CONservation hooligan charities like the Woodland Trust, RSPB etc are
coining it in with their idea of theme park conservation, where they
attract millions of visitors into fragile habitats, where they
slaughter millions of animals as proclaimed pests, like foxes, deer,
etc and yet still claim wildlife and habitat is not disturbed.

Can you imagine the disturbance caused by killing deer, rabbits and
foxes to habitat? can you imagine the disturbance that millions of
visitors cause to habitat, not to mention pollution with fumes from
cars, burning fossil fuels etc?

Can you now see the CON in conservation?

It's time these tabletop conservationists had their wings clipped, we
need to ask questions and demand answers. The RSPB, WT etc refuse to
answer any questions on sensitive subjects, I wonder why?


found at.


http://www.imaja.com/change/environm...feEcocity.html



Wildlife and the Ecocity
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
December 29, 1995

Contents

The Problem
What Wildlife Need
What to Do
The Ecocity
Conclusion
References

The Problem
Human beings think that we own, and have the right to dominate, every
square inch of the Earth. That, besides being an absurd idea, is the
basic reason why we are losing, worldwide, about 100 species per day.
Habitat loss is at the top of every list of the primary reasons why
species have become extinct or are in danger of becoming extinct.
[The concept of "ownership" of land is preposterous: how can you "own"
the organisms that live there, since they have minds of their own? And
how can we claim clear title? Didn't we steal all our land from the
native people and wildlife (i.e., all nonhuman, nondomesticated
species) who lived there before us?]

Destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning it into
farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not the only
way that an area can become untenable (useless) as habitat. Anything
that makes it unattractive or unavailable to a given species causes
habitat loss. Have you ever wondered why most animals run away when we
come near? It certainly isn't because they love having us around! Many
animals simply will not tolerate the presence of humans. The grizzly
bear and mountain lion are just two examples. The grizzly needs a huge
territory, can smell and hear a human being from a great distance, and
will avoid going near a road.

In other words, if we are to preserve the other species with which we
share the Earth, we need to set aside large, interconnected areas of
habitat that are entirely off limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Our
idea of what constitutes viable habitat is not important; what matters
is how the wildlife who live there think. When a road is built through
a habitat area, many species will not cross it, even though they are
physically capable of doing so. For example, a bird that prefers dense
forest may be afraid to cross such an open area where they may be
vulnerable to attack by their predators. The result is a loss of
habitat: a portion of their preferred mates, foods, and other
resources has become effectively unavailable. This can reduce
population sizes, cause inbreeding, impoverish their gene pool, and
impair their ability to adapt to changing circumstances (such as
global warming). It can lead to local (and eventually, final)
extinction. Small, isolated populations can easily be wiped out by a
fire or other disaster. Other species are not as flexible as we are.
We can survive practically anywhere on Earth, and perhaps other places
as well!

In 4 million years of human evolution, there has never been an area
off limits to humans -- an area which we deliberately choose not to
enter so that the species that live there can flourish unmolested by
humans. There are places called "wildlife sanctuaries", where human
recreation, hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even mining are usually
allowed. There are a few places where only biologists and land
managers are allowed. There have been places called "sacred", where
only priests could go (in other words, they were "sacred" only to
ordinary people). But to my knowledge, there has never been any place,
however small, from which the human community has voluntarily excluded
itself (although recently I have heard rumors that such a place has
been created in Australia or New Zealand -- bravo!).

In other words, we assume for ourselves a right to travel anywhere
that we want, and we deny that same right to wildlife. As a side
effect of building our cities, we have created practically impassable
barriers (impassable even by us: ever try to cross a freeway on
foot?!) that prevent wildlife from going where they want to. Where did
we get that right? Aren't we big (generous) enough to allow other
species to share the Earth with us? Do we really need to go everywhere
and do everything that we fancy? One of our proudest moments is when
we are able to go somewhere "where no human has ever gone". Maybe
instead of proud, we should be deeply ashamed! (Like after emptying a
box of chocolates that we know we don't need, being already vastly
overweight, and also knowing that many of our fellows don't have
enough to eat.) Ideas of right and wrong evolve (as they should), as
our knowledge of the world evolves.

