🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18 May 1994 11:44:55 PST, mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) said:

>>> BTW, does anyone know by what law/amendment/etc. a federal judge
>>> gets jurisdiction to allow the destruction of a wildlife population?
>>> Since wildlife obviously had no vote in the creation of any human
>>> laws, this decision (to allow the gnatcatcher population to be
>>> destroyed) is "problematical"....
>>
>>Only if one considers that birds, trees, butterflies, and mangos have
>>rights, which they do not.

> Maybe there could be a concept akin to "common law", whereby common
> sense (science) could apply to the treatment of wildlife. Then they 
> would have common-law rights.

Common-law is that body of law built up from English legal tradition,
court cases, etc.  'Common sense' isn't, particularly when everyone,
i.e. no one, owns a resource.  Does *any* species have a right to
exist?  What about foreign predators who somehow manage to find
certain (endangered) species tasty?

I find the ecotopian idea of nature-as-museum just a little nauseous.

This response has been edited appropriately to remove irrelevant
newsgroups.

-- 
Robert L. McMillin  | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com

* Write to clipper.petition@cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.
* Write to cantwell@eff.org supporting HR 3627.
* Write leahy@eff.org and demand the Clinton administration explain IN
  THE SENATE why it thinks U.S. citizens shouldn't have any digital privacy.
* This is a shareware .signature  -- please pass it on!