>In regards to the three statements above, if good science shows that >a
>NANF species is dieing out and it is related to industry shouldn't >there
>be some sort of cost/benefit analysis done to assist in the >decision
>making process?
OK... Define "useless." For that matter, define "ugly." Now, try to get
two politicians and/or lawyers to agree on these definitions.
Good luck.
Historically, as I'm sure you're well aware, economists have been given the
job of calculating "worth" in cost/benefit analyses. This posed some
problems in that they often neglected such factors as "recreational
benefit", "future utility," "ecosystem function and redundancy," and perhaps
most importantly, "intrinsic right to existence." Is a sturgeon worth more
than a snail darter? Than a pygmy sunfish? Than a grizzly bear? Than (gasp!)
a human?
Besides, you missed my point. The USACE is NOT going to stop navigational
dredging on the Tenn-Tom and Alabama Rivers. The "estimate" of 20,000 jobs
lost is another example of superfluous propaganda used to rile the masses...
A more perplexing question is why the FWS continues to devote most of its
budget to a select group of "warm fuzzies," when most of the taxa that are
at risk are "cold slimies"...
Cheers,
Dave
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org