Try this experiment: go on a hike, find a tree that you like, lie down
under it on your back, and look up at the tree. How do you feel? Watch
how the wind causes the branches and even the trunk to sway, and yet
always return to where they were. Note how many other organisms live
on and in the tree, and enjoy the amenities they find there. The first
time I did this, I was astounded at the feelings that came over me! I
suddenly realized that this being, the tree, had lived in this one
spot all its life, and was happy and content to be there. How, then,
could I pass by any spot on the Earth and not fully appreciate its
value? its sufficiency? How could I not be equally content to be
wherever I happen to live? How important, really, is my need to travel
to faraway places? Do I really need to visit every country on the
Earth? Even though I love hiking more than anything else in the world,
do I really need to hike every trail in the world? Isn't this the Age
of Selfishness? How could I ever again take lightly the cutting down
of a tree?

[Not only do we demand the right to travel wherever we want, but we
also demand the right to travel in whatever manner we want. Not only
do we go where we shouldn't, but we go there in ships, airplanes,
helicopters, tanks, bulldozers, jeeps, cars, motorcycles, and now
mountain bikes, all of which destroy our destinations in the process
of getting to them! Some freedom!]

We assume for ourselves a right to live. We deny that same right to
other species. We think nothing of killing a tree, even a very large
tree (e.g. for the White House or our local shopping mall), just to
decorate for Christmas. (Is this partly a failure of our religion?
Where do other species fit into our theologies?) Millions of birds
have been slaughtered, some perhaps driven to extinction, in order to
decorate ladies' hats or give warriors, priests, or nobles an aura of
authority or prestige. Killing for survival may be necessary, but
killing for frivolous reasons seems, in light of the current
biodiversity crisis, archaic.

We assume that every individual human life is unique and priceless --
that we each contribute something special and invaluable to the world.
On the other hand, when we speak of preserving wildlife or
biodiversity, we are usually talking about preserving only species (or
subspecies, or, at best, populations). We imply that it is not the
individuals that are important, but their species. I have never heard
any biologist admit that individuals can be important -- even
genetically. But don't new genes appearing for the very first time
appear in a single individual? Assume, for example, that there were a
particular mutation that allowed an ape to become more like a man.
Isn't the probability that such a mutation would appear simultaneously
in two individuals much smaller than the probability that it would
appear first in a single individual? And what if such an individual
were killed? What if the Christmas tree that we cut was one that
contained a mutation that would allow such trees to survive global
warming? I don't think it is safe to say it is okay to lose
individuals, as long as some members of the species (or subspecies or
population, etc.) survive (e.g. in zoos). If any of us are precious,
then aren't we are all, equally, precious?!

[How did we decide (rationally, I mean) that humans are more important
than other species? Our genes are 98 percent identical with those of a
chimpanzee! And I am sure that we have a pretty substantial genetic
commonality with every other living organism, including that tree. On
what basis can we distinguish ourselves? We have tried for eons to
find such a basis. Every time we think we have the key, we find out
that we are wrong: there are other organisms that can do what we do.
And, obviously, every other organism can do things that we can't do!
Moreover, many of those things are "services" that make our lives not
only enjoyable, but possible! I wonder how long we would survive
without nitrogen- fixing bacteria, photosynthesizing plants, organic
material- decomposing organisms, etc. Can we manufacture everything we
need? Sustainably? I am absolutely certain that when we finally learn
how to communicate with other species, we will find that their
thoughts are very similar to our own. I know of only one fair way to
judge other species: by the same rules we apply to ourselves. That is
what we call the "Golden Rule", except that we now apply it only to
other humans.]

By the way, I wonder why vegetarians feel that killing animals is
worse than killing plants. Isn't that just another unjustifiable
ranking of organisms? Just another obsolete kind of discrimination
(kingdom-ism?)? Haven't we learned that we fall flat on our face every
time we try to justify such partiality? All those who would like to
live in a world containing only some of the organisms we now have,
please raise your hands....

Back to rights. We assume a right to clean air, clean water, clean
food, etc. We deny wildlife those same rights. We assume the right to
eat whatever we want. We don't allow wildlife the same right (e.g. if
they choose one of our pets or livestock). We demand privacy in our
bodies and homes. We deny wildlife that right, entering their homes
and habitats, and violating their persons (bodies) with impunity
whenever we wish. When we set aside land that is to be touched as
little as possible, we call it a "park", meaning "a human playground".
We want wildlife there (if we were to be honest, we would admit that
it is precisely the presence of wildlife, and the paucity of humans,
that makes a park, a park), but we don't really want to go much out of
our way to ensure that they continue to flourish there far into the
future. But, then, wildlife are never "at the table" when we decide
how we are going to divide up the world among ourselves. One of my
local park directors actually campaigned for election using the slogan
"Parks Are For People"! She has since dropped the slogan, but
continues to act as if she believes it. I would like to replace the
word "park" with "wildlife habitat", in order to set priorities
straight.

We put humans in prison only in extreme cases (except in California).
However, we feel no compunction about locking up other species just to
amuse ourselves or decorate our homes. They are considered "property".
Whenever a human is in danger, that is called an "emergency". All you
need to do is call 911, and an army of nurses, paramedics, emergency
medical technicians, doctors, firemen, policemen, volunteers, search
and rescue teams, cars, trucks, boats, planes, helicopters, and
hospitals are at your disposal. Plants and animals, unless they are
considered property, do not have "emergencies". I once naively called
911 because a racoon was struck by a car. I was told that they would
not help, and that I should call "Animal Control" in two hours when
their office opens. (Presumably, they would come and clean up the mess
and prevent any inconvenience to humans. Incidentally, the woman who
hit the racoon did everything she could to help it.)

My country was founded under the banner "No Taxation Without
Representation!" (in other words, everyone can, at least in theory,
vote on the laws that govern them). Wildlife, of course, can't vote
(although some people have proposed that humans be allowed to
represent them in court). And yet we allow our courts to decide the
fate of those organisms, including allowing them (by letting their
habitat be destroyed, as with the California gnatcatcher) to be driven
extinct. How do our courts even get jurisdiction over wildlife?
Wildlife should be above human laws. Next, we will be giving
jaywalking tickets to squirrels.

Worldwatch just published a paper ("Eco-Justice: Linking Human Rights
and the Environment") by Aaron Sachs in which he recommends that
environmentalists make use of local and indigenous people to protect
their environment. I agree, to an extent. However, he does not talk
about wildlife, and does not recognize that they may have a need (and,
hence, right) to be left alone, and not have humans living in their
midst and "harvesting" them, even at a "subsistence" level (whatever
that is; even indigenous people often join the market economy, and
begin harvesting in "industrial" quantities). Also, relying on local
people to defend habitat doesn't work well if (as should happen)
nobody lives in the area.

For its sake, I hope that we never find life on other planets!

When we aren't abusing wildlife, we are ignoring them. Or taking them
for granted. Look at travel guides. For example, the Lonely Planet's
guide to Japan contains only half a page on wildlife! They constitute
the section called "Dangers and Annoyances". It seems that the only
thing worth knowing about the wildlife of Japan is that you should
avoid its two poisonous snakes.

But why do we treat wildlife so badly? Are we evil? I don't think so.
We are neither good nor evil. I think there is a relatively simple
explanation. The brain is optimized for efficiency: it pays attention
only to what is needed for immediate survival. We learn to ignore
(take for granted) most of the information that is available to us, so
that we can focus on what is most important to our survival at the
moment. We just haven't had much need to focus on wildlife. And in our
highly urbanized world, we "need" to focus on wildlife less than ever!

Eight years ago, I suddenly noticed that even though the air in the
San Francisco Bay Area was visibly polluted and didn't meet our air
quality standards, we were planning to expand every freeway in the
region, "to reduce traffic congestion". My intuition said this was
wrong, even though the politicians and highway department insisted
that speeding up traffic would improve air quality. (Widening roads to
relieve traffic congestion is like widening your nose to relieve nasal
congestion.) I began campaigning to stop all highway expansion. But
when I asked others for help, they weren't interested. Highway
construction, at that time, just wasn't considered an environmental
issue. Only whales, rain forests, and other such "sexy" issues were
being addressed. Everyone simply took roads for granted; they just
weren't looking in that direction. They weren't opposed to what I was
doing, they simply hadn't thought about it. Once I (and others who
came to the same conclusion independently) called it to their
attention, and they learned the facts, everyone agreed with us, to the
extent that there are now thousands of people and groups around the
world working on stopping road construction.

I think we are now in the same position with regard to wildlife. Most
people take them for granted. If they knew the facts (especially about
conservation biology and the biodiversity crisis), they would agree
with me. They "have their hearts in the right place", but just haven't
examined the issues. My role is to gather up the important facts and
spread them around the world. That makes some people uncomfortable
(e.g. mountain bikers, equestrians, hikers, or even scientists who
don't want to be excluded from wildlife habitat), but that is not my
goal. My goal is simply to face the facts squarely, since I believe
that that is our only hope.

What Wildlife Need
Wild Earth, the Wildlands Project, Reed Noss, Michael Soule, Ed
Grumbine, and other conservation biologists have addressed this
question. Wildlife need ... just what we need (remember our 98 percent
genetic commonality with the chimpanzee?)! They need a place to live
where there is an adequate supply of food, water, potential mates,
protection from predators, etc. For long-term survival, this area must
be large enough to supply all of those needs, as well as contain a big
enough gene pool that they don't get inbred and can adapt to changing
circumstances (e.g. fire or global warming). For example, a minimum
viable size for a given population might be 1000 individuals. In
addition to secure habitat, they need safe corridors by which to
travel to the resources they need.
Most proposals addressing the question of how to preserve our
biological heritage have called for a network of large, "inviolate"
(no, or almost no human use) reserves, all connected by wildlife
corridors, and "buffered" by land with minimal human presence. To save
all of our current complement of species would probably take at least
50 percent of the land area of the continent. Wildlife are not as
flexible as we are, and most require very specific kinds of foods,
climate, or terrain. The key, of course, is not what we think is
adequate, but what the species themselves want and can survive on.
Large carnivores, for example, require huge territories (in order to
find an adequate supply of prey and a reasonable choice of mates),
with no or minimal human presence.

Roads and other human facilities that need to cross these corridors
are a problem. In order for a corridor to function as a corridor,
organisms must be able to travel safely. Some species will use a
tunnel under a road, but some will feel that such exposure is too
risky, and won't use the tunnel. Ideally, a road should tunnel under
the wildlife corridor. How frequent do these crossings need to be?
Only research will tell, but since we really don't have time or
resources for all that research, erring on the side of caution (i.e.,
disturbing wildlife habitat as little as possible) would seem to be
the wisest approach. (Noss and Cooperrider, p.174: "the key principle
for managing landscapes for biodiversity is prudence: be cautious,
move slowly, stay out of sensitive areas, avoid overmanipulation of
habitats".)

