Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Here We Go Again

After probably extensive and certainly expensive research, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has reached a water agreement with the US Army Corps of Engineers. From the AJC article (registration required, emphasis added):

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined a [US Army Corps of Engineers] plan to keep more water in the drought-stressed lake will not greatly harm endangered and threatened fish and freshwater mussels in Florida.

It's pretty obvious that the perverted standard in use here is the lives of fish, and not the lives of humans. They don't even really try to hide that fact--it's entirely possible that they are just backwards enough not to realize it. Or worse, they are taking pride in this kind of sacrifice.

The agency's opinion that the reduced water release will not jeopardize endangered and threatened species, which became official Sunday, stands for five years.

You know what? Well, I suspect that if you know me at all that you probably know what I'm about to write, but I'll say it anyway: I. Don't. Give. A. [Insert Favorite Expletive Here]. About. "Endangered." Fish.

I just don't. I care a whole bunch more about human lives. (And don't even get me started about the government's involvement and the nature of that involvement.)

Why should humans sacrifice any part of our water supply for endangered fish and mussels? We should not. What are we gaining by keeping these fish alive? Unless we are able to farm them for tasty meals, then I can't imagine why we care. Keeping these animals alive in such a manner that requires that the needs (and wants) of the people in Atlanta (and downstream) must be compromised in any way whatsoever is immoral.

Brendan pointed out that if humans hadn't constructed Lake Lanier in the first place, those poor little mussels would really be experiencing a drought right about now, now wouldn't they? They lucked out, happened to be downstream from the place where human beings decided to take 38,000 acres of land and make it into a lake.

I say we've given them too much already. If they were that endangered, they would have been goners long ago without Lake Lanier.

Humans are more important than fish. Keep more water in Lake Lanier! Save the humans!


C. August said...


I remember as a kid being confused about the "Save the Owl!" junk from the Northwest, not sure what all the fuss was about. I think I probably figured that the government was doing the right thing--I mean, why wouldn't it? It's the GOVERNMENT!--and couldn't those loggers and wood mills just go somewhere else?

Note that the link I included was just one of the first to come up on Google. No idea how accurate it is. Though it does draw an interesting correlation between logging bans and increased forest fires, all to save an animal that never needed saving.

Now I know that there need be no confusion at all. Even if something is legitimately at risk, the standard of value should first and foremost be the lives of humans. It's really pretty simple.

Rational Jenn said...

It has belatedly occurred to me that the standard up at ANWR is Moose, isn't it?

I'm sure some clever person has assembled a list of such standards and if not, that sure would be interesting.

It is pretty simple--humans should come first. But I guess it isn't simple if your priorities are all screwed up.