This is typical of the rhetoric of the environmental extremists who use junk science. You started out with a semlance of an argument, but buttressed with the comical PT Barnum-lke statement about the reason for the "deer tick" name. I thought maybe you were going to further discuss the role of mice and snakes in an ecological community, etc. But the typical senario unfolds: You make a statement, which noone is supposed to challenge. It's supposed to be true just because you said it, and when someone does challenge it, you just label him as being anti environment. Patrick Moore has experience this. He got the name "Dr. Science" because of his insistence on using science to solve environmental problems. And because he works with loggers to get them to go about their business in an ecologically friendly manner, they call him a Judas. People in this camp are the ones who are out of it.
Who said anything about killing snakes? I let them alone when they crossed the road. I started this post with the comment about running the snake over if it was poisionous tounge-in-cheek as a lead in to challenge the lengths the state would go to in the name of protecting snakes. Talk about spin!
In the case in northeast NJ, just outside the Pine Barrens where environmentalists have been fighting a development because snakes were found in the area is an example of the endangered species ploy environmentalist use to push their agenda and get their way. BTW, I prefer the word "conservationist" to "environmentalist" for myself and others who truely are working to strike a balance between the economy and being a good steward of the land, such as Aldo Leopold, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, Patrick Moore and Bjorn Limborg. I certainly am against overdevelopment, but don't like the tactics the environmentalists have been using. It is just a boondoggle for lawyers, politicians and environmentalists.
My analysis of the endangered snakes/development situation. Development has been limited of the Pine Barrens and the areas outside it has been increasing. Why? Politicans have looked the other way and have refused to keep the great amount of illegal aliens out, in past years welfare moms have been rewarded for having illegitimate babies, and regular families over the years have had large families. The populations keeps growing. Also, many areas thoughout the United States have been roped off as wilderness and onerous, nonsensical environmental regulations driven by extremist environmentalists have taken its toll on rural industry. This means a growing population is forced into smaller and smaller areas. Something has to give. The politicans are employing the basterdized endangered species trick in an attempt to show they are fighting sprawl. And sending the Green Gestapo to harass and bust cranberry growers is a way to appease environmentalists. Where are these folks going to go if they go out of business? To already overdeveloped areas?
Here's a link on the subject of not being anti-environment just because you don't agree with environmental extremists. I've already posted a link on this forum, under the thinning trees subject about Patrick Moore's work to care for the environment while taking care of human needs.