What to Do
Adopt prudent guiding principles. For example, since wildlife cannot
protect themselves from us, and since their requirements are much
stricter than ours, they must be taken care of first: Planning for
wildlife habitat areas and corridors should precede all other
planning. Currently, we approve almost all projects as proposed, and
then try to "fix" ("mitigate") the problems following construction,
forcing wildlife to adapt to us (leading to almost certain failure,
since we have never been able to duplicate nature).
The best available biological information should be used. However,
lacking research data, we can usually be safe by erring on the side of
caution and leaving habitat alone. In particular, we should never
allow lack of data to be used as an excuse to delay protection for
habitat and wildlife. Similarly, the fact that a particular area has
already been damaged for use as habitat (e.g. clearcut, or turned into
a golf course), and hence no longer functions adequately as habitat,
should not be used as an excuse to "write it off" and damage it
further. This specious excuse is the origin of the myth that there are
"sensitive" habitat areas and "insensitive" habitat areas. Wherever
there is damage, there can be repair ("restoration")!

A priority scheme may help in making reasonable decisions: native
plants are in a sense the most vulnerable organisms -- they can't
protect themselves from animals -- so they probably should be given
first priority, followed by other wildlife, native peoples, children,
the disabled, women, the poor, etc. For example, in Australia,
aborigines help manage the national parks (in conjunction with the
federal government). That way, we can conserve both wildlife and
aboriginal culture. They are (or can be trained to be) some of the
best protectors of wildlife. Of course, aboriginal peoples have also
caused extinctions, so it makes sense for them to receive the advice
and oversight of scientists.

(This scheme is modelled after the familiar food chain: small
organisms feed larger organisms, plants feed herbivores, herbivores
feed carnivores, and at the top of the food chain are General Motors,
Shell Oil, Mitsubishi, and the other multinational corporations.)

Sachs (p.55) put it "Protecting the rights of the most vulnerable
members of our society, in other words, is perhaps the best way we
have of protecting the right of future generations to inherit a planet
that is still worth inhabiting". Of course, he, "the entire Worldwatch
Institute staff" and the long list other reviewers of his paper all
failed to notice that "the most vulnerable members of our society" are
wildlife! If such an erudite bunch can commit an oversight like this,
I guess the rest of us can be excused ours.

What better place to begin rectifying our abuse of wildlife, than in
our parks?! They already provide some protection for some wildlife
species, even though it is inadequate to ensure long-term viability.
Our park systems could provide the "seeds" of a "full function"
habitat-and-corridor matrix designed to preserve all of our biological
heritage (like the one proposed by the Wildlands Project). First, as I
said earlier, the word "park", which connotes an area primarily for
pleasuring humans, should be replaced by "wildlife habitat" or
"wilderness" (the ideal being "pure habitat" or "virgin wilderness",
perhaps also called "sacred land"). The emphasis change is necessary
because managing land for human use does not adequately protect
wildlife. This does not mean that the parks will no longer serve
people's needs; on the contrary, I believe that "virgin wilderness",
"pure habitat", land kept as much as possible in a "natural"
(undisturbed by humans) state, is more valuable and pleasurable to us
than any other! In other words, even if we assume that "parks are for
people", they will remain most effective only if we treat them as if
they are for wildlife (make wildlife preservation the top priority in
the parks).

In order to prepare our parks for their new role as protectors of
wildlife habitat, we should remove, as much as possible, all human
artifacts -- buildings, "manicured" areas (e.g. lawns), exotic
(non-native) plants and animals (e.g. livestock!), parking lots, most
trails (I have a weakness for "nature" (short, educational) trails),
and, above all, roads (without roads, it is very difficult to destroy
the environment!). Perhaps we could allow bathrooms and drinking
fountains, at least in the most heavily used areas, for health
reasons. Of course, all mechanical forms of transportation, such as
jeeps and bicycles, would be forbidden within the park. (We should
make an exception for wheelchairs, but other than
wheelchair-accessible nature trails, I would not want to see wildlife
habitat sacrificed for any humans, even the disabled (remember my
priority list?): the most disabled human is still better off than many
species of wildlife, which are going extinct.)

