At 11:11 AM 7/3/99 -0700, Bud Anderson wrote:

> The danger in denying that they have recovered is that it is
>indefensible.

That's as succinct as it gets, good post (I always say this when
people agree with me :)

I'd also add that it destroys credibility. This is important
because along with no-brainers like the bald eagle, there
have been proposals to downlist/delist (? not exactly sure of
details here) grizzly in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem.

The evidence here is far from compelling, at least to the
point of being debatable (there's been hot debate about the
actual health of this population among biologists working
in the area).

Argue against delisting when the scientific evidence for
delisting is compelling, and we risk being ignored in those
cases where the evidence is NOT compelling.

Or in cases where new species are proposed, for that matter.

If we're going to take the scientific high ground in our
conservation work, we need to be consistent.



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