get rid of carbon producers.

Would it not, therefore, be logical to kill off as many creatures as possible?

Too much oxygen is not excactly ideal either.

[The One and Only...]

Too much oxygen is not excactly ideal either.

But if too much oxygen comes as a result, we can bring back laws similar to those repealed.

And before you judge all libertarians to think like I do, read this. (http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html)

[Mike P]

Well, their penises would probably be ground up for jungle-viagra.

That still leaves the rest of the tiger-meat. I vote we send it to the starving people. They'll enjoy it.

[Zhukov]

Read this again.
We're messing with things we have a very poor understanding of and every day we reduce our chances of understanding any more.

Let's say you want to keep domesticated animals alive and kill off everything else on the planet, what happens when an unknown organism/virus/whatever (that was kept in check by some late species) is released upon your livestock, wiping out every single species you decided to keep?

[VinceZeb]

OAO, do you think Max is going to back up any of his idiotic liberal ranting with facts? Man, you must be on drugs.

[The One and Only...]

Read this again.
We're messing with things we have a very poor understanding of and every day we reduce our chances of understanding any more.

Let's say you want to keep domesticated animals alive and kill off everything else on the planet, what happens when an unknown organism/virus/whatever (that was kept in check by some late species) is released upon your livestock, wiping out every single species you decided to keep?

Quarantine.

You have to remember that if it is some unknown organism, it is not being kept in check by endangered species. They have too small a population.

[Emu]

Ah, the joys of living in a fragile ecosystem with a bunch of nuts who wouldn't mind it being thrown into chaos.

[mburbank]

One and the Same; I may take the time to provide you with resources when I'm back at work, but you're obviously already convinced. In brief, you need large and diverse numbers of plant and animal species becuase any single strain can be wiped out by disease. See Potato famine. This is why over engineering plant strains is dangerous. You only grow one strain of rice or wheat and it can be comletely decimated by a single blight.

Point two. As animals, we are part of the ecosystem.

Point three. Are you suggesting space migration in the near future? Boob. That's like sitting in a sinking ship and not bothering to plug the hole because you figure a biological mutation will probably cause you to sprout wings pretty soon.

Point four. See Vinth backing you up? Do you need further proof you've strayed into the idiot zone?

[blackheart]

You seem to forget something. I don't care about the ecosystem.

I only care about the human race.

I would love to see your opinions backed up by scientific claims. If we can eliminate every undesirable species, keep some for food, and keep plants so as to maintain producers, the ecosystem would be perfectly fine - aside from the fact the the majority of earth would be industrialized.


Somebody needs to take a good course in Biology. No, make that two.

If you only care about the "human race," then why don't you transport yourself & your "desirable species" into a little bubble, away from all this "environment" and "ecosystem" stuff (who needs that eco-crap anyways?). Surely you could survive without it...

Wrong.

Everything is connected. Every single bacterium, bird, tiger, plant, virus, ocean, rock, grass, everything correlates with the other. How did you think we got this far without it? The Earth has been around far longer than humans have; it is its own self-sustaining system. Now, with the arrival of humans and the industrial age, are we really having a problem with the balance of the Earth.

Even insignificant thing (to you) are significant. Bacteria are the basis of the food chain. And, they create 1/2 of the world's oxygen.

80-90% of insects are decomposers, pollinators, or food.

Without the enviroment, we have no economy. Take this for example: a lot of our products come from wood. Wood comes from trees. Trees live in forests. Animals, plants, and insects existing in a healthy forest work together. Water and nutients help build the trees, while organisms living in the soil keep it rich in bio-matter. Fungi (such as microcorrizhal fungus) living in the soil help decompose detritus, and also protect trees from disease. In addition they feed off the tree's sugars, so the relationship is mutual.

You could say we can make a tree farm then. Wrong again. Tree farms are far too "clean" to ever replace a healthy forest. Also, a healthy forest needs layers of different sized trees, because they also provide shelter for animals. Another example, when the ground has dead trees, known as nurse logs, it helps put nutrients back into the soil, a source of energy. Animals consume this energy, and then we consume the animals--or the energy is recycled back into Earth. Either way, it is a win-win situation.

We mustn't forget the food web. If one key species is ruled out then the whole food web could crumble, or cause disease and famine, or cause overpopulation/underpopulation. How do we know what the key species is? It could be anything from a gnat to a rabbit. It is not up to us to pick & choose what species lives and what species dies.

Disrupting nature's natural cycles affects everything: carnivores, herbivores, decomposers and composers alike. And, most importantly to you--US. A damaged Earth is a damaged Economy.

What we must do is maintain riparian zones/watersheds, keep a forest rich and diverse in life, and log selectively. Species will thrive, and that way "endangered" may become something of the past. But with humans taking over the Earth like a disease, the future for the health of Earth is grim. It's people's ignorance like yours that contribute to its demise. Get your facts straight and pull your head out of your ass. Thank you. *mic click*

[The One and Only...]

Okay Dean, but you should realize that my posts WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HUMOROUS.

Please read the thread title called FOR ALL YOU ENVIRONMENTALISTS for more.

[kahljorn]

I agree with The One and Only


We should all live under the sea!

Under the seaaaaa

[kellychaos]

Where'd all the funny go? :/

[Mike P]

Where'd all the funny go? :/

:newbie :troutslap :lol2 :maul :lurker :hangman

I have no idea if those are funny, disturbing, annoying, or some combination of the three...

[kellychaos]

They're mostly ... NO!

[Mike P]

Thought so.