NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4440820.stm

An outrage. How we can start taking things OFF the endangered list is beyond me. If anything, add more on! Ah well...welcome to Republican-controlled environmental policy. It's isn't as if i'm suprised...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4440820.stm

An outrage. How we can start taking things OFF the endangered list is beyond me. If anything, add more on! Ah well...welcome to Republican-controlled environmental policy. It's isn't as if i'm suprised...

Um.

I believe strongly in the Endangered Species Act and the sentiments behind it.

But the point is to protect animals that are endangered and try to increase the population to the point where they are no longer endangered. If we are successful, then we get to take them off the list. As long as the removal from the list is really based on population statistics and not politics, the removal is a good thing.

Bah.
Animals are a resource. If a species is useless as such, I really don’t care if it's wiped out.

It seems obvious that once a species is no longer endangered, it would no longer be classified as such:confused: I'm not sure what point you're making.

Undelia, you're joking right?

I'd point out that even though the population is ok inside the park, you must remember it isn't doing well pretty much anywhere else.

Bah.
Animals are a resource. If a species is useless as such, I really don’t care if it's wiped out.
Sure, because once we kill off all our 'resources' we can just eat the poor, right?

Bah.
Animals are a resource. If a species is useless as such, I really don’t care if it's wiped out.

I do. I enjoy hunting. I would hate to think that poor management led to a situtation where there was nothing left for me to hunt.

I am a huge supporter of properly managing wildlife populations. I too support the endangered species act.

If a species is useless as such, I really don’t care if it's wiped out.

...and people keep calling my plans to wipe out humanity a waste of time! What nerve.

Sure, because once we kill off all our 'resources' we can just eat the poor, right?

Well at least they would finally be contributing. ;)

NYC: ah. Got it.

That being said, since people are throwing around outrageous statements, I have one of my own.

Only aboriginal people should be allowed to hunt. The rest of you can get your food at the supermarket, where you think it comes from anyway. [/racist rant]

Well at least they would finally be contributing. ;)
BAHHAHAHHAHAAAA:) Only because it's you, is that funny:p

Sure, because once we kill off all our 'resources' we can just eat the poor, right?
Cows are useful because some people enjoy eating beef. They should be kept from extinction, but I don‘t think they‘re in trouble or will be, ever. Bears, though? Why? Whatever happened to natural selection?

I'd poin out that even though the population is ok inside the park, you must remember it isn't doing well pretty much anywhere else.
As much as they sayYellowstone bears, it's the bears outside of the park that will be taken off. Their population is doing well enough for that. The ones inside Yellowstone are in no danger of losing their federal protection status.

Undelia, you're joking right?

I'd point out that even though the population is ok inside the park, you must remember it isn't doing well pretty much anywhere else.

It is only the park population that is being de-listed, right?

And they still have the protection of living inside a national park?

Cows are useful because some people enjoy eating beef. They should be kept from extinction, but I don‘t think they‘re in trouble or will be, ever. Bears, though? Why? Whatever happened to natural selection?
Well, bears happen to be a part of natural selection. They keep other populations down, and create a balance and....ah, but you know all this. You just like rattling chains.

It is only the park population that is being de-listed, right?

And they still have the protection of living inside a national park?

Actually no, I believe that they are going to allow limited hunting in the surrounding states. (Though Wyoming already might have had a limited number of licenses anyway IIRC).

Another potential problem from the delisting could be that it becomes easier for developers to encroach on grizzlie habitat.

I would like to think though that the states themselves will look upon the bears as a valuable reasources, and manage the population in a proper manner.

Cows are useful because some people enjoy eating beef. They should be kept from extinction, but I don‘t think they‘re in trouble or will be, ever. Bears, though? Why? Whatever happened to natural selection?

WE happened. Duh.

Actually no, I believe that they are going to allow limited hunting in the surrounding states. (Though Wyoming already might have had a limited number of licenses anyway IIRC).

Another potential problem from the delisting could be that it becomes easier for developers to encroach on grizzlie habitat.

I would like to think though that the states themselves will look upon the bears as a valuable reasources, and manage the population in a proper manner.

Development in Wyoming, Montana or Idaho? Heh that's a good one.

