Hi everyone,
Well, I finally tracked down that issue of the Atlantic Monthly that had
the foxhunting article by Stephen Budiansky . . . and guess what? There's
also an article in that issue about the risks and benefits of the proposed
reintroduction of grizzly bears to parts of the American West. check it
out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/whitman.htm
Apparently, the governor of Idaho opposes the reintroduction efforts:
"More than 24,000 individuals, organizations, and government agencies
commented on the reintroduction proposal, which could eventually increase
the grizzly-bear population in the lower forty-eight states by almost a
third. Now Idaho's lawmakers are searching desperately for ways to keep the
grizzlies out. Governor Dirk Kempthorne has stated that the reintroduction
plan 'is perhaps the first federal land-management action in history likely
to result in injury or death of members of the public,' and the Idaho
representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage has likened the government's plan to
'introducing sharks at the beach.' In the town of Challis, Idaho, county
commissioners have even enacted an 'Unacceptable Species Ordinance,'
decreeing that grizzlies may be killed in the county, in defiance of the
Endangered Species Act."
The governor has a point . . . If as the article states, grizzlies have
killed an average of two people a year over the last decade, adding more
grizzlies is likely to add up to = more human fatalities. Therefore,
wouldn't the application of the precautionary principle in this case be
warranted? As with the bats, should we start killing all the grizzlies?
(And btw, speaking of rabid bats: isn't valuing the life of an individual
bat over those of the 3,000 to 7,000 insects and mosquitos that the bat
eats nightly an *outrageous* example of "speciesism"?? now, don't get me
started on that one). :-)
The grizzly issue makes the illegal GMO corn in Taco Bell taco shells issue
look like, well, small burritos . . . in the Taco Bell case, there is the
*possibility* of an allergic reaction occurring, of unknown seriousness
(and if you take the article by Steve Milloy that Steve Verdon posted
seriously, there's little or no chance of that occurring) . In the grizzly
bear case, however, people *will* die and get eaten. Hmmm. What benefits
could possibly accrue from reintroducing grizzly bears into their former
range that would outweigh the cost in human lives when people become
grizzly food?
Jim T.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|