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...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

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.

[Rez]

Originally Posted by mburbank

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]

Originally Posted by Helm

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...]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.