Bush Hosts Fishermen, Hunters on Ranch

[devil-man]

I killed this post on the hunting page, and I'm not going to do that here.
I would, however, like to agree with Strike-Zone and Co. Bush going bass fishing a few times a year does NOT make him a sportsman. He is looking for endorsements and $$$ from the sporting goods industry.
Is that not farking obvious? Our great land will be raped by him and others like him.
Mark my words.

That's all I'm going to say before I get in trouble. Peace

[crappieloo]

IMO thats the good thing about Bill, he wasnt ever power hungry and never was a liar. Also being a good old boy from Ark. he married a female from there too. They probablly went hunting for pigs together. At least bill was a pig hunter. I'm not sure, but i think shes not a sportsman, but is power hungry, could be a liar and a carpetbagger.

[fishin_musician]

I think it has been taken to extreme with the manatees in Florida (I am not for the speed zones,) and the wolf problem here in Wyoming.
So I guess you support the RADICAL ENVIROMENTAL POLICIES as long as they don't effect you or fly in the face of your vision of how it should be.
without it, animals can become extinct. I've got a news flash for you animals have been becoming extinct for billions of years I guess that is Bush's fault too!
What ever happened to old T-Rex dug up his bones so you could inspect.  Dinosaur kindom 10 million BC first on the list of endangered species.
FM

[ShawnM]

IN MY OPINION- Bush sucks!
He is not a sportsman, he is a power hungry, oil rich liar.

YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN UP Sate NY to say something like that !!!!!!!
He not a sportsman give me a brake he HUNT & FISH's just like you  . 

[wyogator]

We have to do what we can to prevent animals from becoming extinct.

[fishin_musician]

So slowing down for the fat ugly manatees is to much for you. What about all the insects that you are crushing under your auto tires? Should we ban antibiotics because they might cause the extinction of syphillis or the plague, Where do you draw the line between what life is worth preserving and what we can do without?
Is a snail darter worth more than an unborn child? Just somethings to think about.
FM

[Cider]

Consider this…

To put the discussion of the ESA in the correct context you have to take into account the very concept of the term “species” which has political/legal, biological, and vernacular interpretations.  The ESA use of the term species is strictly legal and not necessarily the best use of the term.  Vernacular definitions of “species” are vastly different amongst societies and cultures of humans and don't necessarily reflect the proper use of the term either.

In a true biological sense, the term species refers to groups or populations of organisms that have common characteristics that distinguish them from others as being distinct.  The most important being the ability to produce viable offspring.  In other words, they must be able to freely exchange genetic information between individuals of said population without physical, temporal, or geographical barriers.

Please note that I use the term organism rather than animal.  People often neglect to think about plants when discussing the ESA.  Plants are every bit as important!

It is also important to consider the concepts of subspecies, races or varieties, and distinct segments of the species.  These sub-groups of a species are all important to the overall survival of that species but often times not taken into account by the legal jargon of the ESA imposed by politicians and legislators with personal political agendas.

Natural extinctions are an essential fact of evolution and have a positive impact on biodiversity.  There have been at least five mass extinctions in recorded history that were associated with rare physical events on earth (i.e. – asteroid impact and the mass extinction of dinosaurs).  These extinctions affected similar types of species that had commonality (i.e. – marine organisms, terrestrial organisms, or avian organisms).

However, there is another mass extinction happening right now.  This one is being caused predominantly by direct human involvement through the loss of critical habitat and ecosystems.  The current mass extinction is affecting all major groups of life.  Is this good or bad?

Considering the fact that extinctions can and do occur without direct human involvement, it is important to know that a given species fills a unique niche within the environment.  When that species is gone, another one will eventually come along to fill its niche.  A perfect example of this is the removal/extinction of the wolf in the northeast and the eastern coyote blossoming to fill the empty niche.

So, you also have to think about the importance of the species and how it interacts within its environment and with other species.  Interaction between species is a vital part of the web of life.  Some species would not be missed at all while the extinction of others could set off a cataclysmic chain of events that would affect several other species.

So when talking about saving a species, consider these questions:  What role does it play in the environment?  Is this a critical species?  What are the economic values associated with that species?  Is the extinction being driven by direct human involvement or as a natural part of the evolution of said species?  If it is being caused by human involvement, then what affect will the outcome have on biodiversity; positive or negative?

The ESA is problematic for many reasons.  One major problem is funding.  Funds to help protect disappearing habitat and ecosystems are difficult if not impossible to appropriate in a timely manner to offer any real help to a dying species.  Private landowners don’t have any incentive to help out with the ESA so often times they will eliminate favorable habitat on their land to avoid any legal battles over landowner use rights.  I already mentioned the fact that the political defintion for a species often overlooks key parts of the species (sub-species, race, etc.).