This is the most humane way to reduce human impacts on the parks --
not exclude people, but just make the wilderness a bit harder to get
to. Roads, hotels, restaurants, huge parking lots (recognize
Yosemite?), burros (e.g. in the Grand Canyon), horses, and mountain
bikes make it too easy for lazy, uncaring people to get into wildlife
areas. (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, p.171: "One great problem with ORVs
[off-road vehicles] is that they supply easy access to wilderness
areas for unsupervised people who have ... no conception of the damage
they are doing".) I often pick up trash where I hike. I have noticed
that there is vastly more trash (by several orders of magnitude) next
to roads and parking lots, than there is along trails. Or to say it
another way, why fill up our parks with the very things (humans and
human artifacts) that we go there to get away from (seeking respite
from)? Anyone who wants urban amenities can find a plethora of them in
the city, where they cause people so much stress that they want to
escape to a park to find peace! (For example, let's not let our love
of bicycles blind us to the fact that, like all things, they can be
used for good (supplanting the automobile) and evil (invading and
damaging wildlife habitat).)

In line with our laissez-faire (hands off) approach to park
management, natural processes should be allowed, including fire.
Anyone who puts their home right next to a park should also bear
whatever risks that entails, including fire, falling trees, and (if
food in the park gets scarce) predation of pets. (They should also
carefully watch their children, the way animal mothers do!) Park
managers in my area, under pressure from nearby homeowners, have been
trying to "fireproof" the parks, destroying wildlife habitat and,
ironically, actually increasing the fire danger!

In short, parks should be allowed to revert to wilderness, and
wilderness should be a place that we enter rarely, reverently, and on
its own terms.

In addition to parks, which are ideal places for people to learn about
nature and sustainable living, there need to be ("core", or "pure")
habitat areas that belong entirely to wildlife, and are off limits to
people. Every region should have such areas, partly for the sake of
wildlife, but also for their educational value: their very existence
would silently and continuously teach people an enormous amount about
biology and the ethical treatment of wildlife (just as architecture
nonverbally communicates how the designer wants us to think about
something or someone). Of course, an area that we never intend to
visit, doesn't need to be depicted on the map! So I propose that we
blank out these areas on every map, and designate them simply "terra
incognita", or some such expression that conveys the proper respect. I
call this "demapping". (Maps, by facilitating human access, are just
as dangerous as roads! Like roads, they are a two-edged sword, giving
equal access to good and evil.) (Ironically, maps have always been one
of my favorite things -- keys to unknown territories!)

Psychologists tell us that children learn most of what they will ever
know by the age of six. This education, of course, is mostly nonverbal
(the most powerful method of teaching that exists!). They also develop
an attachment to their surroundings (this is called "imprinting"). In
other words, if a child grows up in a concrete, human-fabricated
world, it will grow up loving that environment and believing that it
is right and good. I believe, therefore, that every infant, soon after
it meets its mother and father, should be taken to the wilderness.
Where else can you learn the meaning of life and the way things are
supposed to be?! (I can see hospitals starting to compete with each
other to see which can provide the most realistic "jungle" on its
obstetrics floor!) My parents took me and my brother and sister
camping in the Olympic National Park when I was eight. I still
remember that (very ordinary) camping trip. It was also instantly
obvious -- no one needed say a word! -- that wilderness was the best
place to be. Luckily, I was also in the Boy Scouts, and learned to be
comfortable there. Fifty years later, I still would rather hike and
camp than just about anything else.

We need wilderness! Most of the intelligence (information) in the
universe is store there (in strings of DNA); we crave intelligence
(information). Surprise lives there. Also Delight. Our brains thrive
on complexity; too much simplicity literally puts them to sleep (or
gives rise to hallucinations, as in sensory deprivation). Wilderness
-- for example, swamps, coral reefs, and rain forests -- contains most
of the world's complexity.

