Hunting of endangered species

[Guest guest]

Dear Sandra:

 

I agree with you that we should try to stop U.S. politicians

and everyone else (U.S. politicians only make up a tiny fraction of

the total number of wildlife exploiters worldwide) from trophy

hunting, trading, and habitat-destruction, but of ALL species and

not just those on the brink of extinction, and acting in the name of

wildlife protection and not " conservation. "

Nature eventually balances itself if we can only leave it

alone long enough. Often the niches of extirpated predators such as

wolves are filled by other predators who expand their own territories

to fill the vacuum, but often the niches are filled by " feral

species, " who are despised by mainstream environmentalists and

conservationists as much as the extirpated species was hated by

livestock farmers, and the feral species are subject to the most

cruel and ruthless extermination campaigns -- in the name of

conservation.

I am with you when you say we should fight to protect the

little wildlife that is left, but why can't we just say we want

governments to protect wildlife instead of trying to base our concern

on interest in preserving endangered species? In fact, almost all

wildlife is endangered whether it is " listed " or not.

" Conservation " is a word that no longer belongs to animal

welfarists. It was appropriated by the big-game hunters who founded

the World Wildlife Fund, and it has become synonymous with

" sustainable use, " which is antithetical to the concept of animal

rights. Some very good wildlife protection organizations have the

word " conservation " in their names, it is true, but the word is

spoiled for me.

 

--Kim Bartlett

 

 

>Dear Kim,

>

>As you know, English is not my mother language, so I am not that good in

>expressing myself in English, but I will try my best to explain why I think

>it's so important to protect those endangered species.

>

>I truly understand you and I agree with you on most points, therefore I

>believe there is a misunderstanding here.

>I totally agree that humans have failed and are still failing BIG TIME.

>

>I strongly believe that we should stop these US politicians from allowing to

>hunt (trophy hunting), trade (for pet and amusement industry), abuse and

>destroy habitats (logging) of species that are on the brink of extinction,

>in the name of conservation.

>It has very little to do with conservation, it's all about their own

>interests and money. I have spoken to a South African who organizes trophy

>hunting (yes, it was very hard for me to stay calm) and he admitted that

>many times the huge amount of money paid by trophy hunters wasn't spend on

>conservation. Instead it was going to private pockets, making the game

>farmers and corrupt politicians richer and more powerful.

>These endangered species who, if we do not act to stop it, will be gone FOR

>EVER in 10 to 15 years (this was even admitted by the S.A. trophy hunter).

>There will be no going back and it would be too late to regret and to feel

>sorry. I am talking about big apes, elephants, big cats, rhinos etc

>.....unfortunately the list is very long.

>These endangered animals are a very important link in the eco system, take

>them out and you are destroying not only them, but the whole eco system

>around them. Small example, why do you think people want to introduce wolves

>back in the European nature? Because they are needed to keep the balance.

>We should fight to protect the little wildlife what is left.

>

>Take care,

>

>Sandra

>Sandra Wijnveldt

>

>-----------------------------

>Dear Sandra et al:

>

> I fully expect most of you to become irate about what I'm going to

>say, but I have come to believe that animal welfarists shouldn't have

>anything to do with " endangered species " protection.

> We want to protect all animals, whether their species is endangered

>or not, however by emphasizing endangered species, we are implicitly

>saying that rare animals are worth more than common animals. That's what

>the hunter-conservationists believe, and the general public has come to

>believe it, because the animal protection movement has gone along with it

>for the last few decades.

> THUS furriers can assure their customers that the skins they sell

>are not from " endangered animals, " so it's OK to wear them.

> THUS conservationists have refused to call for closure of the cruel

>live markets of Asia, because most of the animals butchered are from

>non-endangered species.

> THUS conservationists in central Africa encourage the natives to eat

>more dogs rather than bushmeat.

> THUS the Ethiopian wolf conservationists have been murdering

>homeless but non-rabid dogs in Bale National Park this week, ostensibly to

>stop an outbreak of rabies among the highly endangered wolves, but in

>reality to cover their own failure to vaccinate the wolves against rabies

>(easily done with oral rabies vaccine) and because they wanted to kill the

>dogs several years ago to prevent hybridization of the wolves and were only

>stopped through the protests of the fledgling Homeless Animals Protection

>Society of Ethiopia, whose pleas to the international animal welfare groups

>this past week to help stop the dog massacre have fallen on deaf ears.

> THUS foxes are poisoned to protect endangered birds, and some birds

>are killed to protect other more endangered birds, and feral animals are

>despised everywhere by conservationists, and on and on infinitum...

> To say one kind of animal has more right to live than another kind

>of animal is speciesist. A " species " is an abstract...a " species " doesn't

>suffer. Individual animals suffer, and animal welfare is supposed to be

>about prevent suffering.

> Of course an animal welfarist cares about the survival and

>well-being of an endangered animal as much as one of us cares about any

>other animal, but that the animal is from an endangered species shouldn't

>appear to be the focus.

> Mainstream conservationism follows the " sustainable use " philosophy,

>which means that they believe animals should be " used " (mainly " harvested " )

>unless doing so jeopardizes the survival of the species. I say that if we

>are trying to protect animals so that they can be " sustainably used " at some

>point when their species has recovered, they might as well go extinct now

>and get all the dying over with.

> In the meantime, giving a higher status to " endangered " animals

>only lowers the status of non-endangered animals.

>

>--(this is the personal opinion of) Kim Bartlett, publisher of ANIMAL

>PEOPLE

>

> >From HSUS:

>

>YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED (AGAIN) TO STOP HUNTING OF ENDANGERED SPECIES:

>

>Monday, November 10, 2003 is the final deadline for citizens to send

>their comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding

>the Bush administration's proposed rule to revise permit regulations

>of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). These changes, if

>incorporated into the final ESA regulations, will have disastrous

>consequences for endangered species worldwide, because they will

>allow hunters, circuses, and the pet industry to capture and kill

>endangered animals and import them into the U.S. These

>changes run directly contrary to the intention of the ESA, but trophy

>hunting groups, the circus industry, and the pet industry are

>offering the absurd argument that exploiting the animals will allow

>funds to be raised to save them.

>

>

>WHAT YOU CAN DO:

>

>Previously, we asked you to write in on this issue regarding a draft

>policy change to the ESA. The response was so great, that the FWS

>has requested future comments on the ESA proposed rule change to be

>sent via email.

>

>Please email your comments by Monday, November 10, to:

>fw9escs

>

>

>Whether or not you have written in before, please just send one final

>round of comments asking the FWS to withdraw its proposal to weaken

>the ESA regulations. Let them know that killing animals for sport and

>entertainment is no way to protect them.

>

>The Federal Register notice of the proposed rule can be found at:

>

>http://policy.fws.gov/library/03-20941.pdf

>

>For a sample letter to the USFWS, see:

>http://action.fund.org/action/index.asp?step=2 & item=5090

>

 

--

Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE

Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/

 

Please do not send attachments! - please paste information in

your message.

 

Something to think about: We believe that the Golden Rule

applies to animals, too. We don't accept the prevailing notion

that " people come first' " or that " people are more important than

animals. " Animals feel pain and suffer just as we do, and it is

almost always humans making animals suffer and not the other way

around. Yet in spite of how cruelly people behave towards animals

-- not to mention human cruelty to other humans -- we are supposed to

believe that humans are superior to other animals. If people want

to fancy themselves as being of greater moral worth than the other

lifeforms on this earth, we should begin behaving better than they

do, and not worse. Let's start treating everyone as we would like

to be treated ourselves.