Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush set to relax rules protecting species

  1. Nov 19, 2008 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This is so wrong, IMO.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_ca/bush_endangered_species
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 19, 2008 #2

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To put it tactfully, this administration is not friendly to science. But to read this line of that article:

    That says it all, doesn't it? I'ts just stunning, really. Wow.
     
  4. Nov 19, 2008 #3
    Ugh...no offense, but those of his generation, thanks for NOTHING, my generations got a LOT to do....
     
  5. Nov 19, 2008 #4
    Yeah, seriously.

    I still don't get the people who say history will vindicate Bush. I predict he will become a cuss word in the future, such as "Holy Bush!" or "Awww Bush, someone slashed my tires!!"
     
  6. Nov 19, 2008 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    We humans have slaughtered a LOT of species to near-extinction in the US. There are people here in Maine that resist protection of lynxes, wolves, and other species for their own reasons, and that are politically powerful. These highly-motivated people hammer our law-makers while the average people, more concerned about heating oil prices, property taxes, etc, are blissfully unaware of the stuff going on in the back rooms.
     
  7. Nov 19, 2008 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And lots also go extinct on their own. Could someone please provide me with a logical argument as to why we should be protecting endangered species?
     
  8. Nov 19, 2008 #7

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Usually, in the case of game species, the protection is a ban on hunting them. This is the case in Maine with the Canada Lynx, which have a breeding population in some areas, but which are declining rapidly.
     
  9. Nov 19, 2008 #8
    My aunt, who is a botanist, is irate over this. She says most gov agencies don't have the people with the right expertise to make a good decision. Will lead to further abuse of our environment.
     
  10. Nov 19, 2008 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Some of our medicines cannot be synthesized and must be extracted from specific parts of plants. We don't know the potential of the plants and animals that we share the Earth with, and it reckless to allow their destruction.
     
  11. Nov 19, 2008 #10
    someone should protect red squirrels from turbo
     
  12. Nov 19, 2008 #11
    Learning about them can teach us more about ourselves and life in general. It's kind of hard to learn about a type of animal if there are only 5 of them left.

    Not to mention, only having cows, pigs, and chicken would be very boring.
     
  13. Nov 19, 2008 #12

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Diverting a road around the habitat of an endangered species is not too much to ask. You have to understand the impact of what the extiction of one species will have on other species. The environmental consequences of a dam, as the Chinese realized the importance of too late, can have dire consequences on the environment.

    I don't think having the people in charge of laying roads and building dams as the only say in the decision is a smart move.
     
  14. Nov 19, 2008 #13
    I don't think we should protect species just because they are cute. The panda for instance, gets a lot more support than other animals just because it's got big, cute eyes.

    I think, however, that we should protect species that we humans have put in danger ourselves. If putting them in zoos temporarily is the only way, we should do that. But generally I'm against both zoos and imprisonment of animals.
     
  15. Nov 19, 2008 #14

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper


    I iknow they aren't cute and many people regard them as a pest and think they do a lot of damage to the enviroment but republicans need protection - they are dying out even in their native alaska.

    i don't think captive breeding programs in zoos have worked. Although breeding in cheap motels is effective for TV evangelists.
     
  16. Nov 19, 2008 #15

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Red squirrels need no protection. They are the devil incarnate. They drive off gray squirrels 3x their size, and they relentlessly attack my chipmunks. Life is better without them.
     
  17. Nov 19, 2008 #16
    that's not true, the Palins are demonstrably fertile.

    funny tho, it was just recently that the liberal was declared endangered, with their 1 or no child marriages.
     
  18. Nov 19, 2008 #17

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The type of breeding that some TV evangelists and GOP congressmen have engaged in is pretty much guaranteed to preclude procreation.
     
  19. Nov 19, 2008 #18
    not around mississippi and alabama, they aren't. i remember going squirrel hunting with my dad, and him telling me about the red squirrels, but we couldn't find any. i can't remember what is supposed to have happened to them, though. marauding bands of Maine hippies, no doubt.
     
  20. Nov 19, 2008 #19

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    You're a Republican, aren't you? turbo-1 just gave a good reason.

    But I guess if you're Republican, {economy} > {everything}-{economy}.
     
  21. Nov 19, 2008 #20
    Not all republicans are like that.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bush set to relax rules protecting species
  1. Bush Bush Bush (Replies: 6)

Loading...