Actually no, I believe that they are going to allow limited hunting in the surrounding states. (Though Wyoming already might have had a limited number of licenses anyway IIRC).

Another potential problem from the delisting could be that it becomes easier for developers to encroach on grizzlie habitat.

I would like to think though that the states themselves will look upon the bears as a valuable reasources, and manage the population in a proper manner.
One problem with animals being considered 'endangered' is that you run into serious trouble with the nuisances. Bears in particular. You can't kill them, even if they maul someone, and if their population gets too high, that possibility increases.

My husband works in the NWT at a diamond mine. The mine agreement makes all wildlife sacrosanct. No animal can be harmed during mine operation, even if that animals harms a human. People have been mauled by polar bears, and still it would be illegal to harm the bear. In a way, I respect this...it's a dangerous environment up there, and that is one of the hazards. Then again, I think of my husband getting mauled, and I reach for a gun. It can go too far on BOTH sides.

In my opinon, since there has NEVER been an animal able to destroy it's environment as efectively as we do, we MUST place limits on our behavior as nature does not except for killing us all with global warming...not a nice option.

No animal can be harmed during mind operation, even if that animals harms a human.


We know little of this 'mind operation' of which you speak.

In my opinon, since there has NEVER been an animal able to destroy it's environment as efectively as we do, we MUST place limits on our behavior.
I agree with the last part, but your first statement is false. ALL animals, without limits will destroy their environments. Think of gophers, beavers etc. Animals do not have an innate sense of ecological preservation. The predator/prey relationship takes care of that for them.

We know little of this 'mind operation' of which you speak.
Hehehehe...I shall correct that forthwith:)

Actually no, I believe that they are going to allow limited hunting in the surrounding states. (Though Wyoming already might have had a limited number of licenses anyway IIRC).

Another potential problem from the delisting could be that it becomes easier for developers to encroach on grizzlie habitat.

I would like to think though that the states themselves will look upon the bears as a valuable reasources, and manage the population in a proper manner.

You are correct. It is the Greater Yellowstone population that is being de-listed. This includes animals outside the park.

I'm not sure I agree with this particular de-listing. In fact, I think I don't agree, but NYC was wrong in his/her premise about de-listing being wrong in principle.

Hehehehe...I shall correct that forthwith:)

Damn. I had been hoping that there had been breakthroughs in psychic research and telekinetic excavation of which I had been previously unaware. The whole world has suddenly become a touch greyer.

humans have no prey.

humans have no prey.
Did you mean to say predator?

We prey on each other.

And we prey on every other species we can find.

WE happened. Duh.
What makes humans unnatural? Are we not biological? If a species can not survive our expansion, it should die out.

What makes humans unnatural? Are we not biological? If a species can not survive our expansion, it should die out.

A perfect example of getting an 'ought' from an 'is' there.

Did you mean to say predator?

We prey on each other.

And we prey on every other species we can find.
Um, yes, heh heh heh

Um.

I believe strongly in the Endangered Species Act and the sentiments behind it.

But the point is to protect animals that are endangered and try to increase the population to the point where they are no longer endangered. If we are successful, then we get to take them off the list. As long as the removal from the list is really based on population statistics and not politics, the removal is a good thing.
Absolutly agreed

Development in Wyoming, Montana or Idaho? Heh that's a good one.

I was thinking that myself....

Hmm, I wonder if I could offload some of my Oceanfront property in Nevada to this person?

What makes humans unnatural? Are we not biological? If a species can not survive our expansion, it should die out.
That does not logically follow.

You know...you've reminded me of why humans deserve the way we treat one another. It's the only thing that keeps us in check.

What makes humans unnatural? Are we not biological? If a species can not survive our expansion, it should die out.

What makes controlling our expansion and/or preserving species unnatural?

You can't have it both ways. Either we are part of natural selection or not.

One problem with animals being considered 'endangered' is that you run into serious trouble with the nuisances. Bears in particular. You can't kill them, even if they maul someone, and if their population gets too high, that possibility increases.

