If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Conservationists say it will take $76 billion per year to make them shut up and go away   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 35
    More: PSA, Evolutionary history, International Centre, RSPB, Cape Verde Islands, threatened species, land areas, IUCN, University of Leeds  
•       •       •

2981 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-12 12:45:35 PM
Let's do it! Money well spent!

Oh, you said "conservationists." Damn it. I thought you said "conservatives."
 
2012-10-12 01:19:57 PM

Lando Lincoln: Let's do it! Money well spent!

Oh, you said "conservationists." Damn it. I thought you said "conservatives."


Still worth it. And if we legalize drugs like another one of today's threads suggests, we'll have the money lined up and ready to go.
 
2012-10-12 01:23:29 PM

Lando Lincoln: Let's do it! Money well spent!

Oh, you said "conservationists." Damn it. I thought you said "conservatives."


and only one 1% of the value of the things being destroyed ...

spend $1? preserve $99 in value?

..... hmmm.....
 
2012-10-12 01:51:42 PM
Let's pay for it by opening up all the national parks to STRIP MINING and OIL DRILLING!
 
2012-10-12 03:05:25 PM
That's just under 11% of the US defense budget for 2011. Or less than half of what we're planning on spending on Afghanistan in FY2012-2013.
 
2012-10-12 03:11:46 PM

give me doughnuts: That's just under 11% of the US defense budget for 2011. Or less than half of what we're planning on spending on Afghanistan in FY2012-2013.


Furthermore, this is what conservations say needs to be spent globally, in total, not just by any one nation.
 
2012-10-12 03:11:53 PM

Lando Lincoln: Let's do it! Money well spent!

Oh, you said "conservationists." Damn it. I thought you said "conservatives."


I read it as "creationists". Wishful thinking, I guess.
 
2012-10-12 03:13:27 PM
I'll stop saying conservationisty things for less than that.
 
2012-10-12 03:17:33 PM

you have pee hands: read it as "creationists". Wishful thinking, I guess.


That would make two of us...
 
2012-10-12 03:19:18 PM

brap: Let's pay for it by opening up all the national parks to STRIP MINING and OIL DRILLING!


We're already doing that.
media.treehugger.com 
Link
 
2012-10-12 03:24:16 PM
You want that $76 billion? Encourage sport hunting. Hunters in the US spend $22.6 billion a year.
 
2012-10-12 03:25:49 PM

FishyFred: Lando Lincoln: Let's do it! Money well spent!

Oh, you said "conservationists." Damn it. I thought you said "conservatives."

Still worth it. And if we legalize drugs like another one of today's ten threads per day suggests, we'll have the money lined up and ready to go.


Welcome to Fark.
 
2012-10-12 03:32:00 PM

dittybopper: You want that $76 billion? Encourage sport hunting. Hunters in the US spend $22.6 billion a year.


hunters would be probably the biggest conservationists, however they vote based on NRA ads.
 
2012-10-12 03:43:34 PM
For $4 billion a year for fifty years I'd bet I can get you a thousand humans living sustainably on Mars by 2060.
 
2012-10-12 04:45:01 PM
Yeah we wrecked a lot of shiat in the environment when it comes to endangerment, fragmentation, invasive species introduction and accidently unleashing illnesses and polluting shiat upon the environment. It would cost a fortune to actually fix it all. We'll have to balance out what is at the brink of being completely gone and what would benefit the environment and humanity the most. Kind of too late to save it all but putting money towards keeping the ecosystems from falling apart would be really helpful.
 
2012-10-12 04:46:12 PM
And another 53 Billion as a maintainance fee next year. :-/
 
2012-10-12 05:01:10 PM
These conversationists sure do have good things to talk about.
 
2012-10-12 05:06:46 PM

dittybopper: You want that $76 billion? Encourage sport hunting. Hunters in the US spend $22.6 billion a year.


I am all about hunting and fishing and finding ways to make those practices sustainable so that future generations can catch a salmon or shoot a deer (not that deer are going anywhere anytime soon). However relying on hunting and fishing advocacy organizations to drive a holisitc conservation plan is foolish, as these groups a) frequently only care about their particular game species and b) seem unable a lot of the time to grasp that a lot of different things affect ecosystems and animal populations.

Example: Use of lead shot. Plenty of environmental groups have signed on to a petition asking US EPA to regulate usage of lead ammunition and sinkers so that we don't, you know, posion the shiat out of everything with lead. Out of the petitioners in the article, only one (Project Gutpile) is a sportsmen's advocacy group. The rest are either absent on this side of the issue or siding with the gun lobby.

On an issue you think would be a no-brainer (assuming that you accept the fact that higher prices for non-lead ammunition and tackle are worth better preservation of natural resources, just as you probably accept that you pay a little more for non-lead paint in your house), the sportsmen are nowhere to be found, primarily because they tend to identify more quickly with gun advocates over environmentalists.
 
2012-10-12 05:56:09 PM
$76 billion to just leave stuff alone?

Pathetic isn't it?
Anything not guarded with a razor wire fence and guys with sub-machine guns is open for exploitation and hunting for animals to make your wang work better.
 
2012-10-12 06:08:28 PM
Make the Europeans and Asians pay for it. If that happens, I'm cool with it.
 
2012-10-12 06:11:43 PM

Cagey B: However relying on hunting and fishing advocacy organizations to drive a holisitc conservation plan is foolish,


We can directly blame hunting (specifically, fishermen), for the decimation of aquatic habitat in the Pacific Northwest, with the rapid spread of zebra and quagga mussels via private fishing boats.
blogs.oregonstate.edu 
It's bad enough now that they're requiring boat inspections whenever anyone crosses a state line.
 
