To: "Mike Maddox" <mmaddox@meyersalterman.com>
From: Brian & Barbara <miamiexotics@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: endangered species article
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Well written explanation of the issue. I agree with you that the original article failed to sufficiently inform the average reader what sustainable use really means. Your letter does a nice job of this!

Mike
PIJAC
------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Mr. Vedantam;

An article of yours was posted in the Miami Herald on October 12, 2003, concerning the proposed U.S. Fish & Wildlife policy changes in respect to the 'Endangered Species Act'. I thought it was a balanced and well written article - which is a rarity in journalism these days with such an emotionally charged subject.

My purpose in writing to you is to perhaps give you some insight into the greater depth of this problem - conservation of species and the practical implementation of effective methods. One might come away from your article with a better appreciation of the complexity of saving species, but still not knowing what is really at work here or where they (the reader) stand on the issue.

As stated - the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve species threatened with extinction, here and abroad. Most people seem unaware that the word 'conservation' means "wise use or planned management of natural resources". Illustrated in act and deed by the big game hunter and the greatest conservationist of them all - President Teddy Roosevelt. The abstract conservationist, in his ignorance, believes he is protecting something with a 'hands off approach', while the practical conservationist understands that natural resources require active management, and that people protect what they value in a manner to insure the continuation of that resource. In the United States the wild ducks and deer species are no longer in danger of extinction because the hunters of those animals place great value on the species and have spent millions of dollars in conservation efforts to insure their prolific survival. Not just to look at and admire - but to also kill and eat. The same practical approach in other countries is making a great difference in survival of their endangered species.

Ecotourism alone does not generate enough economic incentive for the majority of the rural populations in the world's poorer countries to encourage them to protect their natural resources - those people need direct benefits to even have enough raw materials or money to survive. That is one reason why America is considered a very arrogant nation with their dictates on how other countries should manage their natural resources. Who is going to feed and cloth their children? The 'no-touch' conservationists from the rich nations will not feed them, they will just demand that other nations implement the 'hands off' policies at any price to the well being of the poor.

To people that do not know the facts about a complex problem - the correct answer often seems counter-intuitive. Christopher Columbus had a hard time convincing people that he could sail to the Far East by going West. So to the average American it would seem crazy to save endangered species by making them available for exploitation. But we know for a fact that sustainable management works, and even more important - the free international movement of live animals insures healthy gene pools, the second greatest danger to species survival, after habitat destruction. For thirty years we have seen the rapid decline of a great number of species worldwide in spite of all the national and international regulations (including CITES & ESA). The growth of human populations in many countries has led to over exploitation of their wilderness areas for lumber and the conversion to agricultural land. Unless we show them methods that can be used in wilderness areas for economic benefit without destroying the wilderness - the habitat of many species will forever disappear and the animals with them.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is finally realizing the great short comings of unrealistic 'no-touch' policies and is acting in a practical way to save species before it is too late. By acknowledging the many 'sustainable use' methods available that bring economic benefit to the world's subsistence level populations they are finally insuring the survivability of many endangered species. The simplistic past policies have only encouraged the horrific - like black market trading that is inhumane, and the worst case scenario - shrinking populations with shrinking habitat. Governments world wide now know that 'no-touch' polices have condemned endemic species to extinction. Check out all the success stories of 'sustainable management' and you will see for yourself it is a win-win situation for people survival and exotic species survival. That is true conservation, above the politics and the hidden agendas of some 'conservationist' organizations.

A more pragmatic approach to conservation by the government is well overdue.

Sincerely yours;

Brian R. Mommsen