Dilemma for environmentalists

[The diplomat]

Environmentalists love to protect endangered species, but what do you do when the endangered species is being threatened by another endangered species? This is the dilemma facing environmentalists in Germany.

-------------------
BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- A protected species of bird is devouring rare fish in the German state of Bavaria and creating a dilemma for local officials who now want federal permission to kill birds that once appeared headed for extinction.

.....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/13/germany.bird.fish.reut/index.html

--------------------

[Gangerolf]

kill 'em all

[JohnT]

... and let God sort them out.

[Gangerolf]

or they can feed the birds with other fish until the endangered fish can sustain being preyed on.

[Paul Hanson]

Leave it. This is natural selection at work.

[Caligastia]

Maybe they should convince the birds to go vegan.

[JohnT]

Yeah. It's healthier for them too, as long as they are sure to eat the right quantities of legunes, sprouts, and other delicious vegan treats.

[Az]

[Boris Godunov]

What's the dilemma? Environmentalist groups aren't just kneejerk pro-animal (except PETA, perhaps). Controlled kills are supported by environmentalists who want to make sure balance is maintained in nature. I know in Maryland where I live, the culling of deer populations to prevent overcrowding was supported by environmental groups.

So long as it won't make the birds extinct, a control kill is fine.

[Az]

murderer!

seriously cannot they capture a bunch of them, and breed them there? ( They probably can't. )

[JohnT]

Given that over 95% of all species that existed have died out, I don't think nature is at all about "balance." Punctuated equilibrium, maybe, but not an interminable balance.

[Caligastia]

Come on JohnT...we humans know what is best for nature.

[JohnT]

A lot of modern environmentalism definitely takes a "zoo" approach to the planet - Here's the people, here's the animals, let's keep them separate and please, do not feed.

[Caligastia]

And everything in nature should stay exactly as we see it today because that is the way nature intended it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
Given that over 95% of all species that existed have died out, I don't think nature is at all about "balance." Punctuated equilibrium, maybe, but not an interminable balance.

Side note: Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" is such a crock (not the theory itself, but his claim it was a challenge to Darwinism...pfff).

The rationale is one of conservation. It's not just a simple matter of the birds and fish. If the fish die out, it may negatively effect other species as well. If the fish are the primary source of food for these birds, allowing them to die would then kill the birds, so wildlife conservation has a vested interested in making sure there is some sort of "balance," artificial as it may be.

The bottomline is that I see no harm in practicing conservation, and controlled kills would be a part of that.