2012-10-12 06:28:47 PM

MrSteve007:
We can directly blame hunting (specifically, fishermen), for the decimation of aquatic habitat in the Pacific Northwest, with the rapid spread of zebra and quagga mussels via private fishing boats.
[blogs.oregonstate.edu image 600x450] 
It's bad enough now that they're requiring boat inspections whenever anyone crosses a state line.


That was my job this summer. I saved you all. You know what happens when a boat inspector sees a boat like that one? You won't be going boating that day. Or maybe for quite a while.
 
2012-10-12 07:00:20 PM

error 303: For $4 billion a year for fifty years I'd bet I can get you a thousand humans living sustainably on Mars by 2060.


Mitigation vs. contingency

Why not do both?
 
2012-10-12 08:28:24 PM

MrSteve007: Cagey B: However relying on hunting and fishing advocacy organizations to drive a holisitc conservation plan is foolish,

We can directly blame hunting (specifically, fishermen), for the decimation of aquatic habitat in the Pacific Northwest, with the rapid spread of zebra and quagga mussels via private fishing boats.
[blogs.oregonstate.edu image 600x450] 
It's bad enough now that they're requiring boat inspections whenever anyone crosses a state line.


Fish are one thing. Humans haven't historically been a big player in the aquatic food chain.

Hunting is a far different story.
 
2012-10-12 09:00:56 PM
What's all the concern about extinction? In evolution, some species are going to lose, and if we help them out, we're inhibiting it.
 
2012-10-12 09:30:52 PM
www.cinema8.ro
I got a better idea. You gives me just 76 million and I'll go around putting a bullet into each every one of their muther-fuggin heads and they'll shut and go away for good.
 
2012-10-12 09:34:25 PM
"The Philippine Eagle needs relatively large tracts of pristine forest to survive"

So do I...
 
2012-10-12 09:40:12 PM

Lando Lincoln: Let's do it! Money well spent!

Oh, you said "conservationists." Damn it. I thought you said "conservatives."

 
2012-10-12 09:44:51 PM
If it'll shut them up, it's worth it.

On an unrelated note, I am now a conservationist. I'll be expecting my payment.
 
2012-10-12 10:09:16 PM

Cagey B: dittybopper: You want that $76 billion? Encourage sport hunting. Hunters in the US spend $22.6 billion a year.

I am all about hunting and fishing and finding ways to make those practices sustainable so that future generations can catch a salmon or shoot a deer (not that deer are going anywhere anytime soon). However relying on hunting and fishing advocacy organizations to drive a holisitc conservation plan is foolish, as these groups a) frequently only care about their particular game species and b) seem unable a lot of the time to grasp that a lot of different things affect ecosystems and animal populations.

Example: Use of lead shot. Plenty of environmental groups have signed on to a petition asking US EPA to regulate usage of lead ammunition and sinkers so that we don't, you know, posion the shiat out of everything with lead. Out of the petitioners in the article, only one (Project Gutpile) is a sportsmen's advocacy group. The rest are either absent on this side of the issue or siding with the gun lobby.

On an issue you think would be a no-brainer (assuming that you accept the fact that higher prices for non-lead ammunition and tackle are worth better preservation of natural resources, just as you probably accept that you pay a little more for non-lead paint in your house), the sportsmen are nowhere to be found, primarily because they tend to identify more quickly with gun advocates over environmentalists.


A close friend of mine is a wildlife biologist. He works in Northern California for a Native American tribe trying to re-introduce giant condors back into the wild. One aspect of his job is educating hunters about using non-lead ammunition, and he has told me that the response he gets is generally positive. The biggest drawback to non-lead ammo is that it's expensive... But when you are actually hunting, it's not like you're firing off crazy amounts of rounds.
 
2012-10-12 10:12:35 PM
Oh, come on. We can ignore them for free.
 
2012-10-13 12:46:58 AM

MacWizard: Oh, come on. We can ignore them for free.


Sure, for a while. But nature bats last.
 
2012-10-13 07:20:32 AM

Kazan: Lando Lincoln: Let's do it! Money well spent!

Oh, you said "conservationists." Damn it. I thought you said "conservatives."

and only one 1% of the value of the things being destroyed ...

spend $1? preserve $99 in value?

..... hmmm.....


So we kill/capture and sell 2% of the wildlife on the planet to save 98% according to your logic then it pays for itself twice over!

Profit from conservation!

/that`s what you meant right? 
//make $2, spend $1 earn $1 preserve $98 in value...
 
2012-10-13 08:08:19 AM

dittybopper: You want that $76 billion? Encourage sport hunting. Hunters in the US spend $22.6 billion a year.


Uh. They already do that. And sports hunters don't like to pay for things they aren't hunting.
 
2012-10-13 11:11:41 AM

MrSteve007: Cagey B: However relying on hunting and fishing advocacy organizations to drive a holisitc conservation plan is foolish,

We can directly blame hunting (specifically, fishermen), for the decimation of aquatic habitat in the Pacific Northwest, with the rapid spread of zebra and quagga mussels via private fishing boats.
[blogs.oregonstate.edu image 600x450] 
It's bad enough now that they're requiring boat inspections whenever anyone crosses a state line.


Yes, because their original importation on commercial shipping vessels doesn't count at all.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report