ruveyn wrote:
Unless the survival of a species proves essential to human health, welfare or survival the government has no business proectcing such species.
Example of species that need protection: bats and birds. Without bats and birds our crops would be devoured by bugs and we would starve. Likewise bees. Without bees to pollinate our crops we would starve.
Snail darters? Who cares?
The burden of proof in deciding whether the government should protect a species should be on the government.
ruveyn
Don't you think we ought to take responsibility for our planet, especially if it's through human actions that are causing a species to face extinction?
Besides, this anti-conservationist movement among conservatives has it's roots in the far right Dominionist movement of Christianity, which argues we have been given dominion over God's creation to do with what we want (that she-cretin, Palin, is tied to them). Are you telling me you're siding with right wing Christians?!?!?!
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer