As ever, it all seems to come down to a percieved economic issue... like the foxhunting issue over here, there's supposedly a economic reason it should be continued (if you listen to the huntspeople, anyway). I can't see it, though, and apparently neither can any of the academics...
Stattik - if you and everyone else that enjoys shooting hadn't wiped out all the predators, the deer you have to "control" wouldn't have to be controlled as there'd be a natural predator doing that job. But then, you'd have no "fun", would you?
Endangered species are not endangered through uselessness, either; they are endangered because people like you made them like it. If they die out, not only will the genetic biodiversity of their ecosystems be disturbed, there's always another species that will be affected by it - usually a pest that will subsequently go out of control. Which means humans have to spend money controlling it.
|