🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>> 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.
 
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. In fact, I can't think of any good excuse for
extinguishing a species.