At 10:42 AM 7/2/99 -0700, Lou Ann Harris wrote:
>I'm surprised that no one on Tweeters has expressed their opinion on the
>de-listing of the Bald Eagle. Even though I'm pleased that they have
recovered
>from the brink of extinction, I think it's a mistake to remove them from the
>ESA. It will re-open the door to habitat destruction.

The purpose of the ESA is to force the development and implementation
of a recovery plan, so that the species won't be endangered or
threatened any more. Conservationists said thats what we wanted
the law for when it was passed in the 1970s, not that we wanted to
use it to force changes we can't get by other means.

If we refuse to support de-listing when recovery is apparent
because the species status makes it easy to achieve other
conservation goals, then our opponents will be right when they
accuse us of being hypocritical in our use of the ESA, won't
they? And then those Americans who support the ESA in the
belief that we actually do want species to recover to healthy
numbers will get disgusted and will stop supporting the
ESA, won't they? And then the development interests will
see their wishes that the ESA become watered down or made
to disappear come true.

Right?

I fail to see where hypocricy ever solves anything.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net