I have to agree somewhat with Tail chaser here. Just take the logic of it and take it to humans. Only Norwegian blondes should breed with Norwegian blondes, and so on. I think we all know what in-breeding does. That is not to say that we should be considering all members of a gentic species as the same, but in the case of animals such as the Orcas, that do travel and interbreed, trying to seperate them soley by area makes no sense. Here in Pierce County they are Planning to build the cross base freeway through a section on Fort Lewis. Located there is a small number of squirrels (I am not sure of the exact species but it maybe the western red squirrel) that a isolated completely from all other squirrels of that species. These squirrels are abundant in oregon, but only found in this one area in Washington. The plan I heard was to spend $10,000,000.00 for squirrel bridges (this is about 10% of the entire project if I remember correctly) to protect these squirrels. No one questions that they are the exact genetic species as in Oregon and I have not heard of any different characteristics other than the place they live. I we truely think that they are different, then perhaps we should simply preserve there DNA. We need to get real. While there are differences in some river fishes, there are also a large number of rivers where the fish stray. Compare the number of Whitetail deer in Washington today to 50 years ago. Nature has itself appears to understand the need for diversity. I am not saying I know much about this subject, but common sense does come into play somewhere.
Enviormentalism does not always make sense. We label our Bald Eagles as Threatened, but the maps show almost a 100% coverage of nesting sites, meaning there was little to no room for expansion. When I asked the biologists about this I was told they didn't have the funding to so the necessary studies to de-list them. (think the fact that they wouldn't have a job any more might have something to do with this?) Because many people spend thousands of dollars on eviromental studies that are not needed. Somewhere out there is a middle ground. I am not sure exactly where it is, but I do know from experience we will probably not find it from government biologists. It is my personal opinion, sorry if I offend anyone, that most government biologists take their job because they want to protect the enviroment. They could make much more money in private industry, but take less money so they can make a difference. Some it seems, lean towards a form of enviromentalism that borders on religion. It is these people that we must watch out for. While it may seem good to stop the Makah's from whaling, for example, we should take care not to allow faulty enviromental thinking to dictate the manner in which we accomplish what we want done.
Enviormentalism does not always make sense. We label our Bald Eagles as Threatened, but the maps show almost a 100% coverage of nesting sites, meaning there was little to no room for expansion. When I asked the biologists about this I was told they didn't have the funding to so the necessary studies to de-list them. (think the fact that they wouldn't have a job any more might have something to do with this?) Because many people spend thousands of dollars on eviromental studies that are not needed. Somewhere out there is a middle ground. I am not sure exactly where it is, but I do know from experience we will probably not find it from government biologists. It is my personal opinion, sorry if I offend anyone, that most government biologists take their job because they want to protect the enviroment. They could make much more money in private industry, but take less money so they can make a difference. Some it seems, lean towards a form of enviromentalism that borders on religion. It is these people that we must watch out for. While it may seem good to stop the Makah's from whaling, for example, we should take care not to allow faulty enviromental thinking to dictate the manner in which we accomplish what we want done.
