🚀 go-pugleaf

^^mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
 
>I find the destruction of species that have existed for millions of 
>years, for no better purpose than to titilate a few humans' fancy a
>lot more nauseous [than anti-endangered-species comment in thread]. In 
>fact, I can't think of any good excuse for extinguishing a species.

	You missed an interesting news report carried by a Colorado
newspaper, picked up on the Associated Press newswire, and carried for
a while by the clari.environment newsgroup (I don't know if it's 
still there).

	A Colorado butterfly, the "Uncompaghre fritillary," is clearly
endangered, apparently existing only on the highest, coldest slopes
of two Colorado 14,000 foot peaks.  

	According to the story, scientists wrote an article in the March
issue of Conservation Biology suggesting that there be no interference with
"natural" extinction.  They say that humans should not interfere with 
"heroic" efforts to save a species dying out naturally.  (The suggestion
is that the butterfly is dying because of thousands of years of climatic
changes.)

	Many environmentalists went through the roof.  An EDF specialist
is quoted as saying he doesn't know whether the species is becoming
extinct naturally.  (There may be good reason for this.  Another newspaper
story recently said that butterfly poachers have savaged many species, 
including the fritillary, to sell to collectors, and some may even have
wound up in the Smithsonian, which is now investigating.)  He also said that
"it's unwise to simply stand back and say we shouldn't do anything to 
preserve the greater biological diversity [the butterfly] represents."

	Not an uninteresting debate, and not one made by uncaring people on
either side.