John,



I just have one comment and five questions for you, which for me is not much.



I have long held the belief that the biggest problem with wildlife laws is that they are usually constructed by Biologists or by Law Enforcement personnel but not with the two in concert, what we need are laws that take into account both perspectives. It functionally doesn’t matter if a law is unenforceable or biologically idiotic, either way the law is doomed to failure, and your post demonstrates this failure in action. Do you agree with my assessment, namely that wildlife laws should be constructed with the input of BOTH biologists and law enforcement personnel?



John, what do you think is going to happen to your chuckwalla population as development and other forms of habitat destruction gobble the habitat around the park up? Will your chuckwalla population still be able to sustain the same level of take that it sustained eight or so years ago?



Do you think there is a link between overall population size, and thus the number of individuals that can be harvested from a population, and the amount of suitable habitat available to a species. And if so, don’t you think that the number of chuckwallas the indigenous people could have harvested for food 200 years ago without damaging the survival probability of the species was significantly greater than it is today, and what about in ten years from now?



Big Brother

[ Show Entire Thread ]