Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
does not go without reinstituting it in advanced countries. Why to ask peoples from developping countries to suffere inconveniences the developped ones are refusing to undergo?
(Not a critique against your article, which is excellent, and with which I agree...)

BTW, I heard some cultivars were obtained by crossing with local apples...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Fri May 8th, 2009 at 05:38:32 PM EST
I only can comment on the U.S. Despite the flaws in the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. does pretty well (not perfect) trying to protect threatened and endangered plants and animals.

I write this despite my disappointment today in the Obama administration's decision to keep the Bush administration rule on polar bears, for now. Basically the Department of the Interior, which has a conflicted interest mind you, agreed that the Endangered Species Act cannot be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Perhaps a more independent, critical assessment comes from Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki,. who recently wrote:

On the environment, he has appointed an outspoken advocate of ocean conservation to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, signed into law protection for over two million acres of wilderness, and made clear his intention to combat climate change, including a willingness to force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient and less-polluting cars.

Obama's commitment to implement the U.S. Endangered Species Act has received far less attention. Earlier this year, the U.S. government restored key endangered species protections that were stripped away by George Bush in the waning days of his administration. In particular, President Obama has reinstated rules that will ensure that government decisions or activities that might harm endangered species receive independent scientific scrutiny before they are allowed to go ahead.

In announcing the change, President Obama said: "Throughout our history, there's been a tension between those who've sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources. But I'm here to tell you this is a false choice. With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and preserve the environment for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren."

The president's support for the Endangered Species Act signals a 180-degree turn for the U.S. government. Under George Bush, the U.S. did just about everything in its power, including breaking the law, to eviscerate this critical piece of environmental legislation, enacted, ironically, by another right-wing Republican, Richard Nixon, more than 30 years ago.

One of the largest problems with the ESA, is that enforcement is left to the whims of the executive branch. So, when Americans put a cretin like Bush into office, attempts to protect and preserve endangered species is hampered, if not outright thwarted.

So at least from an American perspective, I think I'm not asking more from other nations than I demand of my own country.

by Magnifico on Fri May 8th, 2009 at 06:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
should be (re) introduced. The fauna of Europe and America is now very empoverished, although they are the richest places. So now that they conserve from a low mega fauna situation, while the mega fauna is getting finally exterminated where it still exists (there are plenty of tigers captive in Texas, true). A way out, and an example to the rest of the planet, is to find ways to live with dangerous fauna(all megafauna is dangerous). One does not see too many Californian ecological fanatics demonstrating to reintroduce the state symbol, found on the California flag, and still in the wilds there a century ago...
The Amur leopard could perhaps be put in the wilds somewhere north (Yukon? BC?)...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon May 11th, 2009 at 01:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In some cases, that makes a lot of sense. In others... not so much. It kinda depends on when the fauna in question was exterminated. If it's several centuries ago, then you need to be rather careful, because the ecosystem may have relaxed to a new equilibrium.

Also, on a more technical note, new introductions really need to be screened for diseases and other invasive species who might tag along.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon May 11th, 2009 at 03:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series