From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.07.28 at 00:40:55(7166)
In a message dated Thu, 26 Jul 2001 1:35:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "newton" writes:
> Laws, whether as
> individuals we feel are just or unjust, modify our behavior, which is judged
> to be in the local or international societies best interest at the time.
What I believe you are trying to say is, just because we disagree with a law, does not mean we should disregard it. This is true. After all, every criminal disagrees with the laws he breaks -- otherwise, he would not break them. And, with each of our individual talents and weaknesses, there is one thing in which we are all experts: we all excel at self-justification.
> Locally, we have several protected grasses, two of which are known to be the
> only locations in several states. Do I want them protected? You bet. Do I
> want some "damned nice fellow" to dig them up and sell them? Hell no. I can
> only imagine the ignorance of a person who would do so without regard.
>
This relates back to a comment I made about a month ago (or more), about my choice simply not to reveal the locations of sensitive species I find. The fewer people know they are there, the less likelihood someone will come after them. As I understand it, some of our State Departments of Natural Resources (or equivalent) withhold locations of the species they monitor, for exactly this reason.
> In countries where plants are endangered, and misguided laws for their
> protection are inadvertently guaranteeing their ultimate destruction due to
> habitat changes, concerned people should use the international channels to
> influence a change.
Is there a place for "cloak-and-dagger conservation"? For example, a few years ago, in an area I know, some local boys (I never met them) accidentally started a wildfire in some brush. Some weeks later, I visited the spot, finding blackened remains of an invasive shrub, and bare, blackened soil. I knew the area had, prior to settlement, been a native prairie; and I had discovered a few seeds of native prairie species in my bag, which must have fallen there while I was gathering for the State DNR some weeks before. So, I sprinkled them about on the burned site, hoping they would grow -- and thus reestablish an extirpated population. Since the land was a right-of-way for electrical transmission wires, I figured the power company would not harbor any malevolence toward them. Was I doing wrong?
>
> And don't get me started on the comment "THESE 4 CYCADS ARE NOT HURTING
> ANYTHING".... There are many
> more than 4 cycads floating over our borders and disappearing from native
> soils to the greedy hands of private and public collections.
>
Exactly. This is one of the most common self-justifications. Someone bulldozes a tract of woods to build a house, and says, "It's just one small lot." But then the guy on the next lot over does the same, and the next and the next -- each individual clearing "just one small lot" until it all adds up to a large acreage. The fact is, there are so many humans in the world today, that even if everyone does just a tiny bit of damage, we will still destroy the environment.
Jason Hernandez
| +More |
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
