At 09:16 PM 5/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
> U.S. pares endangered species list
>
> The Clinton administration announced Wednesday that the bald eagle
> and 28 other species of animals and plants have made a comeback from
> near-extinction and will be removed from the U.S. endangered species
> list. The species range from the peregrine falcon and gray wolf to
> the more obscure Pahrump poolfish and the Missouri bladder-pod plant.
> The 17 animals and 12 plants will be removed from the endangered
> list over the next two years, subject to final approval by federal
> biologists. Officials are calling it the biggest "delisting" since
> the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was adopted 25 years ago.
I've always had a concern regarding the Endangered Species Act... and
I usually find myself in lengthy conversations regarding my stand.
Sure, I know the intention of the Act is inherently good, but the
results cause sort of a catch-22 situation.
Very simply, species usually become endangered because they are
either over-hunted, or displaced or "pushed out" of their natural
environment due to civil development and human population growth.
When this happens to an extreme, the animal/bird/fish/whomever
becomes another entry on the Endangered Species List. This results
in the species being protected, but ONLY until their numbers increase.
Once this happens, folks are once again free to hunt or develop to
their heart's content.
With specific regard to hunting only, consider whaling. In 1986, a
moratorium was declared with regard to killing many specific whale
species due to -extreme- over-hunting. And, as with any other
animal who becomes a part of the Endangered Species List,
once the numbers increase, the animal will be removed from the list
and hunting them will once again be permitted.
In other words -- and in my opinion only -- it seems that with regard
to hunted animals, the Endangered Species Act is serving (indirectly
and unintentionally, I am sure) as nothing more than institutionalized
breeding for the eventual purpose of supplying a larger hunting base.
After all, does it make sense to protect animals, only to lift their
protection, making the animals eventual targets? When I think
about it -- and this is a VERY difficult reality for me -- it may be
more humane to stand back and allow species to die away in order to
prevent the suffering that hunting, and selfishness, inflict. If
there are no more whales, then there are no more whales to kill.
Sure, I would miss the whales if they were gone, just as I would miss
any other species whose fate may be the same. But is the suffering
they experience due to human selfishness worth breeding and killing
them, over and over? How much suffering must THEY experience before WE
pay the price, instead??
Any opinions?
- Charlotte.
