To: TimF who wrote (266526 ) 12/30/2005 12:10:19 PM From: tejek Read Replies (1) | Respond to All I said in return is that ecologically speaking, all wetlands are equally valuable as far as their local region is concerned. As for the statement that you apparently wanted to make, and have now made, I disagree. I don't think wetlands are like shopping malls, and I do think they have a widespread importance, but some of them are particularly vital, while other areas are dubiously classified as wetlands in the first place. Some of them are large, with a great deal of biodiversity, others serve as important barriers reducing the effects of coastal storms (Katrina would probably not been as bad if it wasn't for all the lost wetlands around NO), while some are small areas with little bio diversity, no important barrier aspect, and have at best a dubious claim to being important filters. An small plot that sometimes has some standing water on it, is not as important as the Everglades or the wetlands around NO. Even if you where to assume that they are all very important some would be more important than others. Saying they are all exactly as important as each other is just silly. If you want you can say that they all should be protected without having to say their importance is 100% identical.