My husband works in the NWT at a diamond mine. The mine agreement makes all wildlife sacrosanct. No animal can be harmed during mine operation, even if that animals harms a human. People have been mauled by polar bears, and still it would be illegal to harm the bear. In a way, I respect this...it's a dangerous environment up there, and that is one of the hazards. Then again, I think of my husband getting mauled, and I reach for a gun. It can go too far on BOTH sides.

See, that's silly.

Obviously, when permission for the diamond mine to go ahead was considered, the chances of polar bears mauling people should have been taken into account and the number of times a polar bear would have to be shot &c. factored in. If in fact there is such a problem with the polar bear population in that area that people acting in self defence would drive the bears to extinction, then the diamond mine should never have been allowed to operate in the first place.

What makes controlling our expansion and/or preserving species unnatural?

You can't have it both ways. Either we are part of natural selection or not.
We’re part of it. That’s why, just like any other animal, we have no moral obligation not to destroy any species that gets in our way.

What makes controlling our expansion and/or preserving species unnatural?

You can't have it both ways. Either we are part of natural selection or not.
We now cause more natural selection than natural selection acts on us. Humans have MUCH larger influence on their environment than other animals. Therefore, we need to make sure we don't screw up the environment any more, and work to repair it, as it will make us healthier and able to survive.
Of course, Natural Caticlisms still could kill us off, although we are developing ways to fend off meteors, survive in more extreme climates, etc. Still, I don't want to see 70 degree winters in Alaska anytime soon.:)

We’re part of it. That’s why, just like any other animal, we have no moral obligation not to destroy any species that gets in our way.

There are a long list of reasons of why it is in human's own best interest to preserve other species. As our choice to do so is part of nature, natural selection is not interfered with. Hence, your argument is bogus.

humans have no prey.

Oh, there are always a few opportunistic predators that are waiting in the wings to take one of us out. Check Sinhue's post about the mine.

Well, if Polar bears develop super strenght, speed and adaptability and start mauling millions of people every day, yeah, might be a problem. Otherwise, they're not going to take down 6.5 billion people, mostly who don't live near them.

If in fact there is such a problem with the polar bear population in that area that people acting in self defence would drive the bears to extinction, then the diamond mine should never have been allowed to operate in the first place.
Since the northern natives have negotiated damn good treaties, and have the ultimate power to say yea or nay to development, the mine had to grovel on its hands and knees (HA! TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS!) and promise not to hurt any animals or the whole thing would have been axed. But instead of finding safer ways for the guys to work outside, the mine is giving them 'courses', and getting them to sign all these waivers and lobbying for new bills in parliament to confer responsibility for any injuries onto the workers themselves. That's right. You took a course on how not to get mauled. So you can't sue the mine if you are.:headbang:

Development in Wyoming, Montana or Idaho? Heh that's a good one.

Funny thing, there is. Not much, but people do live there. So the question is, where are they doing the development? Is it in somewhere that won't effect the bear population, or is it encroaching upon habitat?

You can't just blithely assume that every acre of land there is identical to every other, and conclude that people can build wherever the hell they like because it is mostly empty.

A little thought going into the process first would be nice.

Oh, there are always a few opportunistic predators that are waiting in the wings to take one of us out. Check Sinhue's post about the mine.
Yeah, come to Canada. And don't worry about the bears...it's the moose that hurt more people. They're pretty aggressive things...and BIG to boot.

Bah.
Animals are a resource. If a species is useless as such, I really don’t care if it's wiped out.
Congratulations you are now on the list of Nations i shall exterminate.

Yeah, come to Canada. And don't worry about the bears...it's the moose that hurt more people. They're pretty aggressive things...and BIG to boot.
*In Dudley Doright voice* I'll save you Nell!

Sure, because once we kill off all our 'resources' we can just eat the poor, right?

No, we eat babies.

:)

There are a long list of reasons of why it is in human's own best interest to preserve other species. As our choice to do so is part of nature, natural selection is not interfered with. Hence, your argument is bogus.
If we don’t eat it, keep it as a pet, ware it, or test products on it, why do we need it?

No, we eat babies.

:)
You're a Swift one, aren'cha!

