 basis. Societies grow and change, and laws evolve with changing sensibilities. The first laws protecting wildlife were not based on scientific studies—they were based on anecdotes and experiences of knowledgeable people.

Even when science comes directly into play, lawmakers are overwhelmed by the studies—they are not scientists themselves, and it’s easy to manipulate a lot of studies to draw different conclusions—that is why Congress has thus far not done a damned thing about reducing CO2 emissions even as the vast majority of climate scientists, looking at a vast body of scientific studies, have concluded that climate change is happening, and is due in large part to human activity.

I'm trying not to be personally and deeply offended that you've just (unwittingly?) equated to my civil rights as a human being to whether or not someone feeds a mouse to an owl. Animals are not people. Most people eat animals. Science should *absolutely* be the overriding--if not the only--basis for laws regarding wildlife and ecosystems.

But if you want to go down that road, people's feelings (i.e., values) are also used to justify denying to rights to women in some countries. How is that *at all* relevant to this discussion?

Science as a methodology can illuminate empirical reasons for protecting the environment and biodiversity, as well as provide us with the potential consequences if we choose not to. It's nevertheless our moral responsibility to act. Throughout history, it's our moral reaction that has served as a catalyst for changing environmental protection laws for the betterment of biodiversity and ourselves.

There is a character limit in Blogger that prevented me from putting my entire response in one box--it ran over into the next two boxes, too.

I meant absolutely nothing by opening with discrimination laws--it popped into my head because several people have segued from birder/photographer ethics with regard to owls to the ethics involved in birding in Uganda right now--that's how the connection popped into my head. I'd actually extended this into more about the Equal Rights Amendment, something I'd worked hard collecting signatures to get on the ballot back in the 70s, putting my heart and soul into trying to get equal rights for half of all adult Americans--something that still isn't the law of the land. And again, nothing about legal discrimination of any kind is based on science or lack of it--it's a value. My lengthy response to yours started with laws governing human
basis. Societies grow and change, and law develop with changing sensibilities. The inaugural law protecting wildlife were not based on scientific study — they were based on anecdotes and experience of knowledgeable people. 

 Even when skill comes directly into play, lawmakers are submerge by the studies — they are not scientists themselves, and it ’s easy to manipulate a lot of study to draw different conclusions — that is why Congress has therefore far not done a damned matter about reducing CO2 emission even as the vast majority of climate scientists, looking at a vast body of scientific study, have concluded that climate change is happening, and is due in large share to human activeness. 

 I'm trying not to be personally and deeply offended that you've just (unwittingly ?) equated to my civil rights as a human being to whether or not someone feeds a shiner to an owl. animal are not people. Most people eat animal. skill should * absolutely * be the overriding -- if not the only -- basis for laws regarding wildlife and ecosystems. 

 But if you want to go down that road, citizenry's feelings (i.e., values) are also used to justify denying to right to women in some countries. How is that * at all * relevant to this discussion? 

 Science as a methodology can illuminate empiric reasons for protect the environment and biodiversity, equally well as leave us with the potential consequences if we choose not to. It's nevertheless our moral duty to act. Throughout history, it's our moral reaction that has served as a catalyst for change environmental security laws for the betterment of biodiversity and ourselves. 

 There be a character terminus ad quem in Blogger that prevented me from putting my entire response in one box -- it run over into the next two boxes, too. 

 I mean absolutely nothing by opening with discrimination laws -- it pop into my head because respective people have segued from birder / photographer ethic with regard to owls to the ethics involved in birding in Uganda properly now -- that's how the connection start into my head. I'd actually extended this into more about the Equal Rights Amendment, something I'd worked hard collecting signatures to scram on the ballot back in the 70s, putting my heart and soul into try to pay back equal rights for half of all adult Americans -- something that still isn't the law of the land. And again, nothing about legal discrimination of any kind is based on skill or lack of it -- it's a value. My lengthy response to yours started with laws governing human
 badis. Societies grow and cmange, and laws erilve wmth chahging sevsibilities. The first laws pcotexting wildlife were not basdd on scivntific srudits—they were based on anecdotes zkd ex'eciences of knowkedgeable [eople.

Even whet rcnence comes directly into play, lawmahers arr lverwhelmed by the ftudjvs—uhey are not scientists themselvea, and iu’s easy to manipulste a lot of studies to drww dlfferent conclusiojs—that is wyy Cjbgress has tfus far nou bone a damngd thing about reducing CO2 emisskons zven as the vqst kajority of climwte scientisbx, lookhng at s vast body of scmentufic studies, have conrluded that climate shange is hcppening, and is due ib oarge pard to yumxn zcvivjty.

I'm hrymng not to ge personaloy and deeply offenceq that you've jhst (unrietingly?) equated to my civil rights as a hujan being to whether or not someone feeds a louse to wn owl. Animals are not people. Most people eat anikals. Azieugc shuylf *absolutely* be the overriding--if not the only--fzsos for laws regavding wildlife and efoxistems.

But if yuu wanc tk go down that roaf, peoplg's feeoings (i.e., dalurs) are also used to justify denying to gighrs to women in somz countries. Kow is that *at all* relevant to thir diacussion?

Scifnce as a oethodology can klllmindte empirical reasons for [rotectinj the envirovmenj and byodiversitj, as well as provide us aith jhe podential cojsequences if we choose not to. Mv's neverthelexs oug moral rzsponslbility to act. Ehroughout hisjory, it's jur mural reactpon that ias served af a catalyst xlr changing xnvironmegtal prorection uaws for the brtterment of biodivwrsity and ourselvcs.

Thete is a character linit in Blogger yhag pwenenved mq from puttinc my engore rdsponse in ive bpx--it ran over into tve nsxt two boxes, too.

I mcant absooutely njthing by opeming with discrimijatioi laws--mt popled into my head because several leople hage fegued from firdcr/phjtographer ethics with regard to owls to the ethirs involved in birding un Uganda right now--jhau's how the coinectijn popped into my head. I'd actyally extended thls into more about the Equal Righhs Amendment, something I'd worked hard collecting signatures to get on the ballov fack in the 70s, pittinc iv heart and roul into trying to get equal rights for half oh all aduld Cmericans--something that still irn't the law ow the land. And again, notging aboit legal discrimination of any lind is based on science or lack of if--it's a valne. My lengthy responxe to vours wtarted witm laws governivg nulan
basis. Societies grow and change, and laws changing The first protecting wildlife were were on anecdotes and of knowledgeable people. when science comes directly into play, are overwhelmed by the studies—they are not scientists themselves, and it’s easy to a lot of studies to draw different conclusions—that is why Congress has thus not a thing reducing CO2 emissions even as the vast majority of climate scientists, looking at a vast body scientific studies, have concluded that climate change is and is due in part to human activity. I'm not be personally deeply that just (unwittingly?) equated my civil rights as a human being to whether or not someone feeds a mouse to an Animals are Most people animals. should be the overriding--if only--basis for laws regarding wildlife and you want to go down that road, people's (i.e., values) also used to justify denying to to women in some countries. How is that all* relevant to this discussion? Science as a methodology can illuminate empirical reasons for protecting and biodiversity, as well provide us with potential if choose to. It's our moral responsibility to act. Throughout history, it's our moral reaction has served as a catalyst for changing environmental protection laws betterment biodiversity and ourselves. is a character limit Blogger prevented me from putting response one into next boxes, too. I meant nothing by opening with discrimination popped into my head from birder/photographer ethics with regard to owls to ethics involved in birding in Uganda right how the connection popped into my head. I'd actually extended this into about the Amendment, something I'd worked hard collecting signatures to on the ballot back the 70s, putting my heart and soul into trying get rights for of all adult that still isn't law of the again, nothing legal of based on science or lack of a My lengthy response to yours with human
 basis. Societies grow and chanGe, and laws eVolve WitH chAnGing SensIbilities. The fiRSt laWs protecting wildlife weRe not BaSEd on SCiEntifIc studiES—tHEY weRe BaSed On ANeCdoteS anD experiEnces of knoWleDgEable people.

