Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack,

Jack,

I hate pigeonholes, so I will just give you what I think.
I hope that we can use nature to our advantage, that is, responsibly use natural resources to make living on this planet more comfortable.

That being said, we don’t need to be harvesting old growth forests to build hot tubs. I am also of the opinion that we should let nature take its course when it comes to fighting fires. I think that we are the problem with the rash of huge forest fires in recent years.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for rich folks or anyone, for that matter, that loses everything in a forest fire. Forests burn because they were meant to. You roll the dice, you take your chances, in other words, if you want to live there you can pay to protect yourself.
The Healthy Forest Initiative is bullshit! If we had not fought every forest fire at any cost we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place! It’s not just bad policy, it’s dumb as a rock.
BTW, there are alternatives to using wood in the construction of houses and making paper. Why aren’t we using them?

Strip mining, you want to take the minerals out of the earth; you can pay to make the place look like it did before you got there. Since most of the mining is done on government land, why should I have to pay to clean it up? I live in Arizona where we have these colossal holes in the ground left over from copper mining. Lovely, just lovely.

The Armed Services have been some of the worst offenders in the pollution issue. How many of the closed bases are now Superfund sites? Let the money to repair the damage come out of their budget.

Air pollution and fuel efficiency; why, in this day and age of extreme technology are we still using fossil fuels to run our cars? Because it is cheaper? Cheaper in what way? There has to be over a hundred reasons not to use crude oil, but there is only one reason to use it. It’s cheaper!

If I sound like an environmental wacko, so be it. I have some habits I’d like to continue, I like to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and eat food that isn’t contaminated with the latest designer chemical. I also like to look at sunsets uncolored by pollution.

So where do the companies that support clear cutting forests land? religious or parctical? You have made this way to cut and dry to fit your own ideas.

If there are only 2 choices than president Bush would have to support clear cutting, overfishing and all other enviromental damaging activites.

We all know he doesnt so by not making a place for these people than they have to be put together with one of the two groups.

I will talk about the specifics of forest next time. Suffice it to say that there are times when clearcutting makes sense. The seedlings of things like douglas fir and loblolly pine just won’t grow in the shade. It is good forest management.

It also depends on what you mean as old growth. In N. Carolina a few years back there was a big fight over cutting some white pines that were said to be virgin. There are few virgin stands in the east. They were cut, and they turned out to be about 90 years old. That might seem old, but it is not virgin and it shows how fast regeneration can be.

Rocky

You live in Arizona. I was there two years ago. You could actually hear the bark beetles eating and killing the ponderosa pine near Williams. The ranger assured me that there was no problem because they were native beetles. It is not a healthy forest to let most of the trees die, turn to tinder and then burn. (Most of the people living in those piney woods, btw are not rich.) A practical person would allow harvest of some of the trees to stop the infections.

We have no choice but to manage nature. There is no such thing any longer as a natural environment. Returning to the case of your Arizona pines. They are too close together. Why, because of earlier logging and firefighting. It might return to its “original” state in a thousand years. Why wait?

Beyond that, there is no original state. Nature is dynamic. There is not now and never has been a balance. Don’t believe me? Visit the state of my birth - Wisconsin - and take a look at the rocks and hill. Glaciers - that is how they got there. About 10,000 years ago, the whole land was covered in a mile of ice. Was that balance? Is it balance now? Was it balance 300 years ago? Or maybe there is no steady state.

So I propose writing on the topics of earth, air and water in that order in later posts.

What, no fire?

Sorry, guess that joke’s too obvious. I think the quadrant is an interesting idea. I look forward to seeing how the discussion turns out.

Jack,
These quadrants, their terminology seems to reflect your preferred perceptions. Here’s another take on the same concept:

One axis measures the attitude of people towards nature.

At one end of this axis, people see themselves as an integral part of nature. It’s a cyclical, circular viewpoint, a unity, a perception of color and degree, a partnership. The earth is round. Quantam, wave, & relativity apply. This is the truest scientific attitude, for the observer interacts with the observed.

At the opposite end are those perceive in dualities. This, I would argue, is the religious viewpoint of nature. It perceives humanity and nature as separate. It’s a linear viewpoint of divisions, of bodies & souls, of heaven above and earth below; a perception of black & white, of absolutes. In this religious viewpoint, humans have dominion over the earth.

Government regulation is merely a tool. It reflects the attitude of society towards nature, as well as its ability to implement that attitude through policy & enforcement. Either extreme of the axis will use it.

When able to wield it, either extreme will praise government for being ‘practical.’ When unable to do so, either will condemn it. We could enumerate other tools to create an axis that are equally valid, particularly media, but this being a political blog, it makes sense to start there…

Jack,

“Beyond that, there is no original state. Nature is dynamic. There is not now and never has been a balance.
Glaciers - that is how they got there. About 10,000 years ago, the whole land was covered in a mile of ice. Was that balance? Is it balance now? Was it balance 300 years ago? Or maybe there is no steady state.”

Please tell me how man was responsible for the glaciers.
Can you prove that within a shadow of a doubt, that this was not the correct thing to happen at precisely that moment?

Jack we are not here to create balance for this planet. We are just another cog, in the wheel, and we should be attempting to live within the balance that existed. Just because we (in recent times) didn’t cause the damage, does that mean that we shouldn’t attempt to help make it right?

Look around; every thing man touches turns to shit. We use up natural resources and then walk away, as if it was ours to use up. Yes, things have gotten a little better, since our collective consciousness has been raised in the last 30 years, but we need to better manage ourselves, and realize that we share this planet with other species.

Look, I’m not saying that we all should get rid of everything and live in a hut. We are the most intelligent species on the planet; we need to better than we have been.

The bark beetles you spoke about are the result of several environmental causes that happened to coincide with each other, not the least of which is that it has been incredibly dry for years. Thinning the trees won’t get rid of the beetles, a few years of heavy snowfall to break the drought might. Those pines you speak of are the largest stand of Ponderosa pine on the planet. The drought has made them susceptible to the beetles.
Oh, and by the way, what are you going to do with the beetle-infested trees once you cut them down?

Jack, Rocky
I live in Prescott. The past 2 years the bark beetle infestation caused a very serious problem with the pines. After some rangling with the environmentalists and the Forest Service, the FS went ahead and cut the damaged trees and burnt them. It had the end result of thinning the forest land. So there is a two sided coin here. We got the thinning that was so necessary, but at the cost of infected trees. It is amazing how things work out even when man does his deeds good or bad.

I recently read a book about complexity theory. One thing that came up was that hamhanded attempts to bring up the numbers of species by culling the predator species would not necessarily work, because the prey species might be limited by other factors, including competitors who are also benefited by the cull, their own feedstock, and on occasion, the pressures we put on the population.

The thing about dealing with the Environment cavalierly is that we so poorly understand the interaction, that we could very well bring about a nasty unexpected consequences out of our ignorance. We need to be careful, if we don’t want to suffer the consequences in the health and beauty of our environment.

tom,

I don’t have a problem with the Forest Service “thinning” the trees themselves and burning the results. Without the infected trees the underbrush could be control burned without a problem.

BTW, I may be moving to Prescot after the first of the year.

I only have the three incidents that shape my view of environmentalism:

1) The lake by my childhood home is a superfund disaster site. The company down the road treated pine trees and made them into electricity poles. The chemicals they used flowed into the lake, and killed all the fish. 5 times in a row. The lake is full of PCBs and the fish are not to be eaten. The company was sued. It declared bankruptcy. The owners went on to create other companies in other areas, with equally bad environmental habits.

2) In our rural area, we used to have a lot of woodpeckers, including a couple of families of really rare ones. The timber companies moved in and took out all the trees, especially the dead ones. (Fire hazard). No more woodpeckers. The rare ones (Red cockaded? I wish I could remember), are now completely missing from that area of Mississippi.

3) My father kills a deer almost every year with his truck. The deer population have eaten themselves into starvation twice now. They also tend to be a big nuisance. Mississippi periodically ups its deer season quota to keep the population in check, which I agree with.

I think that Jack needs to add another tier to his matrix. Maybe exploitative—trusting and exploitative—untrusting. The exploitative—trusting are the companies who actively lobby the government to change regulations so that they can pollute legally, while the untrusting ones are those who just dump, slash, etc. and hope either not to get caught or to stay ahead of the law. These are people who don’t care about the environment or resources beyond the value they can get out of exploiting them as quickly as possible, or the money they can save by ruining them.

