> Perhaps so. But thus far I have not heard much emphasis on balance. I
> have not heard much interest in working with existing conservation
agencies.
> Instead I am given the impression that existing agencies are perceived as
> inadequate, and therefore conservation must be placed in the hands of the
> masses. The masses may be well-intentioned, but are they educated in
> conservation techniques? This is why I feel people interested in
> conservation must work under the guidance of existing agencies. I have
> little faith in vigilante conservation.
>
> Michael Chamberland
I agree that education is the key. Part of the job of the various
conservation agencies to educate society as to the disposition of various
species and habitats. Unfortunately, the problem lies deeper. Even people
who do not care to know about the status of various species or habitat know
the status of the species or habitat. The current age of information
exchange has aided that greatly. Yet with this knowledge, socitey may still
go in a direction that conflicts with the survival of another species or
habitat. So is it ours, or maybe your, part to deceive society for some
good that you, or I, perceive to be necessary? Is deception a valid means
of obtaining something beneficial?
What do you think when you hear that some organization has fudged the
numbers? I automatically have an instant distrust for the organization.
Blurring the numbers may delay the destruction of a species, but the
distrust that can be bought through the deceptive blurring of numbers may
be even more detrimental.
Not to be insulting, just curious, what would be >vigilante conservation<?
The use of or you/your in certain statements is not meant as a personal
attack but as an example for those that may have some power that others do
not.
John Boehme
http://www.iglobal.net/pub/JohnAndCe/webmap.htm
http://www.iglobal.net/pub/JohnAndCe/ftpcontrol.htm