| | Re: Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
Comments inserted following my initials.
--
Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
..
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news qahs2lk6ckd0t5iq6alafu54ek4tuh7gu@4ax.com...
: Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
: Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
: October 12, 1997
:
: "Of what avail are forty freedoms, without a blank spot on the
map?"
: Aldo Leopold
:
: "For every living creature [including humans!], there are
places where
: it does not belong." p.251 "I believe it is a public
responsibility to
: safeguard what we can of wilderness before the great push of
man's
: numbers; and to safeguard with it ... the shy wild ones that
need
: man-less expanses in which to thrive." p.262. Paul L.
Errington, Of
: Predation and Life
:
: "I confess to further disquieting thoughts as to how much moral
right
: man actually has to regard the Earth as his exclusive
possession, to
: despoil or befoul as he will. Man has or should have some
minimal
: responsibility toward the Earth he claims and toward the other
forms
: of life that have been on the Earth as long as or longer than
he has."
: Paul Errington, A Question of Values, p.153.
:
: The Problem
:
: Human beings think that we own, and have the right to
: dominate, every square inch of the Earth.
CY: Works for me!
That, besides being an
: absurd idea, is the basic reason why we are losing, worldwide,
about
: 100 species per day.
CY: 100 a day? I'd like some evidence of this, please.
Habitat loss is at the top of every list of the
: primary reasons why species have become extinct or are in
danger of
: becoming extinct.
CY: Lets see some proof.
:
: Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or
: turning it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or
parks)
: is not the only way that an area can become untenable (useless)
as
: habitat. Anything that makes it unattractive or unavailable to
a given
: species causes habitat loss.
CY: And then new habitat opens up. Ever see seagulls at the
Walmart parking lot? Birds nesting in the Kmart sign? Bees and
wasps nesting under the edges of buildings? We create new
environment every day.
Have you ever wondered why most animals
: run away when we come near? It certainly isn't because they
love
: having us around! Many animals simply will not tolerate the
presence
: of humans. The grizzly bear and mountain lion are just two
examples.
: The grizzly needs a huge territory, can smell and hear a human
being
: from a great distance, and will avoid going near a road.
CY: Give them credit for some wisdom, eh?
:
: Humans are the ants at every other species' picnic. One of the
: first things that children learn about wild animals is that
most of
: them run (fly, swim, slither, hop) away whenever we get close
to them.
: (A few, such as mosquitoes, like having us around.) Some are
more
: tolerant of us than others, but in any given area, there are at
least
: some that don't like having us around.
:
: Let's take as a premise that we do not want to cause any
: extinctions. I think that most people agree with that. But what
: follows, is that we have to set aside adequate habitat for all
: existing species, and that much of it must be human-free.
CY: How the heck do you get that? I don't get that conclusion at
all.
That is not
: understood by most people, even most biologists.
CY: I'm in good company.
We claim to believe
: in the Golden Rule, but we apply it only to fellow humans. It
has been
: said that "The measure of a culture is how well it treats its
least
: powerful members". By this, our own measure, human society is a
: failure in its relations with the rest of creation.
CY: I got to disagree with that. Humans have some failings, but
we do a seriously good job of managing our fuzzy and flighted
friends.
:
: In 4 million years of human evolution, there has never been an
: area off limits to humans -- an area which we deliberately
choose not
: to enter so that the species that live there can flourish
unmolested
: by humans.
CY: What's your point?
There are places called "wildlife sanctuaries", where human
: recreation, hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even mining are
usually
: allowed. There are a few places where only biologists and land
: managers are allowed (e.g. California's condor sanctuary).
There have
: been places called "sacred", where only priests could go (in
other
: words, they were "sacred" only to ordinary people). But to my
: knowledge, there has never been any place, however small, from
which
: the human community has voluntarily excluded itself.
CY: And, so what? Have you found any place where the animals have
chosen not to go? Any place where the humans can be unmolested?
:
: There has been a lot of talk in recent years about looking for
: life on other planets. For its sake, I hope we never find it!
Why,
: after the inconsiderate way we have treated wildlife on this
planet,
: should we be allowed to invade the even more fragile habitats
that may
: be found in other places? While the thought of finding such
life is
: intriguing, I haven't heard anyone suggest that we consider its
: feelings and wishes, e.g. the likelihood that it would want to
be left
: alone (quite reasonable, considering our history!).
CY: I can't stand to read the rest of this wimpy liberal pathetic
drivel.
|