Julia, thanks for your experiences. I’m from Salt Lake City, so my experiences mostly involve the Bingham copper mine (World’s largest! Used to be a mountain!), and the refinery smog being trapped in the valley making it impossible to see the mountains for weeks at a time. Whenever I hear people post about how the days of big polluters are over, I just think of that blanket of smoke.
I also agree with your third point. I think it’s a mistake to assume that people who care about the environment are against hunting. Deer overpopulation is contributing to tree species loss all over America, so unless we can get back the wolves, we need more hunters or better hunting laws in some places. I think that the people who are most against hunting are the animal rights people, who are more pro-animal than pro-environment.
On the other hand of the hunting issue, when I was in college the locals decided that protection of mountain lions had worked so well that the hunters couldn’t get enough deer, so they decided to kill the mountain lions again. One step forward, one step back…

In nature, there is no right or wrong. The natives of this continent lived as close as there ever was to true Paradise. No politicians, no religion, no government. Only them living in close concert with their mother, the Earth. They used only what they needed and wasted nothing. They migrated when necessary as the seasons changed and some just made cold weather adaptions.
It all ended when Europeans used genocide and a “civilized” idea called “manifest destiny” to overrun the continent. And here we are thinking we can “control” the environment when we can’t even control ourselves.
“Environmentalists” are a bunch of meddling busybodies that really need a useful hobby, like torturing and hanging child molesters for instance. “Global warming” is a fairy tale invented by them in a misguided attempt to make politicians and other slo-thinkers (liberals)take the side of paranoid schitzos who think the sky is falling, the poles are melting, and prairie dogs must have land owner “rights”, blah, blah, blah. Whiners and appeasers all.
Here’s a news phlash. Nature can do better without their and the government’s help. Nature has torn itself asunder and repaired itself with no help from man. It always will. It always gives me a laugh when Florida is ripped up by hurricanes, the Peoples republic of Califoninicate is swallowed by sink holes and mudslides, and natural forest fires burn the land back to health. Earthquakes usually hurt man made structures. Just facts of nature, not facts of life. So hunt and fish and drill for oil and build we will, oblivious of nature until she changes to suit herself. Man will be man, and nature ignores us. We have tried to change nature and failed miserably in every effort. Nature don’t need us, but we need nature. Que sera, sera.

Hmm… An article about nothing.

I promised to write something about President bush and the environment and I will

Keep me posted. I’m still interested in seeing it.

I was just wondering about Rocky’s post.Are you religious at all? I noticed you admitted there was a ice-age…

I also wanted to agree with someone up there who was correcting the part in the blog that said “hunters and fishermen don’t care about animals or the environment” and add that I am both of those and most of these people fight to protect the environment so they can enjoy them as they are hunting/fishing.And deer are getting pretty numerous and if they are hungry enough will go on to people’s farms and eat the crops or the grass the horses and cows eat.

A lot of farmers want to shoot them and some do.But the state has a very precise way of regulating hunting tags,and depending on how good the hunting is in one area it may be easier or harder to get a tag for a particular area,and there are rules in each state about how many points the deer have to have that year, and various other regulations.This is because they have calculated it all out for certain reasons such as one area having too many deer or elk,or other things like that.

The native americans of which I am a part of, had various ways to regulate too,such as burning some forests or cutting this or that tree down so there would be new shoots evrywhere which the deer or elk like.This way they regulated their hunting.

All in all, the state usually wouldn’t give out tags in an area where the deer are scarce.

I live in Washington state,where there is still a fierce battle going on about who won the governor’s race in 2004.Here I can offer you two sides of another coin.

The current governor, Christine Gregiore,has said she wants to clean up the sound,which has had several massive oil spills on it recently but that’s not the half of it.

At the very southernmost end of the Puget Sound is Hood canal,a fiord.The way this part of the sound cleans itself out takes a very long time,and is very sensitive.Right now, fish and other aquatic creatures cannot live in it.This is partly due to several things,one of which is leaking septic tanks from people who live on the edge of the canal,and also because the tribes in the area were dumping the fish guts of the salmon they catch there into the canal which they have been doing for thousands of years.They were asked not to do it anymore. It’s complicated but I think the problem was the algae growth from these things were taking up all the oxygen in the water.

This cleanup will take millions of dollars.Now also there is another ongoing problem with the Columbia river,where there are quite a few dams.The salmon who used to go up this river to spawn are getting scarce.Studies have shown that the best way to bring back the salmon is to take out 2 or 3 of these dams.

There are people who get their livelyhood on the river by fishing for salmon. This includes commercial fishing.These people are fighting for the removal of the dams to bring back the salmon.

Now here’s the problem:Governor gregoire wants to clean up the sound, and remove a couple of the dams,because she is concerned about the environment of our great state.

But the republican voters are angry and feel cheated because they feel Rossi should have won.

I was scratching my head for awhile wondering why someone would want Rossi for our governor because he doesn’t care about the environment. But then i found out what was going on:The people who own FARMS in eastern Washington are going to be in trouble if the dams are removed and they will lose some of their water rights.Also since she has been governor she has been trying to cut the budget, which was out of control so she is taxing a lot of things,including cigarettes and gas.Yes, gas which is already sky high.

Now,if you think about this whole situation,which do you think is more important,the environment of Washington and it’s wildlife,and it’s awesome beauty that we all enjoy,or people’s wallets,and people’s farms?Some of the people who could lose their water rights have lived there for a hundred years.They have no other way of living.But the same goes for the fishermen.I gotta say it the jury’s out.

One comment though: It’s interesting that you feel the need to frame your argument before you make it. That suggests that if your upcoming analysis of Bush’s environmental policy were taken at face value, everyone would think it sucks.

Interesting attempt to set it up so that anyone who thinks Bush plan is a bad idea is de facto big government and impractical.

the argument that “the democrats are/were just as bad” as the (current) republicans is just meaningless, dumb, obfuscating rhetoric with no moral basis or justification … the entire political system has become so thoroughly corrupt that arguing one side against the other has become useless and counterproductive, which plays right into the hands of the BUSHCO agenda, which is power at ANY cost including the very freedom and democracy that THEY, bush/cheney/rove/rumsfeld (and not ALL republicans) claim to be protecting …

i am not pro-DEM and anti-REP - i am just completely appalled by the agenda and the actions of THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE who are tearing apart everything america has ever stood for and making a mockery out of democracy in the eyes of the world …

it’s not about democrats vs. republicans anymore folks - BUSHCO’s “war on terror” is a scam and a deceit whose real target is the terrorization of every american voter into fear-based submission, i.e., “you had better vote for us because god is on OUR side and if you don’t ‘the terrorists’ will get you” - the events of 9/11 were a horrific terrorist act which killed 3000 americans - using their deaths as political and psychological leverage is evil and immoral hogwash of the highest order …

Religious-trustful - now that was an interesting perversion of the words.

The religious hold man is dominant and has been granted dominion over the earth. They trust in God to provide which excuses them from the responsibility for their own impact on the natural systems that their opponents argue sustain them and everyone else.

They also believe strongly in free enterprise as in free from anyone getting in between them and their profits for any reason.

Yep, very interesting inversion/perversion of the the terminology.

That said, it is your argument, Jack, and there is nothing wrong with you defining the terms you intend to use to support your upcoming arguments. I do think a more appropriate selection of analogous terms would have made your case a bit stronger rather than defining common terms with opposite attributes.

It should also be stated that Jack’s topic here is timely, in light of the Supreme Court nominations that are to to come. Nothing less than the clean air, clean water, and uncontaminated foods are at stake with the coming vacancies on the Supreme Court. I hope all of Jack’s readers will bear this in mind as they review Jack’s arguments in what I predict will be his support of free enterprise at the cost of consumer advocacy groups, which the judiciary has acted as a fulcrum in balancing between these interests.

I’m an “earth first” kinda guy…when we’re finished logging here we’ll start on the other planets.

Interesting comments, thanks.

Rocky

You can’t get rid of the beetles and their numbers do wax and wane with conditions. But you can manage so that the beetles do less damage. In the case of the infestation, you wouldn’t only cut the infected trees, but also some nearby to slow the spread. You probably have to burn those already infected, but you can sell the timber from the others.

Phx8

I don’t have a problem with your characterization, but it is less defining. The point I am making with the religious/practical is that to the extent you believe that nature is an entity onto itself; it is a matter of faith and principle. It is harder to compromise on matters of faith and principle. Take my bark beetle example. If you believe (as some do) that the beetles are nature’s way and we should not interfere, you can’t really compromise and let someone cut half the timber. You are almost compelled by your faith to demand a zero cut.

It is a little different if you believe in the continuity of the earth that you are talking about. In that way, you could justify either cutting or not cutting, depending on the long term consequences of each.

