xiphias: (Default)
[personal profile] xiphias
"Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials with the Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said, would both feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitats. "

Parody, or policy? Onion, or Seattle Times? I can't tell any more. It was from the Seattle Times, but is it a hoax? Or is the Bush administration seriously trying to claim that killing animals is the best way to keep animals from being killed?

I mean, they did argue that removing the less flammable trees from a forest to allow more room for more flammable things to grow, and allow greater oxygenation for forest fires was the best way to prevent forest fires, so I suppose that it's possible.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-11 10:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] burgundy.livejournal.com
I read an article where they talked about there being "surpluses" of these animals in other countries.

If there were surpluses, they wouldn't be endangered, you morons!

Ok, I'm calm. Well, not really.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 01:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sinboy.livejournal.com
Google news search confirms that it's not The Onion.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 03:36 am (UTC)
ailbhe: (Default)
From: [personal profile] ailbhe
*pinches self*

Still not awake. Damn, I'm tired of this dream.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 06:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] browngirl.livejournal.com
Not that I'm defending the other bit, but...

I mean, they did argue that removing the less flammable trees from a forest to allow more room for more flammable things to grow, and allow greater oxygenation for forest fires was the best way to prevent forest fires, so I suppose that it's possible.


This is actually close to what I understand is the truth. Scientists have found that small, periodic fires in not-overcrowded woodlands can prevent the huge, catastrophic kinds of forest fire. I don't think that theory extends to removing "less flammable" trees, though.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 07:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xiphias.livejournal.com
That's right. Which means that removing the LARGE trees, to leave more room and sunlight to let SMALL trees and groundcover grow thicker is a BAD idea. The Bush administration changed forest protetion policy to allow greater logging in old-growth forests, allowing lumber companies to cut down OLD trees -- the ones which have a lesser fire risk.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 07:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] browngirl.livejournal.com
Ah.

And thus the administration turns sense into nonsense.

Feh.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 09:03 am (UTC)
cellio: (mandelbrot)
From: [personal profile] cellio
All you need is a kernel of truth in a packet of lies to dupe most people, unfortunately. So they take the perfectly reasonable idea, that small fires are actually beneficial, and warp it to their own ends.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 07:09 am (UTC)
ext_4917: (Default)
From: [identity profile] hobbitblue.livejournal.com
I read that one yesterday, and it melted my brain to the point I couldn't even think coherently on the matter.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 09:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] copperpoint.livejournal.com
I have a headache now. Thanks.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 12:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aprivatefox.livejournal.com
I think my computer's response to that link is about the best I could hope for - it got halfway through loading when my browser quietly died. I suppose if I were forced to display that kind of idiocy, I'd shoot myself, too.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-12 05:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wispfox.livejournal.com
When did we enter the Twilight Zone, and why didn't anyone tell me?

Yeesh... I had to read that three or four times to make sure I wasn't misreading!

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-13 11:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vvalkyri.livejournal.com
Hm. The way it's put in the article is idiotic.

Saying that, I do know someone who went on an actual shooting safari. These things are incredibly expensive - the hunter pays an extravagant amount of money for whichever animal he shoots, and that money does go to preserve the area for the rest of the animals. It also provides incentive to keep poachers away -- if you've got someone who'll pay you 30K for a giraffe you're certainly going to guard the area.

This was South Africa, where there is rather more law and order than in some other places. A policy like that really needs overarching conservastion laws for it to work.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-11-22 11:47 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Bush is stupid. You should be looking for him to say something like that. I mean, come on!! He's JOKE!! Ok, you've heard about the Moscow Treaty haven't you?? Well, the only thing I have to say, Where's the freaking treaty part??? You can't believe a word he says. When you can believe Bush, the world will crumple and the universe will explode from sudden shock.

November 2018

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags