Endangered?

Some scientists, namely Dr. Rob Roy Ramey II, are staring to use sound science to decide if a species is actually endangered or not. His conclusion, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse actually might not be endangered after all. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/science/27mouse.html">DNA tests</a> have shown that it is genetically identical to its cousin, the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse which has a large and unendangered population. <a href="http://www.mtpolitics.net">Craig</a> pointed this story out to me earlier on my <a href="http://www.nowherethoughts.net/sarpysam/archives/000421.html">Animals</a> post and I knew about it but this story caught my attention since it goes a step further. The whole article just really shows how the environmentalist care more for their agenda and not about the truth of the matter.<br />n<!–more–><br />nWhat I really like about this article is the facts as laid out by the star of the story Dr. Rob Roy Ramey II.<br />n<br />n<i>The Endangered Species Act faltered around this one critter, Dr. Ramey told a Congressional committee this year, and that shows, he said, how much the law needs fixing, especially with better science and more genetics testing.<br />n<br />n"This Preble's case has been like opening Pandora's box because it's an example of so many things that have gone wrong in the administration of the Endangered Species Act and why we need to fix them," he said in an interview in his office at the museum. "I think we need to raise the bar on the scientific standards and that will help the effort go toward species that are really unique and where the threats are real."</i><br />n<br />nInject science into the ESA. Dr. Ramey has a high hurdle to jump there. The radical environmentalists will never allow that to happen. As the article states, since the Preble's might not be a separate species some environmental groups are saying the Bear Lodge mouse is threatened. They don't need science or even a study to say this. Their saying it makes it a fact in their minds.<br />n<br />n<i>Better to leap in scientific uncertainty and then reconsider, they say, than dally and watch in grief and pain as a species slides toward extinction and all the best-laid schemes of protection are dashed.</i><br />n<br />nI have to laugh myself silly at the environmentalists saying this. This is exactly what happened in the Preble's case. They leaped in, scientifically uncertain, and now that science has time to reconsider the issue and prove them wrong, they are still going to fight it on general principles than move on and admit they are wrong since this species is not on the slide toward extinction. Why don't they admit there real goal, whatever that is, instead of always hiding behind something else. As the good book says, The truth shall make you free.<br />n<br />n<b>Truth is the highest thing that man may keep. Geoffrey Chaucer</b>