I take the earth, wind, water and fire example from the four elements recognized by the ancient Greeks, not the rock band.

Franklin

It depends on which natives and when. The Maya and the Natchez mound builders destroyed their environments to the extent that their civilizations collapsed. The Anasazi could not adapt to environmental changes. The plains Indians after the introduction of the horse made more efficient hunting possible were over hunting bison and had eliminated 2/3 of the herds before the Euro hunters just about finished the job.

Native American success with the environment was based most on low population densities. If the 300 million people currently occupying the U.S. were to go back to those methods, society would collapse in a matter of days.

Don’t overdo the Rousseau angle. Closer analysis always finds it wanting.

Stephen

The genie is out of the bottle. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. There is no zero option in the environment. We might be treating it poorly by doing nothing. For example, humans have already introduced into N. America a wide variety of invasive species. Doing nothing will result in a very changed environment. Beyond that, we have millions of people who need to eat, drink and have a place to live. The question is not IF we will interfere with the environment. It is only how we will manage the interactions.

Jack,

“You can’t get rid of the beetles and their numbers do wax and wane with conditions. But you can manage so that the beetles do less damage. In the case of the infestation, you wouldn’t only cut the infected trees, but also some nearby to slow the spread. You probably have to burn those already infected, but you can sell the timber from the others.”

Therein lies the rub.
Do you pay someone to come in and fell the trees, and then allow them to make a profit?
In my opinion, I don’t want my government to be paying a company to thin the trees, that will then turn around and reap a profit from the healthy trees that are included in the deal.

egrassh,

Of course there was an ice age.
Why would my being religious change reality?
(I suppose that was a retorical answer)
BTW, I’m not.

Jack-
I would say great care must be taken. We should not deal with the system as if it were mechanical, and as if it can take our abuse forever without collapses and unintended consequences. There is no zero option, but then, we never had that option as creatures of nature.

Rocky

Practical solution. At some price, a firm will cut the trees. We strike the deal so that they remove the dead trees and get to profit on the harvest of the buffer trees. It might be the case that the profit from the trees so exceeds the cost of culling the dead ones that the firm actually pays for the opportunity, or it my cost money, but that is just a business decision. It is not a problem.

You are a business man. How do you determine whether or not to take a job?

Stephen

No disagreement. I have been observing trees and systems my entire life. It is not mechanical one-to-one input and output. We will never understand the full complexity of even a square meter or dirt. But it is irresponsible to think that means we can do nothing or let nature alone. Our neolithic ancestors altered the environment and probably caused the first round of climate change. As you say, we are in it.

A lot of space has been taken about the bark beetle and the pines. Another mismanagement of environment is the transplant of different growths to other climates which causes problems. For instance grass from Michigan transplanted to Arizona. This causes an imbalance for people and the land. Trees from Washington were not meant to be grown in Arizona. Fruit producing trees cause additional insect population that was not present before the transplant and relocation. To what extent do we manage growth in plants and wildlife? Nobody has a clear cut answer to that. The debate will continue without a clear consensus of what is right. One thing is sure everyone needs to be aware of what is going on around themselves and make a concerted effort to keep a balance in their own neighborhood. Easier said than done.

Jack,

“You are a business man. How do you determine whether or not to take a job?”

I am not an ordinary businessman.
Because of the type of work I do, how much fun the job will be has a lot to do with whether I take the job or not.

Lumber interests have had their eyes on our forests for a long time. Others, mining, what have you, also want to exploit resources on government (ie. my) land as well. I belive that they should pay dearly for the privilege. I feel the same for those that graze cattle on government (my) land.
Look we all pay taxes, business should have to pay a lease that is actually equal to the market value of that resource.
Why shouldn’t “we the people” make a profit off of what happens on our land.

As far as the lumber we have been discussing, that is what a site survey is for. You come in, you evaluate the trees that need to be taken out, and you make a bid on those trees plus the healthy ones that would come out as well. I don’t think I need to subsidize someone else’s business. If you can’t afford that, I don’t think you shouldn’t be in the lumber business.

And please, don’t tell me that you are doing me a favor.

Cutting down trees for a useful purpose IMO is best exemplified through GOD directing Noah to construct an Ark. In using this example I have taken the liberty to accept on faith that the Ark was constructed of wood and, that trees (or the comparable growth in that period) were cut and used as the basic construction material.

Do we, have we and are we guilty of altering the supply of natural resources (trees, minerals, fuels, lakes and rivers, animals, etc.) for business, recreation, waste disposal, etc.) - YES. Is doing some of these things sometimes necessary - YES.

Some would say that “letting nature run it’s course” is the preferable way to deal with culling trees and shrubs from our forests or, the best way to preserve animal and/or fish populations. This group would also believe that people who lose homes, businesses, etc. because they were located too close to the forest and were burned out have only themselves to blame.

In my opinion nature/natural resources must be managed. There should be legislation to set the parameters as to how to do so. Overgrown forests are the primary reason for severe forest fires started by drought conditions. In addition, flooding/flash flooding can be attributed to overpopulated and randomly growing trees and shrubs. I accept on faith that the logging industry is making a real effort to plant trees to eventually replace those taken for conversion into consumer products. State and Federal agencies seem to have developed good plans, based on research and analysis to show the advantages to conservation efforts of culling overgrown forests, re-grading the forest floor to permit the desired run-off of water, etc.

I would agree that open pit mining, while necessary should be reviewed in terms of restoring an acceptable appearance or use after the mining has been completed. I lived for several years in Stansbury Park which was about hyalfway from Salt Lake City and Tooele, Utah. There was a huge open pit copper mine (Kennecot) nearby and it was extremely offensive to look at.

Animal preservation, endangered species, etc. Many people do not care if a species of animal disappears. Personally I think it is a huge loss. Some animals however cause more harm than good in some geographical areas because of overpopulation. I have no problem with allowing these animals to be hunted to pre-determined limits. I don’t like to see the animals tied to vehicles dead but, I reconcile my discomfort with the knowledge that in the end, it is a good thing.

We need more oil. Sure there are other fuels that can run engines and they should be used more. It seems however that this issue is so political and, auto, auto aftermarket companies and oil companies are not going to allow this to happen anytime soon.

Also a large deterrent to us developing more dependence on our own oil is the fact that Bush advocates drilling on Government land but the opposition to this will likely slow that down indefinately. People living on coastal areas do not want to see oil rigs off the coast and drive down their property values. These coastal folks however will keep rebuilding homes after each hurricane. Figure that one out.

To be safe, I would reccomend that a home should not be built too close to a forest, too close to the beach and, don’t go out a buy a car that runs on chicken droppings - not yet anyway.

The idea that we can save the entire environment currently on planet Earth is silly. The Earth is constantly changing - not all changes a result of human intervention. Natural disasters, climatic changes, invasive overgrowth of any bug, plant or sea creature, all contribute to change. Should we try to manage our environment? Of course. Is it necessary to be radical in our views in either direction? No. What is necessary is moderation in all things: some forest fires are necessary for regrowth of certain tress and plants. Some bugs will not be controlled until their food source is gone. Extinctions are part of the natural order of this planet. You are not going to save every critter. Some are meant to die out. That’s just life. Wildlife management with a concern for a healthy wildlife population means that overpopulation needs to be controlled - usually by hunting. Overgrowth of forests lead to certain tress and plants being choked out. Management of public forests used for recreation and enjoyment should be managed for the health of the entire forest. Natural, unused, wild forests should be allowed to follow their natural cycles - growth, overgrowth, fires, regrowth. Nature really does a better job of management than many of the experts.

Rocky

Right. We (the USG) should not subsidized private individuals or firms. We should get a good deal on what we sell. But we should sometimes sell and sometimes contract work to be done. As Beagle knows, I am in process of buying some timberland. I am responsible for it all. People doing logging on public lands are actually competition. I don’t want them to get subsidies that lower the prices I will receive. On the other hand, as an American and someone who loves trees, I know that it is best if we allow some logging and that those who do so make a profit.

I would also go after water subsidies, but that is a different topic.

Others

If we want to allow natural cycles, we have to know what natural cycles are. They will take a long time to play out and will never be in balance. I prefer to let things alone as much as possible because I am lazy. But sometimes you have to do something to make things better.

That is an interesting question. Can humans make nature better? In the great scheme of things, the answer is that it doesn’t matter. At some time in the future the Sun will swell into a red giant star and swallow up all the inner planets. Any little holes we have made will amount to less than nothing.

But in our own lifetimes and those of our children and grandchildren the answer is clearly yes.

