Thread: A good day to be a wolf

BOISE, Idaho – A federal judge has blocked a proposal to lift the endangered species protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho that had been hammered out by U.S. wildlife officials and conservation groups.

The plan could have led to public hunting of some 1,300 wolves in the two states.

In the 24-page decision, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, Mont., cited the court's lack of authority to put part of an endangered species population under state management and expose that population to hunting, noting "Congress has clearly determined that animals on the ESA (Endangered Species Act) must be protected as such," and the court couldn't "exercise its discretion to allow what Congress forbids."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110410/...d_wolves_judge

A victory for wildlife! Good to see this, hopefully more restrictions on hunting and additional protections will be forthcoming. Now if we can start protecting habitat, we'll be doing some real good

Yeah..That was good news since our nature was in vein. Natural habitat must be taken care of and preserved to prevent extinction of endangered species.

Exactly. It drives me crazy when I hear people say things like "We should put as much effort into protecting business as we do wolves and lynx". Well, sorry, but businesses come and go, if they cannot adapt to the changing market, another one that CAN adapt will take its place. However, nothing can replace a species once it is gone, and from mice to wolves to caribou each and every animal serves a vital place in the ecosystem, without which nothing could exist, including humans and their precious businesses.

Republicans hate to hear it, but protecting wildlife and our planet should ALWAYS trump business and economic interests. Every time.

Originally Posted by Rassales

Well then we should all commit suicide, shouldn't we? I mean, the best thing for all the other species on this planet would be for ours to disappear.

Not hardly, we have the ability to live peaceably within the environment, if we have the desire to. Humanity hardly disrupted the environment when we lived as hunter/gatherers, and if we did not allow business and economic interests trump environmental interests we'd have clean energy sources by now.

Do you dispute that protecting the environment should trump economic interests?

Originally Posted by Rassales

We should do more to protect the environment, but I just got done in a discussion with you in another thread where you said we should try to do without aluminum. I'm sure we'd need also to do without steel, plastic, fossil fuels, and dozens of other products that make it possible for five billion humans to exist. Your arguments, at root, appear to make you comfortable with a die off of 99.9% of the human population, because you make comparisons to hunters and gatherers. Mass suicide (or mass starvation) is the only way to get there.

In the short term, that would be the only way, and I would never support that. But we do need to start reducing our population size by educating people about the costs of having such a high birth rate. Having a child needs to be about more than just wanting a child. We need to teach people to consider how this child is going to fit into society, to consider what they have to offer a child economically, intellectually and emotionally. Having babies needs to become a societal decision, and not just a personal one. A friend of mine joked that we need to start making people take IQ and literacy tests before being allowed to have a child. Although he was jesting, that's not such a bad idea and might be a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Rassales

I dispute that its possible for the human race to preserve the environment over all economic interest and still survive. I dispute that its even rational to discuss the devolution of economy to hunter-gatherer status via a method that requires some of the most sophisticated technology ever developed.

That is because Corporate America has convinced you that we need these toxic and harmful chemicals and materials to survive, and I don't buy that. Not only do we have the brainpower to find less harmful alternatives if we had the will, but I'm not entirely convinced we need these things at all. And if indeed we have arrived at such a place in time where we actually DO need poisonous elements to survive, perhaps we'd do well to examine why that is and do something about it.

Originally Posted by Rassales

No, it was the Bronze Age Greeks. they were the ones that increased their population, dominance, and overall standard of living via new technologies. And there's every improvement in technology since then, particularly those that have made it possible to grow 1000x in population.

But it's Corporate America that has convinced people they need this stuff.

Originally Posted by Rassales

So, you got a yurt?

A what?