Since the northern natives have negotiated damn good treaties, and have the ultimate power to say yea or nay to development, the mine had to grovel on its hands and knees (HA! TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS!) and promise not to hurt any animals or the whole thing would have been axed. But instead of finding safer ways for the guys to work outside, the mine is giving them 'courses', and getting them to sign all these waivers and lobbying for new bills in parliament to confer responsibility for any injuries onto the workers themselves. That's right. You took a course on how not to get mauled. So you can't sue the mine if you are.:headbang:

Well that's a failure of the legal/political system, not a failure of the idea of protecting endangered species. Generally, maintaining bio-diversity is a good idea.

Undelia, If you don't have anything sane to say, don't say it:rolleyes:

If we don’t eat it, keep it as a pet, ware it, or test products on it, why do we need it?

Take a course in biology. Ask about ecosystems.

Also, who said the criteria was need it, as oppposed to want it around?

If we don’t eat it, keep it as a pet, ware it, or test products on it, why do we need it?
Well, before you go wiping out species that you don't eat, keep as a pet, wear or test products on, you should have a better understanding of what particular role that species plays in it's environment. Usually we only have that understanding after it's too late.

For example, some bees have become so specialised that they can only eat from and pollenate certain flowers. Those flowers are only capable of being pollenated by those particular bees, who by the way, do not produce a very palatable honey, so are no good to us in terms of food. So we kill off the bees, because they sting us, and annoy us. Consequently the flowers die, as they can no longer propogate. Too bad for us, those flowers contain a cancer-supressing chemical.

If we don’t eat it, keep it as a pet, ware it, or test products on it, why do we need it?

because we rely on the existence of healthy ecosystems to live. and because biodiversity and species preservation are valuable in themselves.

Well that's a failure of the legal/political system, not a failure of the idea of protecting endangered species. Generally, maintaining bio-diversity is a good idea.
Yeah. I just got sidetracked.

Yeah, come to Canada. And don't worry about the bears...it's the moose that hurt more people. They're pretty aggressive things...and BIG to boot.

Moose aren't that bad. IIRC, deer kill more people - though admittedly it is from running in front of cars.

I have actually been Moose hunting.

Take a course in biology. Ask about ecosystems.

Also, who said the criteria was need it, as oppposed to want it around?
Fine, you do your thing to protect what you want, just don’t try to make me protect it too.

because we rely on the existence of healthy ecosystems to live. and because biodiversity and species preservation are valuable in themselves.
A much simpler answer. Ignorance is no excuse Undy...either you know this already or you need to learn it. Either way, hush now.

because we rely on the existence of healthy ecosystems to live. and because biodiversity and species preservation are valuable in themselves.

Dammit Free Soviets. Think of the profit margins!


Oh will no one think of the profit margins?!

Also, who said the criteria was need it, as oppposed to want it around?

Quoted for truth.

What is wrong with people? Why do they want the entire world to be Nassau County?

Fine, you do your thing to protect what you want, just don’t try to make me protect it too.
Alright then. So much for the rule of law! I guess it only applies to those who support that particular law. It's a shame I don't support your right to not have your shoes stolen *yoink!*:D

Come on now...that was a really broad statement...and I don't think you meant it quite that way...

Dammit Free Soviets. Think of the profit margins!


Oh will no one think of the profit margins?!

i club baby profit margins in order to make coats out of their spreadsheets

i club baby profit margins in order to make coats out of their spreadsheets
MY NEW SIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MY NEW SIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wow, that's like the third this month. i must've turned my clever-phrase-o-matic up or something.

Bah.
Animals are a resource. If a species is useless as such, I really don’t care if it's wiped out.

You're an animal, and most likely useless, and certainly a complete and utter moron. So I guess I don't care if you are wiped out either. :mad:

You're an animal, and most likely useless, and certainly a complete and utter moron. So I guess I don't care if you are wiped out either. :mad:
The only reason you should care if I am wiped out is that is sets a precedent for someone to wipe you out. We’re both human after all.

Oh and yeah, I’m an animal, and like every other animal, I couldn't care less about other species except what they can do for me.

Hmm, I wonder if I could offload some of my Oceanfront property in Nevada to this person?
Which part? :D

The irony being that most of Nevada was either underwater or oceanfront property back at the dawn of time.

Well, if a species is no longer endangered, it shouldn't be on the list, right?