🚀 go-pugleaf

>: can't recognize the ring of truth. I believe the charter of the NPS includes
>: "preserve and protect" isn't that explicit enough for you? 
>
>No, Mike, it isn't clear because it isn't in context and it isn't accurate.  
>The ultimate objective of the National Park Service, according to its 
>organic act, is to "conserve" wildlife, scenery, and natural and historic 
>objects so that human beings can enjoy them now and in the future.  Note 
>that the emphasis is on human enjoyment, not on conservation of wildlife, 
>etc., as an end in itself.
 
I guess where the "emphasis" is, is subjective, huh? BTW, I am just curious --
how do you "enjoy" extinct wildlife in a national park?

>: Why can't you
>: anti-environmental types do your own homework, without the rest of us
>: having to spoon-feed you all of your environmental information (which you
>: instantly spit out, anyway)?
>
>Why can't you take a moment to carefully read a document (or a book) 
>before you put your own spin on it and claim that it represents a 
>position that any reasonable person can see it does not?
 
A book that you haven't read at all?

>: ORVs are totally incompatible with wildlife. Even the presence of humans
>: is incompatible with most species (see _The End of Evolution_, by Peter Ward,
>: especially p. 271).
>
>Well, there you have it, Mike.  Isn't about time for you to do the 
>honorable thing and show the sort of respect to wildlife that you claim 
>it deserves?  Why not be a true leader of your cause and cease to be 
>present?
 
I do.

>: "Working" from your point of view, but not that of the wildlife FOR WHOM
>: THE PARK WAS CREATED!
>
>Wrong, Mikey!  The National Park Service has no authority to administer a 
>park for wildlife.  The NPS must administer the wildlife on its holdings 
>for the benefit of humans of this and future generations.
 
Yes, partly for humans, but without wildlife, there would be no reason for
anyone to go there. That's what I mean by "for wildlife": to preserve them
in the park.