Another issue is the degree of difficulty in listing a species.  Often times, species aren’t listed until they are on an endangered status and perhaps it is biologically too late in some instances to prevent extinction.  The long-time survival of a species is dependent upon natural selection over an extremely long period of time; survival of the fittest through genetic diversity and longevity.  Unfortunately, rates of genetic diversity decline rapidly in endangered species and it becomes problematic for the species to successfully sustain itself.

Is the ESA a useful tool?  Yes and No!  The ESA needs to be refined to take into consideration the science (conservation biology, biodiversity) and economics/importance of a species first without regard to political ambitions.  The ESA should be most concerned about preserving biodiversity, but not to a point where we are trying to save every single species that are currently on the planet.  Sometimes it is beneficial for species to die off and for new species to evolve to fill the empty niches.

Just the rambling perspective and opinion of a biologist…

[ShawnM]

DAM Cider you do sure write a lot     .

[devil-man]

Sorry, Shawn. Bush does not hunt and fish just like me. He's a wealthy politician who hunts and fishes to get endorsements (and donations) from the NRA and BASS. There's no way you can convince me otherwise.
His idea of a good time is blowing up cities overseas in the name of national defense.
And he does this right from his ranch in Texas.
Did you see his news conference last night?
He's a farking idiot.

[wyogator]

That was great Cider. No, I do no not want to run over a manatee on purpose. However, the manatee/speedzone laws are getting stricter (imagine heading to your favorite fishing spot 20 miles away without being allowed to make a wake,) despite the fact that manatees have come back enough to sustain a healthy population. So, even though the biologists have determined that, the save the manatee club still lobbies for stricter laws and wins.

[Cider]

DAM Cider you do sure write a lot     .

Yes, I do!  I really enjoy the conversations on this website and participating in them.  Many of them are quite good.  I hope that my number of posts and ramblings don't offend or make people feel like they don't get the opportunity to interject their opinions.  If that is the case please let me know and I will slow down!  I also hope to invoke (not incite) and stimulate thoughtful discussion on all sides of the issues.  My philosophy in life is to have an open mind, not a gaping one!

[ShawnM]

NO MAN keep on writing your doing a good job

[fishermanjake]

I agree jigstick...i had a long writing for this along that kind of lines ...but i hit send and the room was timed out deleted my whole LONG argument and left me with nothing ....anyhow...My point of the whole thing was that origin science that the Universities support is lacking in "empirical/concrete evindence"  Everyone is so convinced of it being "scientific" that they neglect the posibility of a young earth and devine creation....For example radiometric dating, the youngest rocks that can be dated is 100000 years old, with K-Ar dating...the other methods are older...say 1-2 million years.  Carbon dating would fill the gap, but it assumes that carbon-14 has been constant in the atmosphere for thousands of years...well the ozone has been depleting as long as we could messure it so it stands to reason the the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is increasing.  Sediment layers are used to estimate ages as well based on uniformitarianism and do not consider extream processes, such as a global flood...Therefore the basis of secular origen science is not based on concrete evidence, but on assumptions and circular reasoning.
Anyhow phenomina like Po halos in granites supports instant creation....and "science" has yet to explain life...
The question ultimately comes down to the worth of human life compared to other life...are we in the image of God and have a moral obligation to one who will judge us all?  Is the evidence there for the resurrection of Christ?  If so there is hope...I see evidence.............or............ are we a piece of cosmic chance washed up from the rocks in the ocean which by chance everything that lives was formed?  No moral obligation exept what we hold in our own minds, living out our lives for our own selfish ambitions?  Thats pretty much what it comes down to with a few side roads that really don't have any evidence for. 
origin science cannot be devoid of religion for it is the foundation of our worldview.  There is a place out there beyond human coprehention that "science" will never grasp.

On a lighter note...  As for Bush I think he has done a great job for our country morally speaking, and definately deserves credit for his leadership throught these trying times with terrorism on our country.

ENOUGH SAID BY ME

[ShawnM]

Well D Man ,
Do you hunt do you have gun's ? Vote for John Kerry and maybe some day they can take them away from you . Do you belong to the NRA if so you know what I telling you is what Kerry wants to do take all gun's take them away . read the May American Hunter on NRA's message to NRA members about Kerry . So you don't like Bush that's ok but do you like you're gun I guess not ?

[nuke1neil]

AMEN Shawn!!!  Hey Cider and Fisherman Jake,with all them fancy spelled words and talk of theories and scientific stuff,maybe you guys could start a mynerdfinder.com website!!!Just kidding!!!!I'm pretty smart too,shucks,I'm the first in my family to gradjeeate from the eighth grade.