"Steve Newport" wrote in message
...


Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living.

Steve,

While your opinion is good and your espoused beliefs are well based and I
agree that conservation is needed. Conservation does not have to be painful.
If the community makes decisions about what they want conserved and how they
want it conserved, then they may. BUT and this is the big but in every
conservation debate. That community must share the costs and the financial
pain the decision brings.

When conservation action results in one mans living being lost, then the
community which imposes the conservation has a responsibility to share their
"living" with those affected by the decision. That is only fair and
equitable.

I know nothing of you apart from you post here. But please if you want to
foster conservation of anything start by considering the needs of those
disadvantaged by the conservation decision and how to ease their burden.

I live in a small town in Australia, which over the past 40 years has seen
the loss of three of the four sawmills which paid for this community to
exist. All in the name of Forrest conservation. I am aware of the
conservation arguments. In the case of managed Australian Forestry they are
lots of emotive balderdash with basically no foundation in truth or fact.
(They do however buy votes in cities).

This community is now officially recognised by our government as the 7th
most disadvantaged in the State, after 6 city welfare slums. I am yet to
see any form of compensation or reconstruction in the town to replace the
200 jobs that were lost when the city based protesters and activists
arranged for the local people to be plunged into an economic downward spiral
that has seen unemployment above 20% for two generations.

The place for conservation to start on this planet is in the cities of the
western world. There is little point in even trying to start to conserve
the worlds resources until the western world, and the urban dwellers in
particular, start to conserve the material and resources that they drain
from the rest of the planet.

They burn energy like it is an endlessly renewable perfectly clean resource
to make their lives comfortable, convenient and pleasant.

They refuse to consume fruit, vegetables and Meat unless it is in perfect
condition without blemish or flaw.

They can't utilise enough of their god given intelligence to purchase a
product unless it is contained in at least three times as much packaging as
is necessary.

They fool themselves with reducing landfill and recycling programs which
conserved nothing. They are a panacea for a guilty conscience which
achieves nothing in the form of real conservation but meet the politically
driven statistical notions of international agreements.

A great man once said "There are lies, Bloody Lies and Statistics" before
you ever espouse anything in this life, make sure that our argument is based
upon more that statistics. Winston Churchill was a very astute man.

All conservation arguments are based upon population and sampling
statistics. Neither of which can be relied upon as either accurate or
unbiased. Conservation groups tend to only include the results which aid
their cause. Their opposition does the same. The truth is somewhere in the
mire in between.

Matt

PS I include myself in the "They" . I would not be on the Internet using
resources if I was not.