At 01:37 PM 11/6/97 +0500, you wrote:
>Charlotte - you would let the species extinctions continue? The situation
>is very grim... three quarters of native Hawaiian bird species have become
>extinct or endangered since the 1800's. There are a dozen or more species
>with less than 50 individuals left....and several of these species have
>less than 10 individuals. Pigs are a huge part of the problem....as are
>introduced rats, cats, and mongeese. Birth control, even if it were
>plausible to sterilize these feral animals, will not stop the immediate
>impacts... what else do you suggest?
I have always had a problem with the concept of protecting a species
because it is "endangered." Whales are a perfect example: The hunting
of whales is allowed until the numbers get "too low." Once this happens,
hunting is forbidden for a few years, until the population has a
chance to make a come-back, wherein hunting is once again allowed.
Therefore, temporarily forbidding the hunt simply becomes a sort of
institutionalized breeding for the PURPOSE of hunting. In other words,
more whales will be born, only to be hunted during their adult years.
"Man" has no problem coming to the aid of a species when the numbers
are low, but won't lend a hand when the population is healthy. Seems
to me this is nothing more than serving the ego of Modern Man -- as long
as the species doesn't disappear from the planet, then there's no guilt.
As for the pigs in Hawaii, is it that crucial to Man's ego to protect
one species by killing another?? Maybe if Man were to finally keep their
dirty hands out of the issues of Nature, something might finally turn
out right. Whether it's with regard to religion, sex, ethnic background,
species... someone always seems to have the answer to make the world
a better place by killing those who "don't fit in" or are not wanted.
Hell, in this country we don't even kill rapists, but we'll kill an
animal for merely trying to survive.
- Charlotte
>
>sue
>
>
