posted
I, like you, lack enough data to reach a reasonably accurate conclusion.
The difference is that I am aware of that lack.
As I've said, how can we "know" it's a "bad" thing when, at least once, it's been a "good" thing?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Whoah! Did anyone else feel that big ripple in the space/time continuum? Also, now it gets dark when I turn ON the lights. Hm...
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So the only thing you know is that you know nothing?
Oh, come on Robbie, we've all seen you do it. You even stood up for Mountain Cunt because the same people who you usually argue against were all gunning for him. I realise it's hard to give up the whole "if you're not for us you're against us, the enemy of my enemy is my friend" schtick - it's quite understandable really, it's been the basis of US foreign policy since about 1941 - but maybe isn't it time to wake up and smell the coffee, just a little bit?
I mean, would it really kill you to admit that maybe just one of Bush's policies isn't for the overwhelming glory and prosperity of the Homeland, but to make the dreams of a bunch of rich white men, who have everything in the world they want except a tiger hide in their den, come true?
posted
I know enough to conclude that killing endangered animals to feed the demand for them here in the US is not a good idea, because killing things to save them does not do that thing any good.
I strongly disagree with the notion that, by allowing these animals to be killed, people will stop and say "Maybe I should learn something about this animal instead of killing it for my greedy self." It seems more likely that people will use this opportunity to kill however many endangered animals they can.
What is more logical: stopping people from hunting animals or allowing them to hunt and kill them in order to "conserve" them? You don't need "data" to figure out which choice is the smart choice.
And, as Lee said, can you for once admit that, maybe, just maybe, one of Bush's policies is just plain ol' stupid? I mean, we can all agree Clinton made some bad policy decisions.
defending a point, er plank, of a platform is okay, I think, but dodging the others is not.....
Come now Rob, this is as fucked up as it gets, zoos, where animals can be protected is an alright idea, but the rest of conserving the animals by allowing the feeding of the rich people walls for trophies is not the way to do, lacking data is a complete and total dodge....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Sustainable use programs have been implemented in the Northern Territory, and have proven to be highly successful in giving people an incentive to preserve not only the crocodiles but more importantly the habitat which supports them. These primarily involve collection of eggs from wild nests, with payment for the eggs being given to the landowners. The hatchlings are then sold to crocodile farms for raising and skin production. Extensive surveys are conducted with the harvesting, which has demonstrated no detectable impact of the harvesting program on population growth. A trial harvest of wild, adult crocodiles involving aboriginal communities was started in 1997 - the first time crocodiles had been legally hunted in the Northern Territory for 26 years. Some discussion of safari-style hunting is now taking place, directed by traditional Aboriginal landowners, but such programs are yet to be implemented.
Let me translate this for people like Lee who lack the ability to comprehend such big words.
They harvest the crocodiles. They take the eggs. They make stuff out of the crocodiles' skins. They allow HUNTS. (So far, only by the Aboriginies, but they're thinking about expanding them) AND YET... The crocodiles are doing better in Australia than anywhere else.
Now tell me why this can't happen to any other endangered species. (And try to do it without saying something that sounds like 'because Australians are good and holy, and the USA is evil and depraved.' Who do you think is buying the abovementioned products?)
This is MANAGEMENT. It's not wholesale slaughter, it's regulated up the wazoo, just as you'd expect it to be.
Thinking that the new initiative is going to open things up to mass killings is falling for the same slippery slope arguments you accuse the right wing of continually falling for.
"They're gonna kill all the animals if they pass this hunting law!" is semantically equivalent to "they're gonna start 'aborting' infants and toddlers if they pass this abortion law!"
Really, try to be less transparently hysterical.
And next time, ladies, try to think up better insults to cover the fact that you have nothing to say and no counterexamples to argue. I mean, I half-expect Veers and Cartman to ignore this evidence, but the rest of you know better.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:This is MANAGEMENT. It's not wholesale slaughter, it's regulated up the wazoo, just as you'd expect it to be.
One wonders where corruption comes into the pictures, Pollyanna.
And, considering how anti-regulation Mr. Bush and his ilk are, one wonders how far that goes too. This is afterall, a huge swipe at the current batch of regulations, some of which prevent Mr. Bush's wealthy friends from going on safari.
Apparently, trophy hunting is good.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
All you had to day was "yes, I support this policy," and we wouldn't have wild accusations that you're yelling "KILL ALL THOSE ANIMALS AND TAKE THEIR SKINS! YEAH, BABY!"
OK, I will not ignore this evidence, as I have been accused of doing, although I'm surprised you are accusing me of ignoring evidence.
But that's all w/the Fo2 bashing.
Now, though it seems possible that hunting these animals may save them, it looks suspiciously like a ploy to give hunters and trophy-seekers all the animals they want. That's what it looks like to ME. It also seems dubious that they are apparently making it seem like it is only in the animal's best interest to kill them.
I would rather they have made new changes in helping to conserve the animals--such as pressuring countries to do so, give money to conservation groups, or, if all else fails, capture them to increase their numbers.
But, it says they want to start hunting endangered species, which, I think, is a bad idea.
And please no accusations of "Of course, you think Bush is about money, money, money and oil, oil, oil and he would never want to help the environment," blah blah blah.
posted
The problem with your argument is in your example: Crocs and Alligators are bred with relative ease and they have clutches of 4-8 eggs each time they reproduce whereas most animals(mammals mainly) give birth to only one or two offspring each time they reproduce and unlike crocidiles, most mammals only reproduce a few times in their lifetimes. While it's easy to site one workable example as a basis for broad sweeping plans to hunt endangered species, there is very little data on many species' reproductive capabilities to make that judgment. Alligators and CRocidiles have neen bred by humans for a looong time and are a known quantity while most species on the endangered species list are practically unstudied due to their relative scarcity and need for conservation.
What works for a crocidile wont work for a shark or a zebra because their rate of reproduction and offspring survivability are so vastly diffrent.
The current "plan" is obviously politically motivated to payback contributors and has nothing for the animal's future except (at best) becoming completely dependant on humans for their survivial.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
There's seemingly another problem with the comparison, too:
The Australians took a local endangered species, bred it back up to a higher population, and then allowed controlled hunting while continuing the breeding process.
What the US is proposing is to let people go hunt endangered animals in other countries, and then hope that those countries will use the revenue to work on conserving the species.
crocodiles: conservation leads to controlled levels of hunting
Bush: uncontrolled levels of hunting will, with luck, lead to conservation (carried out by someone else)
These are not the same thing, by any stretch of the imagination.
[ October 19, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Also consider that Australlia is not corrupt like most of the third-world dictatorships of Africa's savannas. How could we ever regulate what's done with any supposed proceeds from hunting? All it would do is make endangered species into a bigger commodity for sale.
A better option for washington to encourage conservationism is: "Countries killing off endangered wildlife are a threat to America's Ecological Security and will be subject to "regime-change"....
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Damn you Jason, you discovered the plan....
... where the buffalo roamed....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
