From the people who brought you such brilliant environmental plans as drilling for oil in the middle of a wildlife preserve, a new and exciting proposal concerns the world’s endangered species.

The plan is to kill the animals in order to save them. The Bush administration is proposing that circuses and the pet industry be allowed to import endangered species, and that hunters be able to kill them. This is in hopes that the revenue gained by these activities could be used to supplement conservation activities. According to the Bush administration, this proposal “would both feed the gigantic United States demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals.”

Is anyone else waiting for the punch-line?

The Bush team is further arguing that by legalizing poaching governments will be able to limit it to “sustainable levels.” Assuming for a minute that war-torn countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo will be able to exercise any control in limiting such activities to “sustainable levels,” the thought of experimenting with this idea is dangerous.

Also, it does not necessarily entail that poaching will diminish. If prohibited items such as ivory suddenly become legalized, then demand may skyrocket, the opportunity to pass illegal gains as legal will increase and poaching may be more profitable than ever before.

The very reason an animal is labeled as “endangered” is due to the threat that without protection, that species will perish. Therefore, to pretend there is such a thing as a “sustainable level” of the legalized killing of endangered species is ludicrous.

The biggest problem with this idea is ensuring that the profits gained will actually fund parks and other conservation attempts.

It is easy to see from Bush’s past actions that a sincere concern for the environment is not a motivating factor. So why is this proposal suddenly being put forward?

One might notice that groups such as the “Safari Club International” donated heavily to the Bush campaign.

Safari Club International gave over $235,000 to Republicans during the 2000 election year alone. I wouldn’t want to insinuate that private interests might be the prime factor in motivating public policy, but it is an interesting idea.

If you are concerned about this plan you are not alone.

Environmental figures, such as the renowned primatologist Jane Goodall have already spoken out against the Bush proposal.

Goodall called this plan “terrifying,” and “an open door to corruption.”

One can only hope that such pressure from people like Goodall will be enough to make the supporters of this proposal a truly endangered species.