Originally Posted by IceClass
I think if we're down to dragging child **** and nukes into the argument then we've strayed a long ways from anything to do with conservation and we've created another fallacy.
Just because a species is "protected" does not mean that a take from the population is not feasible or even desirable (as has been pointed out already with respect to park management in the southern range states).
Allowing a small market for elephant products such as leather, hair and yes, even ivory can benefit the human communities who actually have to share their living space with these creatures and whose voice is more often drowned out by the big money western animal protest industry.
I agree. The policy of total, absolute protection of wildlife has been a disaster. In the wild, the "balance of nature" is dynamic, and involves the constant birth and death of plants and animals. Man has gone overboard and wiped whole species off the map, but going 180 degrees the other way is not the solution. We humans with our value judgments, see a de-tusked, skinned, abandoned carcass as a waste, but we tend to forget that nature is totally equipped to deal with it. Scavengers need to eat too, it's what they're for. Nothing, after all, goes to waste excepting the very life of the animal.
I was driving north of here yesterday, to go for a hike in a wilderness marsh, and observed several hawks perched in trees along the highway. I guessed they were hungry, and keeping an eye out for possible road kill. Had I had a car load of bunnies, I would have chucked one out the car window for each hawk I saw. No regret.