Now we will see who is practical and who is religious, as I suspect I have trod on sacred ground with my answer and probably even asking the question.

Hmm interesting -

If there are people who are ‘religous’ about the environment and we celebrate ‘earth day’ in public institutions - then isnt our goverment endorsing a religion?

steve smith,

“Overgrown forests are the primary reason for severe forest fires started by drought conditions.”

Again, I hate to repeat myself, but the forests are overgrown because of man’s fire fighting policies, not because of nature.

Jack,

“Can humans make nature better?”

No offence meant, but that is the most arrogant question a human would ever ask.

Especially since we have worked so dilligently to destroy it.

Rocky

I have to ask the question. Since humans are the only ones who can.

Nature has no consciousness and so is indifferent to our fate or those of anything else. I will ask the next group of squirrels I encounter. I figure no answer implies agreement.

BTW - I don’t think humans can destroy nature. We can make it difficult or impossible for ourselves to survive in it, but frankly even if we blew the whole planet into ten inch chunks, it wouldn’t even make a ripple in the galaxy.

Rocky said in response to my post….

“Again, I hate to repeat myself, but the forests are overgrown because of man’s fire fighting policies, not because of nature.”

I said……

“Overgrown forests are the primary reason for severe forest fires started by drought conditions.”

Rocky,
Are you saying that because fire fighters extinguish fires rather than let them burn out of control or, said another way “let nature take it’s course” forests are overgrown.?

If so, we have an impasse because each of us could produce enough documentation, reference material, etc. to solidify our respective points.

Steve and Rocky

You are both right.

Fire prevention and earlier logging made the forests thicker than they would have been and then the dry conditions set them off.

But there were lots of fires before the Europeans arrived in N. America. Sometimes they were disastrously large, especially during the warm climatic periods.

The trouble with letting nature take its course is that it doesn’t. It lurches from one equilibrium to another. These cycles can take centuries. We humans don’t have the time to wait.

The Yoda-like wisdom that we should just let it be doesn’t really work. None of us (with the possible exception of Ted Kaczynski) will accept that. We should all be honest about this.

Jack, the answer is not complicated. Humans have the capacity to overwhelm the systems that support it. China can’t possibly grow the food it needs to feed all its own people. Perfect example.

On the other hand, humans also have the capacity to tend the natural systems that support us, insuring the species does not overwhelm them.

Then of course there are the short term, short sighted profiteers, who will always overwhelm the systems that support them when the books threaten red ink.

Hence the need for a concensus by that majority that believe we have to support the environment as it supports us through constraint of the profiteers as well as those who believe every human sperm and egg should be brought to term as if winning the ‘war against nature’ will somehow be won by superior numbers.

George Carlin does an interesting piece on environment and “mother earth.” I will see if I can find the link to it, but in essence, he says the earth doen’t give a ?@#& what man does to it. The earth has a way of striking back and eliminating the problems. What man lacks is a sense of time with regard to environment. The earth has been here so long in comparison to man that man is a relative newcomer. As man creates problems, the earth reacts and retaliates. So, says George, all you “enviro-wackos” have an inflated image of self and what your impact on all this is.

I don’t necessarily ascribe to the church of George Carlin, but he brings up a good point. I think we as the human race have a far greater opinion of ourselves than the environment does. Every action we take has an equal and opposite reaction from the environment—not always for the worse and not always for the better.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this:

Is what we are doing to and for the environment for the benefit of the environment or for our own gratification? I don’t know that there is a wrong answer, but I think we need to be truthful with ourselves and gain some perspective on our role.

I live in central Wisconsin and enjoy the great outdoors very much. I would hate to leave to my children a legacy of abuse. I would also hate to leave to my children a legacy of overmanagement or overinvolvment. I think both are equally damaging.

Mother nature will do as she sees fit. We are just riders on this planet, and are its most junior attendees.

Yea Jack after all humans are not part of nature

Jack and steve smith,

We lurch along on this planet assuming that we are the proprietor instead of the guest. We treat the place as if we are rock stars entitled to throw the TV into the pool.
I said before that I would prefer that we live within the balance that was here before we got here. Yes balance.
The systems on this planet were here long before we got here and will be here long after we are gone. They are, however, not controlable. We can study hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes etc., but in the end the only solution to the devastation is to get out of the way and let them take their course.
Frogs with two heads and cancerous growths are not common in nature. Yet they have been discovered in areas which man has wrought some of his worst environmental disasters. We have to have fish hatcheries because of our need to overdo our recreation, or because in our search for hydro-power we didn’t think about anything but our need for the power. We need to manage nature because of our mistakes, and our needs, not because of natures.
I am not so foolish to think that everybody should abandon progress, and go back to living hand to mouth. There are some parts of progress I truely enjoy (western toilets are probably #1 on the list).
Let’s not forget that with stewardship comes a responsibility to do it right.

Jack,
Can humans make nature better?”

No offence meant, but that is the most arrogant question a human would ever ask.

Especially since we have worked so dilligently to destroy it.

Posted by: Rocky at June 3, 2005 12:21 PM

Great quote Rocky
“keep em coming”

Hey All:

Just my 2 bits worth on this issue, Has anyone thought about these Two Topics?

When will mankind finally become extinct? Afterall, if we are an evolving species, we should be evolving at this very moment and the next. What’s Next?

When will we pollute our air, water, soil as to the point that we can no longer breathe without a mask? Drink our water? Grow plants? Guess what happens then? Plants no longer grow, engines no longer run, Life as we know it ceases.

As Always,
Wayne

Interesting.
The way I see it government will never solve environmental issues.
WHY?
Supply and demand.
This one is up to the folks!!
How many people here live in evil sub-divisions? They had to be clear cut for your house.
Talk is cheap and both sides of the gov. will follow the $$$$

My mom has a friend that never quits whining about the American Indian.
He has 70 acres…70!!!
So we suggested he give half back to them as a gift so to say! You can imagine his response!!
Lead by example!!

Jack:

Interesting spectrum you propose. I’m not sure I agree with it, though. At the moment, I see it more as a spectrum between the idea of equal rights and the idea of personal property than anything else. Those who hold firmly to the idea of equal rights tend to view the environment as part of the common wealth of our citizens, and even of humanity. They view it as something that everyone should have an equal claim to, and thus something that should be held in trust and not destroyed by anyone. Or profited off of by individual groups and the process of privatization, which robs portions of the common wealth for select private interests.

On the other hand is the point of view that a man who owns a piece of property should be able to do whatever he wants with it, even if what he wants to do will spill over and have impact on property he does not own. How many rivers and lakes have known pollution from companies who owned land on their shores? How many skylines are now darkened by smog from factories that own land below them, and even miles away from where the smog drifts on the wind? The property rights view doesn’t really tend to look at the fact that the environmental impact spreads far beyond the piece of land the person actually owns.

Our neolithic ancestors altered the environment and probably caused the first round of climate change. As you say, we are in it.

On the other hand, I have to applaud this quote. I think you’re the first person on the right I’ve seen actually admit there is such a thing as global warming, even if you’re using the new buzzword “climate change” to describe it. This clearly highlights the fact that we need to be more careful about the impact we have on the environment… if simple farmers much smaller in number than our present populace alone could cause such a massive shift in the environment (raising the temperature of the earth several degrees), imagine what our own actions have the potential to do.

Anything unused is worthless, anything managed to be “unused” will still be worthless but you get to pay taxes for worthless/useless management!

No renewable resourse, unused/managed will just stay the same forever.

You can’t stockpile trees or wildlife, non-use is non-management.
Nature doesn’t pull any punches, and a disneyland view wont add much to the party.

Beagle:

Anything destroyed is worthless. Anything managed so that it will be destroyed will quickly become worthless, and will not easily recover, and EVERYONE will have to pay taxes to clean it up.

No renewable resource managed to destruction will continue to yield value forever.

You can’t magically create trees/wildlife or clean places for them to live and grow, destruction is worse than non-management/non-use. Nature doesn’t pull any punches, and a parasitical view won’t add much to the party.

I think we should all give up our houses, hospitals, cars, computers, central heat/air, running water and go live in grass huts - that way we could do no harm to the environment.

Mike

“Anything unused is worthless, anything managed to be “unused” will still be worthless but you get to pay taxes for worthless/useless management!”

Beagle, I think Jack was thinking about the environment, not government.

Oh, and as to the idea that anything non-used is worthless? Farmers learned long ago that sometimes fields need to lie fallow before they will yield a good harvest again. Non-use is an investment in the future.