We pride ourselves on being able to empathize with others. Then let's
demonstrate it, with wildlife (who, after all, are not that different
from us)! We profess to believe in the Golden Rule. Well, then, let's
see it applied to members of other species. Let's try treating other
species just as we want to be treated. As individuals, for example,
rather than just members of a group (or species). If we are as skilled
at communication as we believe we are, let's communicate with other
species, and find out directly from them how they want to be treated
(but, come on, don't we really know already?).

The Ecocity
My definition of an environmentalist is someone who gives top priority
to (the welfare of) wildlife. I believe that everything else (that
normally characterizes an environmentalist) follows from that premise.
(For example, if we provide clean air for wildlife, we will
automatically do so for ourselves, as well.)
An ecocity is the same: it is simply a city that puts wildlife first
-- a city that lives by a priority scheme like the one I suggested
earlier. From this axiom, you can derive the theorems that flesh out
the ecocity. I am not going to attempt to describe that exactly. I
don't think I am the best person to do it. For one thing, a detailed
design would require detailed information about local indigenous
species.

The best that I can do, I think, is offer some tentative suggestions.
I am sure that you, applying the principles I have presented, can come
up with much better ideas.

1. Accept the fact that human courts have no jurisdiction over
wildlife (i.e., that wildlife are "above the law"). In particular, no
person should be allowed to harm wildlife unnecessarily (i.e., without
good cause).
2. Recognize wildlife as equal citizens of the community, with the
same rights as humans, to be overridden only when necessary (for good
cause). In particular, the opportunity to travel safely wherever
desired should not be impaired, and they should not be killed
unnecessarily (i.e., without good cause). Humans love to make use of
other species' names, to "invoke their qualities". For example, we
name streets after trees, cars after mammals, etc. For as long as this
is being done, the beneficiaries should pay periodic royalties into a
wildlife/habitat preservation fund ("put their money where their mouth
is").

3. Minimize pavement! Let's start removing all unnecessary pavement
while we still have enough oil (fuel) left to do it! It's no fun doing
it by hand.

4. Wetlands are sacred. None should be destroyed or covered up. All
creeks should be liberated from their above-ground and under-ground
prisons (i.e., pipes, culverts, concrete channels, etc.). Water should
not be polluted. It belongs to all species.

5. Soil is sacred. It takes eons to create. It can be moved, but
should never be destroyed. It should not be polluted. It belongs to
all species.

6. Air is sacred. It should not be polluted. It belongs to all
species.

7. Since wildlife cannot protect itself from us, it should be accorded
top priority. Planning for preserving wildlife should precede all
other planning.

All of these principles should be codified and implemented by the
United Nations (and concurrently studied and adopted by every
government agency, business, and private organization).

Conclusion
All over the world, humans are fighting, invariably over some resource
that both parties covet. Wouldn't it be wonderful if both sides could
be distracted for a moment from their selfish pursuits in order to
come to the aid of a third party of even greater need? The logical
third party is wildlife. And the logical vehicle for this process is
the ecocity movement.
References
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
1981.
Engwicht, David, Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: Better Living with
Less Traffic. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1993 (first
published as Towards an Eco-City: Calming the Traffic, in 1992).

Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,
1991.

Grumbine, R. Edward, Ghost Bears. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992.

Life on the Edge. A Guide to California's Endangered Natural
Resources: Wildlife. Santa Cruz, California: BioSystem Books, 1994.

Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden City,
NY: Anchor Books, 1984.

Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads",
Earth First!

Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
California, 1994.

Sachs, Aaron, "Eco-Justice: Linking Human Rights and the Environment".
Worldwatch Institute, December, 1995.

Stone, Christopoher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal
Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann,
Inc., 1973.

Vandeman, Michael J.,
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/

Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the
Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

Whitman, Walt, Leaves of Grass. New York: The New American Library,
1958.

"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic
Society, 1994.

Wilson, Edward O., The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1992.





**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.