I actually do agree with what you said, at least in this particular case, that the best way to end something (like farm subsidies) is to end it without having to use another reason like saving an endangered species. However, in this instance two positive results at once could be accomplished and since the opportunity is there why not take it or at least make the point?

Another thing, I am not a part of your High School or College debate team and I don't feel obligated to address every point made in many of the long winded posts that occur on Internet debate boards. I'm sure most people here feel the same at one time or another. That doesn't make you right (or wrong) it just means I have a life and I will address points worth addressing. I do not feel the need to address debating tactics that are obvious digressions and tangents only there to confuse the issues and not substantial to the debate. For example, your need to define subsets of environmentalism and your lengthy comments about a non-personified natural world in reference to an obvious metaphor I used about nature being a "friend."

With that in mind I'll briefly address the salient point of your opinion which is spread at length over a number of posts in this thread. That being that humans have rights over animals. I certainly agree and you have a very good point. We are not some alien race that landed here and have no real rights on this planet. As the rulers of this planet though we have an enlightened self-interest in preserving the world. This isn't about a "stupid fish." It's about a philosophy of responsibility to our future. Yes 99% of all species that ever lived have been wiped out by nature. Guess what? We can prevent that now and in the future because we have the power. And because we have the power we have a responisibility. But as long as people are too wraped up in their own pitiful little pictures of the world they will never see the big picture. I'm not going to lose a whole lot of sleep if this particular fish dies off but it's the attitude of people who don't care at all that will make it happen again and again and again. So this time it's the stupid fish. Next time it's another creature and then another. There are way way WAY too many damned farmers as it is, even if they weren't feeding at the government trough. The fact that they are makes this particular issue a no brainer for me. I strongly suspect if they were inner city welfare recipients instead of farmers you wouldn't give a damn about their "plight." You might even support the stupid fish!

Yes I believe people are important. So give them the retraining they need to support themselves and their families and end the idiotic farm welfare system, and at the same time cut to a necessary minimum the destruction of nature for the production of food.