Date: Thu, 02 Jan 97 19:22 EST From: dave evans <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg26$foo@default> Subject: Re: Is Extinction better than Captive Propagation?
> From: "Demetrio Lamzaki" <Dee_Lamzaki@MSN.COM>
>
> This fact doesn't conflict with my support of the preservation
> of natural biodiversity. The two tactics complement each other,
> they are not exclusive paths that one must decide between as
> they've been depicted by some here.
Hmm, While I don't see capitive populations loosing their
wild abilities of survival, if the sites are destroyed, then
there is no place to re-introduce them. Plants are generally
more tied to a specific type of soil and lighting and water
levels than animals but it still happens (carrier pigeon).
Keeping plants as backups to wild populations doesn't mechanically
conflict with preservation, but it does when you have money
to spend on one or the other. I'd always pick the land and
the environment on it over building lots of greenhouses (where
should we put the greenhouses?). If I had plants from a site
that was later picked clean, I could re-plant (or send seed
and plants to whoever is re-planting the site) some and there
still may be seed present. Such opertunity is a rather rare
occurance. Most of the time, the land is it's self is damaged in
some way, so it is no longer able to support the life it once held.
> My guess is the overwhelming majority of readers of this list,
> who have not yet written on this topic, favor both strategies
> for preservation as I do.
It can work, it's just better to preserve the environment it self.
Also, what greedy person is not going to use the captive plants
in an attempt to sway the public to their view? "We can give you
jobs clearing land and besides those Greenies already have tons
of captive plants from here."
> >and some from that side use this attitude to rationalize
> >or justify illegal activity.
See above paragraph for another rationalization.
> Yes I know, the sky would darken for hours as a flock went
> overhead and with a single rifle shot you could down 20 birds.
> Accurate, exaggerated? Who knows. I actually wasn't
> referring to them at the height of their numbers, more towards
> the last few decades of existence when their decline was
> evident. They realized the American bison was in trouble
> before it was too late (barely), it's sad the same can't be
> said for the Passenger pigeon.
Yes, but there is still room for that species. Not for the
pigeon though.
Dave E
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST