Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
|
It will do little good to eliminate the source of 600,000 preventable deaths per year if we ignore the sources of an additional 1.1 billion or more preventable deaths per year.
Not that nothing should be done, but that we need the whole truth if there is to be any hope of an effective strategy being developed.
We all ready have far too many conservation laws that focus on one species to the detriment of all others.
For example, the fire prevention strategy to enhance lumber production potential.
A healthy environment encompasses all species and many many natural factors that often do not fit well with human consumption goals.
Fire, insects, and disease evolved as part of a healthy ecosystem.
We suppress them at our peril.
I remember a time when no one sprayed weeds anywhere. Farm production was much lower then, then it is today but so were cancer rates and wildlife populations on those farms was much much higher then it is today.
I see the same thing with tick populations. They were always there but as antlercarver says, there seems to be a serious increase in the frequency and severity of tick outbreaks since fire suppression became common practice.
Something else to consider. Who is studying the disappearance of Grayling from the Peace River watershed ?
It seems to me that there is major cause for concern there, yet no one seems to care. Why?
Is it because no one fished for them? Is it because they played no role in the ecosystem? Or is it that there is no money to be made in conserving them?
Let us be honest here folks. It is rare that our interests or the interests of the world around us is the motivation behind any conservation plan.
Salmon populations were not a concern when only anglers were effected.
No effort was made to enhance Moose and Elk populations until outfitting became big business. Forest fires were not suppressed until the lumber industry called for it.
Someone has reason to want to shut down wind farms. I ask myself why. Is it really about the bird kills. If so, why isn't window strikes and domestic cats part of the argument against them?
I get really suspicious when the whole truth is not presented. I smell money, a lot of money. And in my experience, when big money is involved, conservation is never a consideration. Nor is what is in the best interest of the public.
Intresting study on the birds killed by various electrical power sources
Hybrid Mode
