I think "force" is completely the wrong word. While the lotteries may not be fair to all socio-economic classes of people, they certainly do not HAVE to poach and break the law. They choose to do this.
Justin Lack On Mar 23, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > Honorable Forum: > > I'd like to see some serious discussion of how ecology as a science and > ecosystem management as a subdiscipline could better inform "game" > management as a professional practice and a political phenomenon. > > Increasingly, it seems that we, as a society, are regressing back to the > time when the King's and Queen's owned all wildlife. That is, the people who > actually live in the wild are effectively prohibited from hunting and > fishing, for example, through supposedly "democratic" lotteries for "tags" > that the unwealthy can't afford. This forces those priced out of this > "market" to poach, and what little data comes from the occasional arrest is > worse than useless. The King's and Queen's from distant cities fly in, bang > their buck, and the local businesses get a bigger bang for the buck from > servile service to these head-hunters than from the local customers they > already have--those who aren't in jail or who have had to allocate the > scarce discretionary income they can scrape up to the government, money they > can't spend in local stores and for local services. This, of course, is > primarily a political aspect of the issue, but has its roots in a > well-intentioned conservation "ethic." > > I'd like to hear from across the spectrum what biologists and ecologists and > others interested have to say about this subject in general and the cited > hypothetical in particular. > > WT > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael E. Welker" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:55 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should > be applied to GCC arguments > > > White-tailed Deer and Beaver? > > MW > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Wayne Tyson > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should > be applied to GCC arguments > > > Passenger pigeon, anyone? > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Crants" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should > be applied to GCC arguments > > >> On the contrary, examples exist (sea mink, cod) of animal communities >> being >>> greatly diminished at the hands of the very people turning a profit > from >>> their harvesting. >>> >>> Phil >> >> >> The tragedy of the commons. The benefit from harvesting a resource >> accrues >> only whoever collects it (and probably to some middlemen), while the > costs >> are shared by everyone with a stake in the resource. The economically >> rational thing to do, on the individual level, is to harvest as much as >> you >> can, but this produces the collective result of putting all the > harvesters >> out of business. The only way for them to stay in business is for them > to >> accept some set of rules (either their own or someone else's) that keeps >> them, collectively, from over-harvesting. If the resource is very > scarce, >> the rules might say not to harvest at all, on the assumption that all > the >> rule-breakers will harvest at unsustainable or barely-sustainable rates. >> >> It's an economic theory, but while almost every ecologist I've talked to >> about it seems to be familiar with it, every time I've mentioned it to > an >> economist, I've gotten a blank stare in return. >> >> Jim >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 >> > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
