"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.
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)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)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-12 03:36 am (UTC)Still not awake. Damn, I'm tired of this dream.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-12 06:58 am (UTC)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)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-12 07:35 am (UTC)And thus the administration turns sense into nonsense.
Feh.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-12 09:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-12 07:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-12 09:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-12 12:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-12 05:06 pm (UTC)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)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)