Mike has a good point. I would go so far as to say that a country such as
the United States, which protects property rights, is in a better position
to protect the environment, including the species which inhabit it, than
are countries which restrict property rights. During the 60's the Tellico
Dam project was stopped because it would have destroyed the habitat of the
snail darter, a little-known fish species. That this particular location
was the habitat of the snail darter, or even that there is such a species
was known only because the economy of this country is strong enough to make
it possible for some people to make a living by studying the habits of
little-known species in the field, and it's strong enough to permit the
consideration of alternatives when one of these species is threatened. Had
the snail darter's only habitat been somewhere in Eastern Europe, it would
be long-gone today. So it seems to me the answer, as usual is balance: we
must have a strong economy to have the means to protect endangered species.
To have a strong economy, we must not unduly interfere with property
rights.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)