Well, if you are speaking of a specific animal, then I'd have to say that my
original complaint of it being reduced to an animal rights issue stands. I
think there is a strong difference, ethically speaking, between the
protection of a species, whatever that may be, and the protection of an
individual animal. It is the process of evolution on one hand, or the
process of public policy that is the central issue, and both lead to habitat
protection. The protection of an individual can be accomplished by catching
the brute and putting it in a zoo. Not satisfactory in my estimation.

Steven

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of sarahshobrook
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 9:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ethics and the species question


As a social and cultural geographer with a sensitivity to language and
difference, rather than science and rationality I'd just like to reiterate
the sentiments of your student. I would suggest that there are considerable
dangers involved ethically in trying to determine a hiearchy of purity
between and across different types of species. I can only speak for myself
when I say that surely if something is living, sensured and in danger it
deserves protection, whether or not it is a pure species is totally
irrelevant. A judgement on an animals scientific credentials or purity of
species could never, and should never be used as an adequate measure to
ensure its existence, ethically or otherwise.

Sarah

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 3:31 PM
Subject: Ethics and the species question


> I've been on the road and not following the discussion the last three
weeks,
> but I caught a bit of the California Gnat-Catcher issue. This same
question,
> the legal definition of species, has come up in regard to the Florida
> Panther in the past. The FL panther is "contaminated" with South American
> Cougar genes and the question has been raised as to whether or not it
should
> be protected under the ESA. The issue I want to raise is whether we have
the
> same ethical obligation to a "species" if it is, in fact, not a species,
but
> a bunch of animals in a given area under endangerment.
>
> My knee-jerk response is, no, we do not. To afford endangered species
> protection to an arbitrary group of animals devalues the issue to one of
> animal rights. Endangered species protection should be reserved to
distinct
> biologic species and not extended to any group we fancy. That was my
initial
> reaction, however, one of my students pointed out that this was just
because
> I was a biologist and biased toward the biological definition of
"species."
> His point was that "species" also had a political meaning and that might,
> ethically speaking, be just as important as the biological definition.
After
> all, as he threw my words back at me, "species" only had meaning within
the
> context of habitat, and therefore the political aim of species was habitat
> protection, not animal protection, so whether the animal was a biological
> species or not was beside the point.
>
> I hate it when a student comes up with stuff like this. They are suppose
to
> be in awe of my opinion and not raise questions I can't answer. Anyone got
a
> useful opinion?
>
> Steven
>
>    "You're forgetting about God."
>    "He doesn't interest me. God Tolerates
> the intolerable; he is irresponsible and
> inconsistent. God is not a gentleman."
>                Arturo Perez-Reverte, 1988
>                        The Fencing Master
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%