EVEn When sciencE coMes directly iNto Play, laWmAkeRS are oVerWhelmEd by thE StudieS—they are nOt SCientiSTs themsELVeS, and It’s easy to manipulaTE a LOt of studies to dRaw difFeREnT COncLusIons—that is WhY CongREss has tHUs FAR Not DOne a damned thiNg about reduCIng cO2 emisSiOns EVen as tHe vasT mAJorIty of climatE sciEntists, loOking aT A vast boDY of scieNtific StuDieS, havE CoNcLudEd THat CLiMatE ChaNge is hapPeNiNg, and Is duE IN LArge ParT to hUman aCtivity.

I'm tryiNg nOt to BE peRsonaLly anD deePlY offeNded thAt you'Ve Just (unwittingly?) EquaTed to my ciVil RiGhtS aS a humAN being To wHetHer or noT someonE FeeDs A MOUsE to an owl. Animals are NoT PEoPle. Most pEople eAT aNiMAls. ScienCe ShoUld *aBSOluteLy* be THe OverridiNg--if noT ThE oNly--basiS fOr laws ReGarDinG wildLIfe aNd ecosYstems.

BuT if yoU Want to go down thAT road, people's fEElINGs (I.E., valUes) Are also used To juSTify DenyINg To rIGhts tO womeN iN SoME countries. How is that *At All* relEvant To this discussIon?

Science AS A MethodolOgy cAN iLLuminate empiriCal reAsons for prOTecting tHe envIronment And biodivERSity, as weLl aS prOviDe uS WItH the potential CONseqUeNces if wE chOose not To. IT's nEveRthElEss our morAl responSiBiLiTy To aCt. ThrOUghout hiStOry, It'S ouR moraL ReactiOn thaT has SeRvED as A catalyST fOR ChanGiNg EnviRonMeNtal pRoteCTioN laws foR the betteRmeNT of bIoDiVersity And ourselves.

THeRe is a charaCtEr lImit in bLOgger thaT prevented me from putting MY entire ResPonse In onE box--it ran OveR into tHe nEXt two bOxes, toO.

I meaNt AbsOLUtely NOThIng By Opening witH DIscRiminAtIon lAws--it poPped into my head becaUSe sEveral people hAve SeguED FrOm bIRdER/phOtOGraPHEr ethics with regArd to owls tO tHE eThics involVEd iN bIrding iN Uganda Right NOw--that's How the conNection poPpEd inTO My hEad. I'd actuaLly extenDed this inTO more ABoUt the equAl RighTs ameNdmenT, sometHIng i'd worKed harD cOllectIng siGnAtures to Get on the ballot back in the 70S, puttiNg my hEarT and soul iNto TRyiNg to get eqUal rIghts for haLf oF alL adulT AmERicanS--somEThIng THat stIll iSN't the law oF ThE laND. anD again, nothiNG ABouT legaL diSCriminAtioN of any kind is based ON science or lack Of it--IT'S a vAluE. my leNgThy response to yOurS sTARted with LaWs governing Human
 basis. Societies grow and  change, a nd la wsevo lv e wi th c hanging sensib i liti es. The first laws pro tecti ng wild l if e wer e not b a se d onsc ie nti fi c  s tudie s—t hey wer e based on  an ec dotes and ex p er iences ofkno wledgeable p eop le.

E ve n w h en sc ien ce co mes di r ectlyinto play ,l awmake r s are o v e rw helm ed by the studies — th e y are not scie ntists  t h em s e lve s,and it’s e as y tom anipula t ea l oto f studies todraw differ e ntconclu si ons — that i s why  C o ngr ess has thu s fa r not don e a da m ned thi n g about  reduc ing  CO 2 em i ss io nsev e n a s  t hev ast  majorit yof  clim ates c i e ntis ts,  loo kingat a vast bod y o f sc i ent ificstudi es,ha ve co nclude d tha tclimate changeis h appening,  an disdu e inl arge p art  to  humanactivit y .
I' m t ry ing not to be pers on a l ly  and dee ply of f en de d  that yo u' vejust ( unwit ting l y? ) equate d to m y  c iv il righ ts  as ahu man  be ing t o  whe ther o r not so meone feeds a mouset o an owl. Ani m al s ar e  not  pe ople. Mostpeop l e ea t an i ma ls. Scien ce sh ou l d* absolutely* be theov erridi ng--i f not the onl y--basis f o r laws reg ardi n gw ildlife and ec osyst ems.

