RE: EPA's evolving role - 2-way communication & trust

[Phil Chapman <pchapman@earthlink.net>]

One of the primary reasons that the EPA has lost the trust of the American people is that very few of us agree with the agency's motivating principle, which appears to be the idea that animal and vegetable species have intrinsic rights, independent of the rights of humans. This is a concept out of some primitive animistic religion, without any scientific or philosophical justification. We can ascribe no meaning to the value of an animal or a plant or a beautiful vista, unless we mean the value to people. The purpose of the EPA is, or should be, to protect and preserve the natural environment for the benefit of future generations of people, not for its own sake. 

As an example, it is possible to debate whether the rights of the Indians who want to preserve the suckerfish in Klamath Lake should take precedence over those of the farmers who need the water -- but the suckerfish itself has no rights. Whether or not its extinction matters depends entirely on an assessment of its unique value to people, now and in the future. Even if there are definite reasons to believe that it is valuable, all we need is a breeding population so that Klamath Lake can be restocked when the drought is over. If there are nearly identical species in other lakes, then the fate of this particular population is of no concern. If the Klamath suckerfish is truly unique as well as valuable, then a breeding stock should be collected and preserved while the water is released to irrigation. 
 
The EPA will remain at odds with the public as long as it is run by druids (i.e., zealots who worship trees and sacrifice people.