I kind of have mixed views on the value of the Endangered Species List. While ...yes the status of these animals Definitly needs to be addressed...I don't believe that listing these animals (under the existing regulations)is in anyway a cure for their problems...and in fact might make their situation more perilous.



For many of the animals listed, the only hope they would have is Habitat Protection. This is a very desireable solution to the problem except...For the interests of man. As long as our population increases, our needs will continue to surplant any real efforts at preservation.



I am reminded of what has happened in parts of Australia, where laws against collecting or even photographing animals were put in place. The logic being...That if no one knew the animals existed..no one would stop the mining and other interests that would destroy their habitat.



For other species that can be bred in captivity, the loss of Habitat can at least be countered by captive production. This allready has had a possitive effect in the reduction of stress on wild populations of many species that suffered due to over collecting.



The San Francisco garter snake for example (which is bred in Europe)would be common in collections if it were not on the endangered list. Instead it's small habitat is being destroyed and it's fate is questionable at best. Being on the list prevents any attempts by the American public to breed this species.



All things being said....I really am not sure if the listing of less species on the Endangered list is a bad thing.



Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

[ Show Entire Thread ]