You really must give up seafood from the ocean. Or at least, there is an argument that says this, and you can read it here.
Wolverines. I once saw a wolverine in a state that was known to not have wolverines anymore. That was a long time ago and I think they are recognized as having returned to those forests. Now, we have wolverines in Colorado for the first time since 1919. I am shocked and amazed that wolverines had been extirpated from Colorado.
All ivory is bad. Antique, modern, you name it. If you buy ivory, you are poaching an African Elephant. I assume you knew this already, but here is a recent story on a related issue.
Environment
Comments
Good luck on getting the whole world to quit eating seafood. Sounds kind of like Christians telling everybody in Africa to practice abstinence.
Gee, I guess if EVERYBODY ELSE (besides us enlightened folks) would 'get it' all our problems would be solved, wouldn't they?
Damn, it's lonely at the top...
Posted by: yogi-one | June 20, 2009 1:44 PM
Wait... so if I buy a 200 year old narwhal tusk, I'm poaching an African elephant right now? I think you overstate your case, Greg. I mean, I speak in hyperbole more often than not, but seriously.
Posted by: Rystefn | June 20, 2009 3:46 PM
Rystefn,
I am not going to get into a protracted argument with you because I don't feel like being annoyed that much. I'll only say this: It has been shown empirically and theoretically (empirically by Leakey, theoretically by Pagel in a piece in Nature ca 1990) that killing the market ... including your snarky narwale tusk market ... is the only reliable way to make a measurable meaningful dent in this kind of market.
At one end (the consumer end) eliminate all sales of all ivory. All. Ivory. 99.99999 percent of the time the consumer can be successfully lied to as to where the ivory comes from, in any market including the antique market. At the other end (production) burning all the ivory, ironically but in truth, works best.
Now, you may proceed to argue semantics, faux economics, produce absurd counter examples, etc. for the next few weeks, but since the proceeds from this post do NOT go to the Ituri Forest People's fund I'll be ignoring you. Others may chose to engage as they wish, of course.
And, I'll have you know, I never speak in hyperbole. Ever.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 20, 2009 6:32 PM
Oyster festival in Arcata, didn't go (no cash flow).
Ivory? Rhino horn? Why not produce micro-elephants with big tusks and micro-rhinos with triple horns in forest reserves?
Is it really better to chop down the forests to plant corn, tobacco, cotton, oil palm and then shoo away all the megafauna? Micro-size! Genetically alter the suckers just like we did with cattle.
Posted by: DDeden | June 20, 2009 8:55 PM
I figured as much. Hope you looked up "hyperbole" as well. I won't be back.
Posted by: Rystefn | June 21, 2009 1:04 AM
In Africa the elephants plunder the small gardens at night. They trample everything ! They starve populations. It is normal to sell of the ivory. To save the man or to save the elephant?
En Afrique les éléphants saccagent les petits jardins la nuit. Ils piétinent tout ! Ils affament des populations. C'est normal de vendre de l'ivoire. Sauver l'homme ou sauver l'éléphant ?
Posted by: humorix | June 21, 2009 7:48 AM
Humorix, you can do both.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 21, 2009 9:43 AM
Save small fishes: kill the sharks.
Save the sharks: plunge(dive)!
Posted by: humorix | June 21, 2009 12:55 PM
So a hands off policy may work, which would include among other things, not allowing the ivory trade (any form of it) to continue.
Also, a lot of people are going to have to be removed from areas where Elephants would normally move toi after they've destroyed all their forage.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 21, 2009 4:03 PM