首页> 外文期刊>The economist >Ranchers v bison-huggers
【24h】

Ranchers v bison-huggers

机译:牧场主v野牛拥抱者

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The most original political book of early 2015 is not formally about politics at all. Instead "The Battle for Yellowstone" by Justin Farrell, a young scholar at Yale University, ponders venomous rows that have shaken Yellowstone National Park in recent decades, and why they are so intractable. The rows turn on such questions as wolf re-introduction, bison roaming-rights and snowmobile access to that lovely corner of the Rocky Mountains. It is nearly half a century since biologists first asked Congress to re-introduce wolves into Yellowstone, so that they might usefully eat some of the elk then lumbering about in over-large herds. Getting to the point of releasing wolves in the mid-1990s involved executive actions and directives from six presidents, debates in dozens of congressional committees,120 public hearings, more than 160,000 public submissions to federal wildlife bosses and at least $12m-worth of scientific research. Pro- and anti-wolf types drew up competing technical reports about the value of wolves as "apex predators", economic costs to cattle ranchers, tourism benefits and elk ecology. This techno-rationalist arms race bought no peace: the wolf-wars blaze as fiercely as ever.
机译:2015年初最原始的政治书籍完全没有正式涉及政治。耶鲁大学的一位年轻学者贾斯汀·法雷尔(Justin Farrell)的“黄石之战”取而代之的是,思考最近几十年来动摇了黄石国家公园的毒蛇行,以及它们为何如此难治。这些行引发了诸如重新引入狼,野牛漫游权以及在落基山脉那个可爱的角落骑雪地摩托等问题。自生物学家首次要求国会将狼重新引入黄石公园以来,已经过去了近半个世纪,以便它们可以有用地吃掉一些麋鹿,然后在大群的牛群中来逛去。到1990年代中期释放狼群涉及六位总统的行政行动和指示,数十个国会委员会的辩论,120场公开听证会,超过160,000份公开呈递给联邦野生动物老板的言论以及至少1200万美元的科学价值研究。支持和反对狼的类型草拟了一些竞争性的技术报告,内容涉及狼作为“顶级掠食者”的价值,牧场主的经济成本,旅游收益和麋鹿生态。这场技术理性主义者的军备竞赛没有带来任何和平:狼战像以往一样激烈。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The economist》 |2015年第8919期|28-28|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 23:28:15

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号