Maybe, but in the cases where extinction was caused by habitat loss, I can't
see the habitat loss being reversed in order to let them survive. If it could
bring that about, why not? Maybe people would then see the light about
preventing habitat loss in the first place.
But more importantly, could we tick them?
Peter Shute
Sent from my iPad
> On 7 May 2016, at 9:16 AM, David Adams <> wrote:
>
> It would be the worst thing to happen to wildlife biology since...ever.
> It's already hard enough to convince people and governments to preserve
> animals as it is. When they figure you can stuff them in a bottle and later
> down the line reconstitute them, good luck. There would be no urgency to
> save things in the wild that can be "saved" on a shelf for that magical day
> when there is room for them again.
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