I would like to see us close off half of the United States - say from the mississipi west. Move all the people out of there to the east and then let nature reign. It would be a true paradise - no access would be allowed

Mike

Couldn’t do it Miike.
The california liberal would be forced to think and provide for itself and would end up on the endangered species list.

“I would like to see us close off half of the United States - say from the mississipi west. Move all the people out of there to the east and then let nature reign. It would be a true paradise - no access would be allowed”

Spoken like a true Easterner.

kctim:

Funny, California is 43rd on the list of states receiving federal funding. It gets 78 cents for every dollar of taxes it pays. Guess those durned California liberals are pulling their own weight after all!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

kctim,

“The california liberal would be forced to think and provide for itself and would end up on the endangered species list.”

And the right would make it unlivable in a few short years anyway.

Jarandhel,

California has the 7th largest economy on the planet.

Rocky:

California has the 7th largest economy on the planet.

Umm… why are you telling me this? I was countering beagle’s idea that california liberals have problems thinking and providing for themselves. This only seems to reinforce my point.

Jarandhel,

“This only seems to reinforce my point.”

That was the point.

Rocky:

Oh, ok. Thank you. :)

By the way, Rocky:

I would like to see us close off half of the United States - say from the mississipi west. Move all the people out of there to the east and then let nature reign. It would be a true paradise - no access would be allowed

Spoken like a true Easterner.

Not all of us are like that. I was born and raised in New Jersey, and am currently living in Virginia. So don’t judge us Easterners too harshly. ;-)

Jarandhel,

Sorry, I grew up on the “left” coast. I guess some of us are just not able to hide our biases behind our intellegence.
No offence (to you) intended.

Rocky:

None taken. :)

Jack,

BTW, Greenpeace, maybe, PETA, aaarrrrrrggghhh.

I am glad to provoke such a debate

Jarin

I believe global warming is real. I know of several cases in the historical (that is recorded or investigable) past. The warm period in the 1st Century helped the Roman Empire prosper. The subsequent cooler period helped it decline. The same with the European medieval warm period, when Vikings could colonize Greenland and temperatures were warmer than today.

What I am less sure about is what to do about it. The Scientific American article about the Neolithic global warming CREDITS our ancestors with staving off the next ice age. Climate change happens, whether we go along or not. I think it is clear that human activities alter climate. But our little efforts can be trumped by geological or solar events about which we know little and understand less.

I advocate the use of non-greenhouse gas producing nuclear power and the development of renewables. The cost of solar power is dropping within the reach of average homeowners. This problem we will probably solve – just in time for the next crisis.

People commented that my question about whether man could improve nature was arrogant. Why? I stipulate that in the great scheme what we do makes absolutely no difference. Many others complain that humans can destroy nature. That certainly is at least as arrogant a statement as mine, yet that one is bandied about all the time.

I think the answer to my question is very simple – yes. The answer to the contrary question, (Can we harm nature?) is also yes. But only in human terms, with human time tables. There is nothing else there. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the world we have today is the final or the best form. There is no reason to believe anything we can do will significantly alter “nature” in the long run. The earth has been around for (what?) six billion years. It will be around at least that long in the future unless there is some galactic event. Humans can’t change that. Think of the earth in the Pre-Cambrian Era. Transport the whole human race to that period with instructions to make as much a mess as possible. What sign of that would we find today? The same goes for the future.

We shouldn’t flatter ourselves that we are the final product of the final permutation of the earth and that we can wreck it forever with our actions.

We can wreck it for ourselves and that is why (and how) we have to manage it.

Jarin
Lighten up some my friend. It’s Friday and I’m heading south to San Antonio next week - I’m in a good mood.
Rocky came back with a nice quip? of his own, thanks Rocky. Loved it man.

The environment is important to each and everyone of us and I hope common sense will prevail.
But it just seemed like it was getting alittle stuffy in here.

Jarendhel,

I guess I was way out of line, if you could share you vast knowledge of farming, the enviorment, timber management, and eco-systems, I would be “all ears” for another knowledgable point of view.

I dont know much about the finer points of making parking lots, or the rat problems in big citys, any comments from me on that would be hearsay.
I attempt to limit my comments to someting I know about, but when I’m proven wrong I’ll admit it.

Jack,

Please allow me to refine my statement somewhat.

I am slobbering carnivore, I couldn’t support PETA in any of it’s incarnations.
When I make a statement man destroying the earth I guess I need to be a little more specific.
Other than a nuclear holocost, from which the earth would recover from in a hundred thousand years or so, I agree that man’s interference with nature only harms man.

Well, wouldn’t that be the point?

I mean, human survival is kind of important to me, being a human and all.

Why, other than cost, wouldn’t we want to do all that is nescessary to insure our survival?
I would repeat my statement from my first post.

There has to be over a hundred good reasons not to use petroleum, and only one good reason to use it.
It’s cheaper.

Rocky
“Why, other than cost, wouldn’t we want to do all that is nescessary to insure our survival?”

Maybe because people have been conditioned to believe that they are entitled to or somehow deserve every luxury that is available.
Why save, conserve resources or plan for the future when one can enjoy life to its absolute fullest?
That is the problem. The vast majority of people only care about the NOW.

This is not in reference to any posts, this is just information.

HI ALL:

JUST NEEDED TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE;

“MILITARY AWARDS”

ARE NOT “WON” THEY ARE AWARDED BASED ON THE AWARDEES ACTIONS ON THE BATTLEFIELD, OR ELSEWHERE.

It makes it look like a competition when I see the word “won” used to indicate awarding of any military medal or honors. Therefore, I would hope that you will refrain from using it in reference to the awarding of medals in the future. Use words like issued or awarded in the future.

Further, The Purple Heart, created and first issued in 1776, by then General George Washington, it is still in use today. It was/is awarded to those soldiers wounded or killed on the field of battle while engaging the enemy. Want to compete for that?

As Always,
Wayne

Jack,

From reading all of this it sounds like you need to add two more boxes.

1.) Lunatic Fringe Environmentalists (those that go ape when you even look at a tree in the wrong way), and

2.) Those that would lay down asphalt from sea to shining sea (call them what you will…(be creative).

Jim T

Jim

Yes. Extremes are usually bad.

I did find this article about eco-terrorism

I think the pavers are mostly ignorant.

I dislike cars and usually ride my bike to work or take the metro. But it isn’t only because of the environment. People who drive too much get fat and unattractive. That is not a crime against nature, but it makes life less beautiful.

kctim,

“That is the problem. The vast majority of people only care about the NOW.”

I agree pal, and I would say that it all boils down to greed.

Jack,

“That is not a crime against nature, but it makes life less beautiful.”

I totally disagree. A fat person in spandex riding shorts IS a crime against nature.

Beagle,

It sounds to me like you’re being sarcastic, but let me try to share another perspective anyway.

Since timber seems, for whatever reason, to be a big concern of some of the people here including yourself, let me focus on the idea that timberland unharvested is both unused and without worth.

Timberland is a fertile environment for many animals. Deer immediately spring to mind. Properly managed, a tract of timberland could provide a home for deer year after year, which could be hunted and used as a supply of food for the owner of the property and his family. It could even be sold to others who do not hunt. Nor would the herd need to be hunted to extinction to have this effect, any more than a herd of food-animals on a farm would need to be slaughtered till there were none left to breed to provide a steady supply of food.

I know that it’s a common criticism of liberals that we are so concerned about the environment that we will give over privately-owned land to de-facto government management if we find one endangered animal on it, but I think that it’s important to note: this isn’t necessarily because we care so much about the fuzzy, furry little animals as individuals. Many liberals are fine with hunting. But animals on the verge of extinction deserve to be protected, not necessarily for their own sake, but so they can make enough of a come-back to be useful to future generations. Imagine the blow to recreational hunting, and even hunting as a food source, if we managed existing herds of deer so poorly that they were all hunted to extinction. Liberal environmental policies are made with the idea of managing such resources in a sustainable manner, so that the common natural wealth of our country is not permanently depleted for future use, and even future generations.

Another use of unharvested timberland is as apiaries, places where hives of bees may be kept for the commercial production of honey. This use actually helps the environment by encouraging natural means of pollination, so long as too many hives are not competing with one another in one area.

Trapping could be another use of forests, which would supply both food and furs that could be sold. Traps designed to catch animals alive would pose no risk to endangered species in the area, and non-endangered animals so trapped could easily be finished off without risk to trappers.

The value of the areas for recreation should also not be underestimated. Renting largely unspoiled natural areas for use for camping, gatherings, and other low-impact uses could supply the land-owner with a steady income. There are many people who already pay small fees for a few hours use of parks for birdwatching, hiking, and similar activities. There seems little reason that privately owned facilities could not make money in the same way. I also know that there are currently privately-owned facilities which charge people fees to camp on the land while holding the land in trust and largely undeveloped. I’m attending an event at one such facility next week.

