Jonathan Cook wrote:
Ken wrote:
... if they exist anywhere we
don't have to protect the natural habitat of sub-species ?

As far as I can tell (I didn't spend 5 minutes on each line),
the article says _nothing_ about habitat protection. And it
says nothing in regards to hatcheries for the apache/gila trout
issue.

So, once again, what's wrong with it?

The memo instructed staff to ignore best available science
when deciding how best to preserve and recover endangered
species. I don't know how any thinking person could believe
there's not something horribly wrong with that.

BTW, the gila trout recovery has been proceeding nicely and the
major work right now is trying to get it _removed_ from the
endangered species list. Downlisting it will, similarly to the
issues in this article, open up possibilities for better management
rather than re-endanger it. ...

When you remove the Gila trout from the endangered species
list you may "open up possibilities" for better management
but the more likely "possibility" is that the Gila trout is
history.

And I _hope_ you can see from that statement why your side continues
to alienate average voters and to lose elections...

The average voter in America is dumber than a box of rocks, but
I rather doubt that pointing it out here on roff affects elections.

--
Ken Fortneberry