🚀 go-pugleaf

I am in favor of sedating and attempting to save the animal also. I am confused by the part where
the "judge denied an environmental activist's request to stop the planned rescue ..." I read this to
mean that an enviro group was opposed to the planned rescue, but the judge allowed the rescue to to
go forward. What could they be opposed to here?

I guess I don't see this as an enviro issue as much as an animal rights issue, which makes it
on-topic for the audubon society group, however I always thought they were concerned with birds
specifically, and land animals in general. This could very well be on topic for all of these groups,
and I just don't get it.

My real question is what the enviro groups could have against the rescue plan. The other question
was more rhetorical, and really it was a snide remark that I probably should not have made.




"Bill Mulcahy" <rockaway2@hvi.net> wrote in message news:tji54pb1lm0f45@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JStrickland" <jdoe@ez2.net> wrote in message
> news:tjf7v0gkv842a3@corp.supernews.com...
> > <snip>
> > > On Friday, a federal judge denied an environmental activist's request to
> > > stop the planned rescue, clearing the way for the operation that could
> > > involve sedating the whale.
>
> > What I want to know is, why would the environmental activists wish to stop
> the rescue operation?
> >
>
> I'm all for sedating the whale to save it.
>
> > I would also like to know how this issue can possibly be on-topic to the
> various news groups it is
> > posted in.
>
> I don't know, I thought an environmental issue posted on environmental
> newsgroups was on
> topic. I guess I was wrong.
>
> Bill Mulcahy, editor of the Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter
> http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/ACNewsmenu.htm
>
>