These are just a few preliminary thoughts on how timberland can be used without clear-cutting and without impacting endangered species. I’m sure there are other ways as well, and it’s important that we try to identify what they are and realize that there are alternative ways to use our resources without using them up.

Jack
Thanks for the eco link, well worth the read. I will never understand the twisted logic they use.
Nuts!

“People who drive too much get fat and unattractive”

So my wife is really saying I drive too much?

I was about to begin with the sentence, “hidden in this thread” but then suddenly realized that it was not hidden at all but perfectly obvious. We have two primary positions expressed in this environmental issue. Obviously these are 1) the “tree hugger position” and 2) the opposite of tree hugger which I will call the “mow it all down in the name of progress position”.

Each of these positions have valid points to make but neither position unto itself provides a solution or even significantly alleviates the environmental problems.

Things that have lived on this earth growing, living, breathing and evolving are beautiful. There is nothing like “a day in the country” it is breathtaking to see the natural resources that have been given to us. Some say there is healing power in these things.

Now along comes the big bad wolf (mankind) with needs. He is basically lazy, short sighted and uncaring about the things around him. He is more concerned with being warm, cool, has adequate food, lodging and transportation and has ample recreational outlets. There is only now, no future no tommorrow, no looking out for generations to follow. It is the nature of this beast.

It is a beauty and the beast scenario.

Now all the terrible things happen to the environment. Raping and destruction of woodlands and wetlands, carnage of the earth finding minerals and fuels, etc. Equipment and materials used by the beast contaminate the food source of animals and they become extinct and/or mutated. There is debate on how to fix these problems. Politics is blamed, religion is dragged into the fray, etc.

The knell of doom is upon us. People wonder how long it will be before mankind is no more. All of this IMO invites the question as to whether or not all of these problems/issues and the like are not indicators or signs of mis-management of resources but, signs of the end of life as we know it as foretold in more than a single religion. Anyone with a faith based lifestyle cannot overlook this possibility.

Steve

The problem with humans is intelligence and adaptability. All Animals exploit their environments to their full potential. That is why wild populations occasionally crash. The difference is that humans have figured out ways to alter their environments to their advantage. We have usually avoided the population crashes. Our intelligence that makes us different from animals allows us to despoil the environment. Maybe our intelligence that makes us different from animals will make us different enough to manage it properly.

The environment in the developed world is cleaner now than it was a generation ago. There are more trees in N. America and W. Europe than at any time since the 1850s. There is reason for hope. The alternative is a population crash as happens when any species gets too numerous and puts too much stress on its environment.

What I find disturbing about this thread is the lack of concern expressed about personal property. This is America and if I buy a piece of land I expect to be able to use it for what I want so long as it can’t be proven to harm any one else. Alternative uses for land are great, but I might not want to use my land for others to camp or hike on.

The truth is that it is extremely difficult for us to kill life. On a microbiological level, we are teeming with it. Anthrax-laced waters don’t contain anything we like, but they do contain bizarre life-forms. If we radiate the whole planet, interesting things will happen. We wont’ be around, but some form of life will. We have a stable atmosphere, and that’s what makes us unique.

The issue is, that the more rapidly the environment changes, the less diversity of life you have. We’ve had some spectacular species kills over the millenia. Times when over 99% of life has disappeared. The planet recovered, but the dinosaurs didn’t.

Diversity of life is what we’re losing. We lose it because we rapidly change the environment, which means only the most flexible species survive. Now, there is no way to quantify if this loss is “good” or “bad”. All we know, is that once lost, we can’t reclaim the things that are gone.

We also know that the loss of things negatively impacts our ability to survive. The cod population and passenger pigeon population, and bison population being reduced over 95% means that it is a little harder to “life off the land”. Rocket fuel leaking into the ground water supply means a higher cancer rate and a reduction in a limited source of fresh water, which means that all of Santa Monica must import its water, which raises water prices.

Nature has many complex systems in place that prevent rapid change. For instance, old growth forests naturally withstand drought, worms, bark beetles, and fire, far more than the young “new growth” forests.

On the other hand, Nature can be just as good at destroying diversity as humans. A comet crash is a natural event. Volcanic action, seismic events, aggressive bacteria.

The people I have seen that do the best job is the Nature Conservancy (nature.org). They’re science-based, and they concentrate on systems, not specifics.

Nature, following an unfettered course, operates in much the same way that corporate america does when following an unregulated course. Capitalism and Nature, don’t care about what outcomes we would like. Unfettered Capitalism would love child labor, and Nature has no problem with a 9.0 earthquake off of Sumatra.

For me, it’s about sustainability, beauty, and quality of life. Businesses will pollute, and nature will give you a big earthquake in Southern California. That’s why we need environmental impact studies, and building codes.

What I find disturbing about this thread is the lack of concern expressed about personal property. This is America and if I buy a piece of land I expect to be able to use it for what I want so long as it can’t be proven to harm any one else. Alternative uses for land are great, but I might not want to use my land for others to camp or hike on.

And what I find disturbing about your perspective is the lack of concern towards the common wealth of our nation, not to mention the lack of concern towards others property rights. If you tear down a forest that is home to many animals, all those animals not killed outright will need a new place to live. They will move into the lands of your neighbors. Already we are seeing reports of wild cats, bears, and other animals in suburban areas. This is a clear impact of the drive to develop every piece of available property, yet there is little comment about this negative impact on the rights of other property owners. Pollution of water and air is similar, the effects spread beyond the property owned by one person. And logging has frequently resulted in the clogging of streams with eroded soil, reduces the fish in them and adversely affecting the quality of drinking water that comes from them. This is unlikely to affect only one person, as streams do not obey man-made boundaries and cross many tracts of land with a variety of owners. Removing trees also reduces the available shade, which raises water temperature and further reduces fish stocks.

Ecosystems don’t care about who owns what tracts of land… the impact of one person’s land-use can spread far beyond their own property, affecting many property owners and limiting their own use of their own land. This is why the issue is, and should be, one of the common wealth.

Jarandhel,
Is it safe to say you don’t believe in private property? or is it private property that is used only as you deem to be ok?

tom:

Considering that part of my argument hinges on the property rights of others being affected, I think it’s plainly obvious I do believe in property rights. But when property is used in such a way that it negatively impacts the property of others, and that which is the common property of all citizens, is where I draw the line.

An analogy might be someone who owns a powerful stereo system in their apartment. You would seem to argue that because it and the apartment are theirs, they have the right to play music over it as loud as they want, despite how that would affect anyone who lived near them. I, seeing the way this would negatively impact the ability of others to make use of their own property, would be fine with noise ordinances restricting such use. My view towards property rights and the environment is similar.

Julia,

There have been may extinctions over the last 4.6 billion years on Earth. The K-T extinction that ended the predominance of reptiles by killing 85% of all living things, leaving mammals and birds to populate the Earth.

To everyone,

What the enviroment has gone through in the last two hundred years in relation to our well-being is horrible. If humankind poisons itself, life will never be destroyed entirely; for all the thingsl we do to screw up the enviroment, there will still be one pair of cockroaches that will survive to repopulate the Earth. Just like the absence of trilobites and invertibrates allowed reptiles to come out of their niche and dominate the earth after the largest mass extinction to ever occur happened at the end of the Permian Period when 95% of species were forever lost.

There has been arguments that extinctions are a normal part of nature. I agree that when two species occupy the same niche one of two things must happen: either both species evolve in a divergent manner until they are no longer occupying the same niche, or one species outcompetes the other, leading to extinction of the loosing species. In the case of over hunting and over fishing by humans, it depletes the biodiversity of our planet for pure recreational reasons. I have no problems with those that hunt deer where they are nurmerous, but those that shot bison in the midwest and nearly destroyed them are very arrogant and selfish in my eye; they would sacrifice biodiversity just so they could have fun for a day.

This sense of enjoyment obtained by people when they overexploit the enviroment’s resources is the main reason for all the overuse and exploitation that has occured since the industrial revolution. From the elation of having shot your first bison, to the pleasure brought by the money obtained from enviromental exploitation, and to the relief that our gasoline costs $20 less than it should because the gov’t subsidizes the oil companies by letting them consume Our land. Everyone just does what “feels good” instead of what “really is good”.

This is a good read for anyone wanting to know how dangerous our exploitation of earth is.

