"LeighMo" wrote in message
...

I'm curious, though. If you feel this way, why do you have an aquarium?
Especially with wild-caught fish like cardinal tetras, otos, and
farlowella
catfish? You could, if you wanted, keep only captive-bred fish, and not
be
party to the "ultimate abuse."



You're right of course.
It's a slippery slope and I'm hopelessly conflicted.

--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm

Unfortunately Chuck, my memory doesn't go that far back! As you pointed out 'these are some of the recent ones' I should have been more specific, the past few hundred years! We have no hard evidence of what went on 460 million years ago to give a clear picture, just fossils and a lot of 'maybe's from our guessing scientists.

All I know, of the 33 years I've been around, species declines and habitat loss have been as a direct result of human interference and are continuing right now.

Stuart

You're right of course.
It's a slippery slope and I'm hopelessly conflicted.


LOL! Well, at least you're honest. :-)

I'm somewhat conflicted, too. I don't really have a problem if people know how
to care for the fish, and are willing to make a commitment to do it properly
for the fishes' entire lives. But the vast majority of fish are bought by
people who don' t have a clue. Heck, that's probably what keeps pet stores in
business. It would probably be better for the fish if there were no fish
stores. True hobbyists would find a way.

I try to be environmentally aware when I choose my fish. I won't buy bala
sharks, for example. But a lot of the time, you just don't know how endangered
the fish is, or if the method of harvesting does environmental damage.

Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/

"Skunky" wrote in message
...

To be honest this topic could go on forever and cause some folks to fall
out! I could write about this stuff forever and moan about it. One
thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat
destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS,

Um, no.
Major extintions are generally caused by changing environmental conditions
that have little or nothing to do with human beings. This is a fact. Were we
responsible for the dinosaurs going bye-bye? Of course not. I'm not
downplaying the Amazon basin deforestation, etc. We definitely should take
care in our treatment of the environment, but to presume that we're the one
big "problem" is a bit ignorant.

Lee

Wow Chuck,

my love for you grows more and more.

Thanks for providing some facts. I wrote a similar response but didn't go
digging for the data.

Lee

Lee Clemmer wrote:
that have little or nothing to do with human beings. This is a fact. Were we
responsible for the dinosaurs going bye-bye? Of course not. I'm not

You do realize that there were no humans when the dinosaurs roamed, right?

downplaying the Amazon basin deforestation, etc. We definitely should take
care in our treatment of the environment, but to presume that we're the one
big "problem" is a bit ignorant.

I don't think any other species in the history of the Earth has been
responsible, directly or indirectly, of so much damage to ecosystems and thus
of the extinction of species, both plant and animal.

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

As I said, 'the past few hundred years' eg, the loss of over 42 species and 44 subspecies of bird lost in the past 280 years! Causation; habitat loss, deliberate hunting and the introduction of non native species! Ignorant I'm not, arrogant you would appear!

"Skunky" wrote :

Causation;
habitat loss, deliberate hunting and the introduction of non native
species!

Not wanting to appear arrogant, "Habitat loss" is the same as "The
introduction of a non-native species", and "Deliberate hunting" is almost
the same... "Introduction of a non-native predator".

The idea that man is destroying nature rests upon the false notion that
man is not part of nature. Every species but the first is non-native at some
level. Right now, some non-native frog, having had it's egg shat in a puddle
by some migratory bird, is eating the last of a rare species of grasshopper.

As it stands, man is the only species who has ever purposely done
anything to conserve "nature".


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 7/4/03

" You do realize that there were no humans when the dinosaurs roamed,
right?

Of course, that's exactly my point. We couldn't have had anything to do with
it, because we didn't exist yet. It was a bit of a joke.

I don't think any other species in the history of the Earth has been
responsible, directly or indirectly, of so much damage to ecosystems and
thus
of the extinction of species, both plant and animal.

Tough to say, since we weren't around to see if there were species that were
more destructive, for most of the earth's history. You may be right, we
might be the most destructive. But so far all that we've done has been very
mild compared to what nature has done and can do. Again, I'm not making
excuses for our behavior. We shouldn't be destructive if we can avoid it.

Read Chuck's post. (if you didn't)

Lee

There's vastly more forest habitat in this state now than there was 100
years ago, even with the increase in urban sprawl.

Massive increase in habitat for lots of critters.

We've also created an excellent roach and rat habitat here in the city

Lee

It's nice to know that your state is increasing forest area, but what about
marshes, rivers, and meadows? All of these support unique life forms too.
The bigger problems exist in areas such as Madagascar, the Amazon basin,
Australia, even Central America. Places where we have just barely scratched
the surface of learning about, yet which are being extremely pressured by
interference by man.
Mankind is a problem, but also the only chance at restoration.

