A different view on the Devils Hole pupfish
In response to Alexander Jones’ May 20 letter on the pupfish, allow me to offer an alternative point of view. I contend that protection of the pupfish is not a legitimate function of either the state or federal government.
The only reason the government is involved is because the environmentalists have bribed (I’m sorry, “contributed to”) our politicians, inducing them to ram through a law requiring the rest of us to fund their interests. Mr. Jones contends that the Devils Hole pupfish “could” hold the answer to treating various diseases. The operative word being “could” — as in maybe, sort of, but we can’t prove it. The paper to which he refers was written three years ago after how many more years of study? Shouldn’t we be sure by now? He further claims that the pupfish generates $108 million in economic activity.
How about the environmentalists stop bribing our politicians and use their money instead to hire their own people and equipment to care for the pupfish? Then they can set up a gift shop and provide guided tours to grab onto some of that $108 million to round out their budgetary needs.
This would be a classic win-win. The pupfish get cared for by people who genuinely care about their well-being, as opposed to being used as a prop by the politicians who care only about collecting their bribes and getting re-elected. And the rest of us who generally don’t give a tinker’s damn about the pupfish in the first place get to keep some of our own money to spend on those things we consider important.