I think I made it obvious in my post that “so long as it can’t be proven to harm any one else.”
I wouldn’t expect to limit my use for the sake of a frog or a bug or a rat however.

Jarandhel, you are completely correct. Dumping chemicals, creating wildlife refugees, and a host of other things that can be done on one’s property and negatively affect us all. I doubt CEO’s would be willing to dump their waste on the same property occupied by their million-dollar mansions, or would they?

Tomd,

what if that frog was the very last of its kind ever? What if this bug’s body naturally produces valuable medicines? If these creatures existed on my property and I wanted to exterminate them, wouldn’t you try to save them?
Every creature produces substances the help it survive, some of these substaces are harvested by humans to make medicines; maybe that rat you kill produces the cure to the disease that is the number 1 killer two hundred years from now? Don’t you want your children, your children’s children and their children to have the best possible life you can provide?

I don’t want corporations or individules dumping anything in our streams either and there should be stiff penelties for doing so, however I work hard for my money and if I buy land I should be able to build a house there, dig a gold mine, sell the timber or anything else I want to do with it UNLESS it harms someone else. How can you object to that?

tom:

I think I made it obvious in my post that “so long as it can’t be proven to harm any one else.” I wouldn’t expect to limit my use for the sake of a frog or a bug or a rat however.

Well, you said it but you were still talking about it in terms of cutting down timber. I had already presented a host of reasons that doing so affects more people than just the owner of that individual tract of land.

For the sake of a frog, or a bug, or a rat? Neither would I expect you to do so for their sake. But what about for the sake of the snake that eats that frog, and the bird of prey that eats that snake? What about for the sake of the birds that eat those bugs, and the many predatory animals that eat those rats? And what about for the sake of the things they eat, without which there might not be natural predators to control the population? We are not just talking about individual animals in isolation. Everything is part of an ecosystem, and taking things out of that ecosystem changes the system. It also robs other citizens and future generations of aspects of their common wealth by removing certain species from those that can be found in our nation, and even the world. What about for the sake of the medicines that might be found in their biology, even at this point in their genetics? What about for the sake of future generations who might never see them or make use of them in ways we have yet to imagine?

With your way of thinking we shouldn’t even be on this earth. Any time we take a step we might kill an ant or bug which will affect the ecosystem at some level. I put humans first and value us more than snakes, rabbits, deer, or any animal. I guess that’s where we differ.

Warren:

Sounds like we’re thinking along the same lines.

Tom:

You seem to be thinking of harm in very narrow terms. If your neighbor cut down trees on his land and in the process reduced or eliminated fish in a stream that flows onto your property and that you fish in regularly, would you object to that? If your neighbor further introduced enough soil into the stream to clog it, or even just enough to reduce the drinkability of the water reaching your land, would you object to that? If your neighbor cut down the trees on his land and all the animals that were there moved into your forest and began competing with the ones there for resources that aren’t sufficient to sustain both groups, would you object to that? If your neighbor cut down trees on his land and in the process killed the wild creatures that controlled the population of mice or other “vermin” species on your land, allowing them to reproduce without suffering natural predation, would you object to that? Where would you begin to see yourself as harmed by these uses? Where would you begin to see how his use of his own land affects you on yours as well, and affects your ability to use your own land the way you wish?

You speak of “common wealth”. The “common” didn’t pay for the land in question.

Tom:

Don’t be silly. Natural ecosystems can cope with losses of individual animals, and legislation involving protected species only involves preserving the species before it can be wiped out. There’s no conflict between wanting humans to be able to make use of nature, and wanting nature to be managed in a way that sustains it.

Tom:

Did you also pay for the animals? The air? The streams and rivers shared by you and your neighbors? These are things that do not respect the boundaries of a single person’s land.

Jarandhel,
“If your neighbor cut down trees on his land and in the process reduced or eliminated fish in a stream that flows onto your property and that you fish in regularly, would you object to that?”
That would be causing me direct harm and I would object.”If your neighbor further introduced enough soil into the stream to clog it, or even just enough to reduce the drinkability of the water reaching your land, would you object to that?” That too would be causing me direct harm
“If your neighbor cut down the trees on his land and all the animals that were there moved into your forest and began competing with the ones there for resources that aren’t sufficient to sustain both groups, would you object to that?”
If they were edible I would hunt them, if not I would trap or kill them. “If your neighbor cut down trees on his land and in the process killed the wild creatures that controlled the population of mice or other “vermin” species on your land, allowing them to reproduce without suffering natural predation, would you object to that?” I wouldn’t like it but I wouldn’t try to stop him from using his land. I would find a way to control or rid myself of the vermin. I hope that answered your questions.

Jarandhel,
Do you use a lawn mower, or a BBQ grill? most anything we do affects the air quality and the enviroment in some way. At what point does the human take a back seat to everything else? I can respect your concerns, I just think you are going too far.

Tom:

I find the lack of consistency in your answers interesting. Depriving you of fish in the first scenario would be direct harm, but depriving you of natural predatory species that keep vermin in check in the last example would not be harm… you’d just be annoyed and deal with the problem he imposed on you yourself, taking on an additional burden of labor or cost. And driving more species onto your land to compete with the ones naturally there wouldn’t be harm either, just something you’d deal with? Well then, why would polluting the river and reducing its drinkability be harm? It’s just adding to what flows through your land, and all you’d have to do is take on the additional financial burden or labor of purifying the water if you want to drink it. Why wouldn’t you just deal with that too?

Jarandhel,
And I did pay for any animals on my property. The streams and rivers that are shared by others don’t belong to me. If I’m not mistaken they belong to the Federal Government.

Tom:

You paid for animals on your property? Funny, the animals don’t seem aware of that, they come and go as they please. Birds fly in and out, mammals wander across the border, are you receiving money for each one that chooses to leave and paying more for each one that comes in?

I’m not disputing that you have a right to hunt on your land, but *if* that hunting or any other land use threatens the populations of animals that are common to both your land and that of your neighbors (by which I mean those animals which move back and forth between your property and those of others) you are simply robbing from your neighbors something that you should be holding in trust as part of the common natural wealth shared by you and your neighbors, the same as you would expect them to be responsible regarding the air you mutually breathe.

Tom:

Actually, the federal government holds them in trust as part of the common wealth of the citizens of the nation. It’s different from outright ownership.

As I see it, part of the concern with environmentalism is staying out of our own way. An example: after a massive fire in the early teens, the forest service in this country made fire prevention at all costs a goal.

Which turned out to be a bad idea. Not only are forest fires natural, but in some way they are necessary, part of the way certain seeds germinate, and undergrowth is cleared. Letting them occur naturally typically keeps the amount of trash low and diffuse. Not doing so piles the fuel up. The difference is in what happens to the large and mature trees.

When a bunch of material has built up, the fire burns hotter and higher. The chances increase for the fire to reach the crowns of the trees, the kind of fire we regard as the classic forest fire. The crown fire is the destructive, lunar-landscape creating forest fire that we really dislike. So, in preventing low key forest fires, we increase the chances of catastrophic ones.

Of course, the problem often is that people locate their homes nearby to forests, which means that there are homes and lives at risk.

We must listen and observe what nature’s responses to us are, and then we should do best not to argue with her. Regardless of what we think of ourselves, we don’t generally win the fights we pick with her.

Jarandhel,
So you are saying I shouldn’t hunt anything unless it lives exclusively on my land? Deer have been known to roam for miles. I guess you wouldn’t allow me to hunt deer. Am I supposed to study each animal I want to hunt and make sure it don’t ever leave my property? If it comes on my property it belongs to me untill it leaves my property.

Jarandhel,
“Actually, the federal government holds them in trust as part of the common wealth of the citizens of the nation. It’s different from outright ownership.”
That’s close enough to ownership to prevent me from poluting it, or punishing me if I do.

Tom:

No, as I said I’m not against hunting. Hell, I wish I knew a place around here I could buy venison. My point is not that each individual animal needs to be protected, but that the overall populations should be protected. You shouldn’t hunt a herd of deer down to the last deer, you should always leave enough to reproduce and be shared by you and your neighbors, rather than assuming that if the herd is currently on your land you have the right to kill ‘em all. The situation with endangered species is that the population is so small, any use of them would kill the whole population.

“Actually, the federal government holds them in trust as part of the common wealth of the citizens of the nation. It’s different from outright ownership.” That’s close enough to ownership to prevent me from poluting it, or punishing me if I do.

And similarly they hold endangered species in such trust as well, no matter where those species live. That’s been my point about environmental laws all along.

Jarandhel,
Then the endangered species can be relocated to your land if you like. I don’t want it on my land if I can’t use it. I think my rights should trump the rights of animals, even endangered species.