Jim

Lee Clemmer wrote in message
news:4KzNa.14115$Ix2.3861@rwcrnsc54...
There's vastly more forest habitat in this state now than there was 100
years ago, even with the increase in urban sprawl.

Massive increase in habitat for lots of critters.

We've also created an excellent roach and rat habitat here in the city

Lee

For those interested in GFP modification of rabbits, dogs, etc. check
out this link: http://www.ekac.org/transgenic.html

Personally, I think Kac is a kook and that this technology shouldn't
be used for "art" and amusement.

Skunky wrote in message ...
Unfortunately Chuck, my memory doesn't go that far back! As you
pointed out 'these are some of the recent ones' I should have been more
specific, the past few hundred years! We have no hard evidence of what
went on 460 million years ago to give a clear picture, just fossils and
a lot of 'maybe's from our guessing scientists.

All I know, of the 33 years I've been around, species declines and
habitat loss have been as a direct result of human interference and are
continuing right now.

Stuart


--
Skunky

'Peace On Earth.....And In The Water'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Ah, but Chuck's research demonstrates a respect for nature's
complexity that alarmists pointing to recent "trends" don't share
because it wouldn't yield the sort of hyperbole that keeps such groups
afloat with dollars and impressionable "activists." If you must look
to "recent" history, remember "global cooling"? In the 1970's
activist science was up in arms about the "man-made" cooling trend
that was engulfing the planet. Now fast forward to today and global
warming and the shrill voices that say we've sealed our doom by not
signing the Kyoto treaty. According to James Schlesinger "We cannot
tell how much of the recent warming trend can be attributed to the
greenhouse effect and how much to other factors. In climate change,
we have only a limited grasp of the overall forces at work.
Uncertainties have continued to abound--and must be reduced. Any
approach to policy formation under conditions of such uncertainty
should be taken only on an exploratory and sequential basis. A
premature commitment to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and
trembling." Now compare climate modeling to modeling the biological
health of the planet, to include sustainability, evolution and species
extinction. Wow. If we need to be humble about climate change, then
uproar over a glowing fishie or "species decline and habitat loss"
really does need to be put in context. The point is, ethical
stewardship of the environment demands that we, have sufficient
humility regarding our own ability to understand and model something
as complex as evolution, and accept that we are part of the process
and not an alien interloper.
Granted, this position doesn't fit well on a protest sign and won't
let you sound earnest enough when chatting up that Radford undergrad
at the antiglobalization rally, but maybe the world would be better
off without another puppet-filled parade of upper middle class angst.

off topic, but now off my soap box and for the record, I probably
wouldn't buy one of the glowing fishes unless I was going for a "mod"
tank filled with castles and air bubbling divers and skeletons with
treasure chests.

off topic, but now off my soap box and for the record, I probably
wouldn't buy one of the glowing fishes unless I was going for a "mod"
tank filled with castles and air bubbling divers and skeletons with
treasure chests.

Glowing fishes are no worse than lion headed goldfish, teacup poodles,
miniature horses, mules, various odd colored snakes or any other animal whose
appearence we change for our own benefit. True genetic manipuation is a little
more direct but still the same thing. As for global warming we happen to in be
in one of the most stable streaches of climate in the last several million
years. climate has changed by dozens of degrees warmer and colder than we are
now and over shorter spans of time than we have monitored. contrary to most
current thinkers we are now in in a decline of CO2 that will eventually result
in the decline of all plant life and eventually all life on our planet. CO2
emissions from vulcanolism are in a s gradual decline that will in a half
billion years or so result in a dearth of CO2 so severe that plant life will
die off. the increase of CO2 and warming caused by humans is insignificant in
the greater scheme of things. It's only when a very tiny slice of time is
taken into account does our CO2 emmisions seem to be significant. In fact we
could only be slightly delaying the inevitiable next ice age which is good for
most people of the world. Actually we really don't know what the long term
effect will be and there is evidence that more CO2 will result in increased
plant growth and greater food production. In fact CO2 levels have been much
greater in the past at times when plant growth was much more rampant than
today. the real problems of Ozone holes, an smog are much more important than
CO2, at least for humans personally. As long as humans continue to live on this
planet (which is something we must change if we want the earth's ecosystem to
grow naturally and for humans to survive) humans will continue to have effects
on the planet. some good some bad but none as great or widespread as the
effects the earth it's self can have with one volacanic explosion. it's better
if we design our own pets instead of harvesting them from the wild, at least GM
pets will not have to be taken from the wild and promote destruction of entire
ecosystems for pet fish. We will destroy the ecosystems fast enough to grow
cows, obtain lumber, grow gardens, and other more nesessary things.

Moon
remove nospam from e-mail to send to me, I grow trees in aquariums like bonsai.
I breed dwarf crayfish, great for planted community tanks. If you can get me a
shovelnose sturgeon fingerling (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) no wild caught
please, contact me