Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:31 pm
by Bob Sihler
I used to be a member of Defenders, SC, Wilderness Society, and NPCA. The problem wasn't so much mail from other organizations, though I did get that, but rather the constant mailings from the ones I did support. Every one of those mailings wanted money and made whatever the issue was sound like the end of the world. All the doom-and-gloom appeals were simply overwhelming, and every donation prompted only more mailings and more calls asking for ever-higher amounts. It went from depressing to annoying very quickly, and I let my memberships expire and stopped contributing.

Although I consider myself an environmentalist, I no longer belong to any advocacy groups because I simply felt harassed for money. My efforts now mostly go into Leave No Trace and Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle, and supporting politicians and bills that protect the environment and foster conservation.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:34 pm
by Big Benn
Isn't there a well established process here?

Man virtually wipes out a species that has existed in a location for centuries or longer for a variety of reasons. No one gives a toss until the species is almost extinct, then a few get saved for zoos etc.





Gap of quite a few years.





Man starts to re-introduce that species under protection of legislation etc.

We're ahead of you guys and girls I guess. We've got Red Kites on large numbers back flying not far from here. We have a pair of Buzzards locally now.

Otters are being re-introduced in a number of parts of the UK.

And we are very close to re-introducing wolves to the north of the UK.

This time around I reckon we've learned to respect them and have the will to live alongside them.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:57 pm
by jackstraw0083
BryanBenn, it's great to hear that wolves (among other species) are being re-introduced to the UK! Are people in the UK generally favorable to their reintroduction?

I'd say that in general the U.S. does a fairly good job when it comes to protecting and reintroducing animal species, but there are definitely certain states (e.g. Utah) that have it out for wolves. Some people here really buy into the idea that a wolf pack can decimate an entire elk herd.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:33 pm
by Big Benn
jackstraw0083 wrote:BryanBenn, it's great to hear that wolves (among other species) are being re-introduced to the UK! Are people in the UK generally favorable to their reintroduction?

I'd say that in general the U.S. does a fairly good job when it comes to protecting and reintroducing animal species, but there are definitely certain states (e.g. Utah) that have it out for wolves. Some people here really buy into the idea that a wolf pack can decimate an entire elk herd.

Just checked this. Wolves are still being worked on because of the need to get the habitat right etc. I would also guess there is some local opposition to the process!

It was beavers I thought we were on the verge of re-introducing, but for the moment that has stalled.

But much else is being done.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:48 pm
by Bucky
1000Pks wrote:
That was John Muir, the founder of the SC. "Everything is attached to everything," the first precept of ecology.

Though when it came to the CA condor, the largest bird as far as wingspan, the SC decision/vote was to have them go extinct. "Let them die in peace."

Gratefully the people of CA disagreed, and I and everyone can now see these magnificent animals in their natural habitat, growing in numbers thanks to the efforts of dedicated workers and volunteers to bring them back.


I just saw my first (and second and third) condor this past weekend in Zion. What a magnificent bird! Good call, CA voters.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:27 pm
by Arthur Digbee
Bryan Benn wrote:Isn't there a well established process here?

Man virtually wipes out a species that has existed in a location for centuries or longer for a variety of reasons. No one gives a toss until the species is almost extinct, then a few get saved for zoos etc.

Gap of quite a few years.

Man starts to re-introduce that species under protection of legislation etc.


Right there is the best reason to draw lines around places and habitats now.

The lower 48 is probably using about 85-90% of its total land area now; most national parks, wilderness areas in national forests and BLM lands, and some wildlife refuges are not being used. (We're using a lower percentage in Alaska, of course.)

We could keep exploring and extracting the last 10-15% but then we'd run out of whatever stuff we're seeking, and we'd be in the place Bryan describes: trying to save stuff when it's too late.

Best to draw some lines now. Really, 85-90% of the land for human habitation and extraction is enough, isn't it? We can still recreate on the rest.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:30 pm
by Claude Mauguier
Defending the animals...? Just stop eating meat...