Fast Focus ' Does the Endangered Species Act go too far?' The bigger question

May 26, 2013 

This is a subject I'm not very versed in. The media supplies the only subject matter that comes to mind, when it covers a mountain of timber we can't harvest because a moth or small bird is using it. I guess it's a matter of perception. I agree that Siberian tigers should be protected and have a preserve where they are safe from hunters, but a moth just doesn't do it for me. I suppose in the scheme of things it serves some purpose other than eating down our forests!

When I think about endangered species, I think about all those that have come and gone over the millennia and Mother Nature has adjusted. Some of those like the Dodo bird may have had no real impact on nature one way or the other. Some of today's endangered species may fall into that same category. It's not enough that a species just exists, it must play a role in nature. It must be either destroyer or food source.

The Endangered Species Act should not be "forcing" a species to continue when Mother Nature may have other plans.

One day it will be our turn, as all things must die in nature and we are part of that plan. What will take our place?


Tri-City Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service