Should endangered species only be protected within “protection zones”?

Amitriptyline For Sale Lopressor No Prescription Buy Rhinocort No Prescription Buy Online Atarax Buy Pamelor Online High Love For Sale Ismo No Prescription Buy Ventolin No Prescription Buy Online Brafix Buy Brafix Online Omnicef For Sale Cialis Soft No Prescription Buy Combivent No Prescription Buy Online Viagra Soft Tabs Buy 36 Beauty Online Nimotop For Sale Flagyl Er No Prescription Buy Atrovent No Prescription Buy Online Lariam Buy Sustiva Online Diet Maxx For Sale Allegra No Prescription Buy Coumadin No Prescription Buy Online Mobic Buy Snoroff Online

This article, about a Manatee that swam over 700 miles away from it’s usual stomping grounds, got me thinking about how we protect endangered species. It seems to me that if we defined certain areas as “protected” and any animals that left those areas could be freely hunted, it would remove a lot of the guess work about which animals were endangered and which weren’t.

This plan would also provide some unique hunting experiences that would not be available otherwise. If we created protected habitats in some of the more depressed areas of the country and then surrounded them with hunting areas, it would encourage tourism and boost the local economy.

I know similar initiatives were successfully undertaken when relocating native americans to indian reservations, but I am unaware of anything like this being proposed for animals. If anyone has any links to similar plans, please post them in the comments.

Post a Comment
*Required
*Required (Never published)