Let's Let Kids Catch Anything They Want

Should a little boy who catches a turtle in a trap have to let it go right away or should he be able to keep it for a day? I was recently asked to comment on a draft copy of an illustrated children's book someone has written about turtles. In the story, a little boy's dad takes him to a coastal marsh where they use a trap to catch crabs for dinner. They also catch a small diamondback terrapin. The boy is allowed to take the turtle home as a temporary pet.

My role as reviewer was to comment on whether the facts about terrapin ecology were accurate, not necessarily to comment on the story itself. However, other readers of the draft decried letting the boy keep the terrapin. Their argument was that allowing the boy to take the animal home signaled to readers that removing animals from the wild is acceptable. In their opinion the terrapin should never make it off the dock because the boy should drop it right back into the water.

I thought that was OK for the purposes of the book. But I told the author that I think in real life children should be able to catch any animal they want as long as they follow the one-day rule (or 10-day rule, or five-minute rule, or whatever time period a parent thinks appropriate for the animal in question) before they let it go. My reasoning is that the knowledge children gain by becoming familiar with different animals ultimately contributes far more to conservation efforts than the hands-off approach some people advocate.

Children should not be prohibited from catching and keeping any animal they can get their hands on. What better way to learn how an earthworm moves than holding it in your hands and watching it, or maybe even keeping it in a homemade terrarium? And isn't catching a tadpole and raising it in a bowl of water the best way to know what kind of frog or toad it will turn into? Why shouldn't a child take a caterpillar home, let it build a cocoon or chrysalis and turn into a moth or butterfly? Children should be taught proper husbandry for any pet but not discouraged from keeping them.

Let's not worry about a single specimen of a species being removed from its natural habitat. Instead, let's celebrate the wonderment and appreciation for nature that children get by catching an animal and keeping it for awhile. Children who grow into adults with an appreciation for nature from firsthand experience will likely be proponents of wildlife conservation. Conservation is best served when we focus on the well-being of the species population as a whole rather than an individual animal. No child is going to have a serious impact on the status of any animal population by removing one individual. If they do, the population was already doomed anyway.

Speaking of rules about keeping wild animals as pets, some states have laws that would benefit from revision. At the very least the laws should not apply to children. An example of one such ill-conceived regulation from Georgia: a kid who enjoys nature and wants to learn about animals cannot legally keep a flying squirrel, a garter snake, or even a green anole for a pet. This law is not in the best interest of wildlife protection. Any of those species can make good pets and be educational for the owner, and none are in danger of being affected by the removal of individuals by children.

The children's book about turtles has some good information on terrapin ecology. I do not know what decision the author made about whether to have the child keep the turtle or immediately let it go. But if he does keep the turtle, the message would be equally as good, maybe better, than if he releases it. Kids should be allowed to catch and keep (for a short while) anything they want except a cold.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com.

Will Congress Undermine Environmental Progress?

We hold certain truths to be self-evident . . . among them is the fact that the U.S. Congress has changed its makeup considerably since the last election. Meanwhile, most environmentalists would agree that three of the best things any Congress ever did for the environment were the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act, all passed in the 1970s during the Nixon administration.

 Most members of the general public who are aware of the way we used to treat the environment would agree that all of those changes were in the best interest of the general public. Will the current Congress keep this environmental progress intact? Is there any way such admirable advancements in environmental policy, which benefit the citizenry of an entire country, could be threatened? Can anyone come up with a reason why a politician would propose diluting strong environmental laws that are good for the country? Read on.

Another current self-evident truth is that times are tough economically, although a wide range of opinions can be found about exactly when they started and who should shoulder the blame. But whatever the perceived cause of our economic adversity, the new Congress will be expected to improve the situation. Unfortunately, during economic hard times, some officials elected to fix economic problems make environmental issues the scapegoat. People with self-serving agendas begin to attack environmental rules and regulation. Beware of rhetoric that uses slogans like "creating jobs," “reducing the national debt” or "being good for the economy" while undermining environmental safeguards. Such catchphrases are presented as if they are incompatible with protecting the environment. They are not. But we are already beginning to hear of moves afoot to weaken the laws that ensure clean water and clean air, and that protect our native species. Political efforts to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency are another red flag, usually a corporate agenda seeking unrestrained use of environmental resources that belong to all of us.

Attempts to change environmental laws that are good for the nation become especially noticeable when commerce intrudes on our common assets: air, water and the natural resources of our native plants and animals as well as their habitats. These commodities, all of them, belong as much to any one of us as to any other, regardless of wealth, land holdings or social position. Free enterprise should be lauded, but not at the cost of weak environmental laws that will benefit a few financially while being detrimental to the rest of us.

Less than four decades ago the House and Senate acted wisely and decisively with regard to safeguarding air, water and wildlife. The passage of that powerful environmental legislation has benefited the whole country. We have the highest water standards of any country in the world. This would not be true were it not for the Clean Water Act (1972). The Clean Air Act (1977) enacted strong measures against air pollution, focusing on the question, whose air is it anyway? The Endangered Species Act of 1973 saved several species from certain doom, and the program remains one of the ecological success stories of the last century. 

Significant environmental gains have been achieved through these laws, without dire economic consequences. Yet some people persist in wanting to weaken the regulations in all three of these nation-saving legislative acts. Anytime you hear someone, whether politician, industrialist or just plain folk, talk about the need to curtail any of these laws, take a careful look at who is going to benefit. I guarantee it will not be you. 

One thing is certain--the congressional zenith of passing the environmental laws of the 1970s to protect our natural heritage will be hard to follow. But for other senators and representatives to weaken them would be to reach a congressional nadir. Let’s not stand for it. Let’s make it clear to all that to truly realize life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in America, we must do so with clean air and water and with our biological communities and natural habitats intact.

Send environmental questions to ecoviews@gmail.com