>It's interesting to hear that the USFWS is starting to cry uncle in
>admission that it has taken on far more than it can handle. And it's
>ironic to hear that environmental lawsuits which are intended to help
>these creatures and their habitats are making it even harder for the
>agency to do it's job.
>Should it be a surprise that federal wildlife authorities are
>overloaded? The Clinton years brought more funding and a zeal to boldly
>regulate and antagonize private citizens. Now the political winds have
>changed and the best laid plans of mice and men are coming unraveled.
>That's the problem of looking to goverment for solutions.
>Perhaps this is a wake up call.
>Maybe it's time to give up the illusion that you can solve any problem
>under the sun if you keep throwing money at it.
That's a biased characterization of environmental protection. I think
there is as much illusion in your interpretations as any other illusions
you refer to. I think little from the Clinton administration is either: 1)
representative of any philosophy, or 2) a test case for any failed or
successful philosophy. What happened during that administration and any
other prior one was situational and based on the conflicts and
personalities of the day.
>And maybe those environmentalists ought to give up counter-productive
>lawsuits and consider a more constructive approach. Instead of giving
>their sweat and treasure to line the pockets of lawyers and politicians
>why don't they put their efforts into promoting alternative
>technologies- start companies and non-profit organizations that help low
>income people and struggling small farmers implement eco-friendly
>technologies that could improve their lot economically as well as ease
>their impact on the local ecosystem as well as mittigate the cumulative
>impact further downstream.
I don't understand your point-- there's never been anything to stop people
from doing that. But really, that is a terrible characterization of
law-abiding citizens who themselves expect laws to be upheld.
>But private land trusts and non-governmental organizations
>like Habitat and the Nature Conservancy have proven themselves more
>effective and enduring. And people like them alot more than a government
>agency that is prone to overstep its constitutional authority and
>overload itself with far more than it can feasably handle.
>Maybe there is hope after all.
For whom? The Nature Conservancy does not think they are a better solution
than environmental protection laws. Have you ever seen that in writing in
any of their publications?
-- Jay DeLong Olympia, WA
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------- /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes / Association" / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead. / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org </x-flowed>