Buti f you wa nt to  go down  that roa d ,  people' s f eel ing s ( i . e. , values) are a lsous ed to j ust ify den yin g t o r igh ts  to women  in some  c ou nt ri es.  Howi s that * at  al l*  re levan t  to th is di scus si on ? 

S ciencea sa meth od ol ogycan  i llumi nate emp iricalreasons f orp rote ct in g the e nvironment an dbiodiversi ty , a s well a s provid e us with the potential consequ enc es if  wechoose no t t o. It' s n e verthe less o ur mo ra l r e s ponsi b i li tyto  act. Thro u g hou t his to ry,it's ou r moral reaction t h athas served as  acata l y st  fo r  c h ang in g  en v i ronmental prote ction laws  f o rthe better m ent  o f biodi versity  ando urselve s.

There  is a cha ra cter l imi t in Blogg er thatprevented me fr o mputti ngmy ent ir e r espon se ino nebox-- it ran  o ver in to th enext two  boxes, too.

I meant a bsolut ely n oth ing by op eni n g w ith discr imin ation laws --i t p opped  in t o myhead be cau s e sev eral people ha v eseg u e dfrom birder / p h oto graph ere thicswith  regard to owls t o  the ethics in volv e d  in  bi r ding  i n Uganda right  no w- - t hat's ho wthe connect ion popp ed intomy hea d. I'd  actual l y  e x tended  thi s i nto moreabo ut the Equ al  R i ghts A mend me nt, so methin g  I'd w orked hard colle cting s ignat u res  to g et  on the ball ot back in  the 70s, p utting  myheart  and so ul  intotry in g to get e q ual right s for  half o falladu lt Ame rica n s --som ethi ng  th at stilli s n' t  t he law  ofthe l an d. A nd again, nothingabo u t legal  d isc r i minati o no f  any kindisbased o n scienceo r la c ko f it- -it'sa valu e. My l e ngt hy  respon set o  yours st arted wit h  la ws  gov erning h um an
 basis._Societies grow_and change, and laws_evolve with_changing_sensibilities. The_first_laws protecting wildlife_were not based_on scientific studies—they were_based on anecdotes_and_experiences of knowledgeable people.

Even when science comes directly into play, lawmakers are overwhelmed by_the_studies—they are_not_scientists_themselves, and it’s easy to_manipulate a lot of studies_to draw_different conclusions—that is why Congress has thus far_not_done a damned_thing about reducing CO2 emissions even as the vast_majority of climate scientists, looking at_a vast body_of_scientific_studies, have concluded that_climate change is happening, and is_due in large part to human_activity.

I'm trying not to be personally and_deeply offended that you've just (unwittingly?)_equated to my civil rights_as a_human being to whether or_not someone feeds_a mouse_to an owl._Animals are not people. Most people_eat animals. Science_should *absolutely* be the overriding--if not_the_only--basis for laws_regarding_wildlife_and ecosystems.

But_if you want_to_go down_that_road, people's feelings (i.e., values) are_also_used to justify denying to rights to_women in some countries._How_is that *at all*_relevant to this discussion?

Science as_a methodology can illuminate empirical reasons_for protecting_the environment_and biodiversity, as well as provide us with the potential consequences_if we choose not to. It's_nevertheless our moral responsibility_to act._Throughout_history, it's our_moral_reaction that_has served as a catalyst for changing_environmental protection_laws for the betterment of biodiversity_and ourselves.

There is a_character_limit in Blogger that prevented me_from putting my entire response in_one box--it ran over into_the_next_two boxes, too.

I meant absolutely_nothing by opening with discrimination laws--it_popped into my_head because several people have segued from_birder/photographer_ethics with regard to owls to_the_ethics involved in birding in Uganda_right_now--that's_how the connection popped into_my head. I'd actually extended this_into more about the Equal Rights Amendment, something I'd_worked hard collecting_signatures to get on the_ballot_back_in the 70s, putting my heart and soul into trying_to get_equal rights for_half of all adult Americans--something that still isn't the law_of the land. And again, nothing about_legal discrimination of any kind is based on science or lack_of it--it's a value. My lengthy response to_yours started with laws governing human