Jarandhel,
And as far as killing the entire herd of deer, I have enough sense to preserve part of the herd for future hunts. We were talking about if my neighbor done something to his lant to force animals to my land increasing their numbers to an unacceptable level I believe.

I’ll have to pick this up in the morning. I’m on the east coast and it’s past my bedtime.

to TOMD
You can’t just do anything to private property that you want. The *%&#~!%#@ EPA won’t let you. For instance, you can’t (legally) fill in swamp land for fear some critter will feel deprived of it’s (fill in the blank). If you kill all the deer on your property, don’t let the game warden find out. PETA and others like them should be forced to adopt all the dogs and cats in all the animal shelters. That would solve two problems. The animals would be “saved” and the “animal rights” nuts would be occupied feeding them and buying them clothes, HA, HA!
Indians are humans first and formost. They too, progressed for better or worse. Before Europeans brought horses, they chased prey on foot. If anybody really believes most of the buffalo were gone before the white man started wholesale slaughter of them, they have been misled by Clintonist “revisional history”, which tries to say that few early Americans had guns. Some people will believe anything a liberal says, and that’s really very sad.
Read a dictionary, please!

Tom:

If you have enough sense to preserve the herd for future hunts, why don’t you have enough sense to preserve endangered species for future use? The endangered animal you kill or evict today, that you have no “use” for right now could provide medicine (or be food for another animal that provides medicine) which could help you or your family in the future. I don’t understand why you can take the long view towards conserving a herd of deer but take such a short view towards conserving entire species.

We were talking about if my neighbor done something to his lant to force animals to my land increasing their numbers to an unacceptable level I believe.

Which endangers both the native animal populations, and the new animals, by forcing them to compete for a number of resources insufficient to sustain both groups. Some populations will almost certainly be eliminated in the conflict. That is why the analogy to preserving the herd is appropriate, use of the land that evicts the animals that live on it endangers both those animals and surrounding populations.

B.Franklin,

You do understand that before the natives had horses, they drove whole herds of buffalo off of cliffs, in order to harvest them?

Question for any hunters here:

Can you hunt on your own property without any hunting licenses in this country? Can you take as many animals as you want on your own land? Can you hunt out-of-season?

I’ve never really gotten involved in hunting myself, so I really don’t know the answer to these questions myself, but it seems that the answers would bear heavily on the question of can a person do whatever they want on their own land with regard to the animals that live there, or are the animals part of a public trust the same as our rivers and air.

I believe that there is only one solution to the environmental predicament we find ourselves in today. Most discuss what I would argue are “the details” such as regulations vs. business. It seems to me, and I have nothing at all to back this up, that there is no balance between business and regulatory agencies that will solve global warming/acid rain/endangered species etc.
The entire planet is in a crisis, and the only way out is nuclear energy. I’ve heard the arguments against it from a number on the liberal side, but I urge all of you to take a closer look. We may be able to isolate all the waste into one location.
Yes, there is risk. Perhaps all new reactors could be relegated to one place, to minimize the possible disaster. I’ve read about pebble reactors and foolproof “colder fission,” but only a fool would claim there is no risk. However, in order to replace the coal plants for heat and electricity, and in order to power hydrogen converters for new breeds of vehicles, I don’t believe we have a choice.
I don’t come at this from either of the categories described by Jack, nor from a partisan viewpoint (most here would count me as a “bush basher,” although I’m far from liberal). I don’t mean to change the topic, but I believe this bears relevance at least as a possible solution…

Just a link

Looking over the forgoing posts and reading through Mr. Matel’s article, it seems that, as always happens with a discussion on the envrionment, there is a fundamental confusion on the nature of what environmentalism means. Too often, the word faith is used in the same sense that it is used in a religious context. One has faith in God because there is no way to prove His existence anymore than one can disprove His existence. More to the point, however, is that science has developed into the best tool humanity has for survival, and it is precisely that science is so rigourous and demands such a high caliber of reason that it always surprises me when people will readily accept the existence of the automobile or the microwave and yet dismiss outright the conclusions of scientists regarding the environment, as if those scientists didn’t have some measure of authority in the matter.

Of course, in all fairness, it is proper to be sceptical about the conclusions of science; many a scientist has been wrong before. But that is the point: science has an error correction mechanism of peer review and repeatability of the research and experiments. So, when the word faith is used in reference to science, it seems to come from a position of either fear or ignorance, or some other power psychosis where religion is threatened by science.

“Among the more radical it is an article of faith that humans deserve no special consideration, and maybe even less than other creatures.”

Yes, and yes again. Science is radical, insofar it challenges our everyday beliefs, beliefs that very often come from fears and age-old traditions whose roots are not grounded in reason. Humanity is just one more animal on the planet; we just happen to have evolved a complex muscle that permits abstract conceptual thinking and a physiology designed for tool use. But to ascribe the radical nature of science as an article of faith is incorrect, insofar as faith cannot be a tenet of science as it cannot be tested in an empirical fashion.

It is true that as a species we have fundamentally changed the nature of our planet. In this respect, we are forced at this point to adopt a position of stewardship, but it becomes a competition between what we think we know versus the unintended consequences of what we don’t know. We may not have enough time to properly find out if our scientific knowledge is in fact correct. But why not adopt a precautionary principle that demands that a high degree of certainty be required in order to undertake any possibly life changing, or life threatening, action? Why not adopt clean energy systems? Why not adopt systems in general that are sustainable? This is what groups like Greenpeace want, as well as most other major organizations that work for a better world. It isn’t a matter of radicalism or faith. It is a matter of simple science.

“If you have enough sense to preserve the herd for future hunts, why don’t you have enough sense to preserve endangered species for future use? The endangered animal you kill or evict today, that you have no “use” for right now could provide medicine (or be food for another animal that provides medicine) which could help you or your family in the future. I don’t understand why you can take the long view towards conserving a herd of deer but take such a short view towards conserving entire species.”

I have a simple solution… If you find an endangered species on my land, I will sell it to you. I am a capitalist after all and you can feel good knowing that you might be saving humanity and I will feel good knowing I made a profit. A win, win situation for all. Or do you want me to be the only one who sacrifices?
The herd of deer that I preserve gives me food now and in the future. I have my doubts about the snail and rat.

Ant

You talk about science, but default to faith.

Science can tell you what is happening, but it can’t tell you what to value. When I we say that humans deserve special consideration (or not) that is a value judgment. Science has no opinion about that. Science could tell us that preferring to build houses will impact x species, but that is it. Science might also tell you that the best course to take would be to kill most of the animals on a piece of land.

There has been a lot of mistaking science for values lately. When we say, “let science decide” we are making that fundamental mistake. Science can provide the information needed for a decision. It might make the best decision look obvious, but it can’t be the decision.

As you wrote, science is self-correcting, but it is always wrong. I don’t mean this as disrespect for science and there is no other method that works better. But science also has its own culture and pressures. Consider Freud. For nearly fifty years we literally tortured people with electric shocks and restraints to cure ailments that it turns out were chemically based and immune to these methods. Freud’s theories were – for the most part – wrong. And their consequences were terrible. But anyone who spoke against them for a half century was dismissed as a nut case himself.

Let me return to science and the environment. Science tells us – very clearly – that if you want to grow some kinds of trees (douglas fir, most pines) you MUST clear cut. These trees are not shade tolerant. A selective cut will produce over time a very different forest. In addition many types of wildlife thrive in a environment that has been clear cut a couple years on. A mature forest supports less wildlife than. Yet we sometimes choose to protect the view.

This is a value judgment. Science is helpful only in setting up the alternatives.

tomd-
Do you back your attitude here by personal preference, or knowledge of the ecosystem? Truth is nature doesn’t care what we think is an important species. A species is important because of it’s relationship with the others, those it feeds, those it competes with, those it gets in the way of, and those its activities benefit. Much as it annoys you, these things do not always take our feelings into account. The same is true of our intentions.

Truth is, the more species we knock out the more unstable the rest become. If we kill the predators, the herbivores multiply and eat themselves out of their food supply. If we decimate another competing species to increase their numbers, we may just end up forcing predators to focus on the few remain creatures of concern. Or we might be removing a species that keeps the system from getting clogged with dead matter or which keeps the insect population down, and you from having to baste yourself in mosquito repellent.

Same thing with clearcutting. It’s not as simple as cutting down trees. Trees and forests slow runoff and erosion, absorb air pollutants, raise the water table, and of course make for a more attractive environment than concrete strip-malls for miles around.

The trouble with a lot of conservative thought is that it is spoiled rotten with a sense of control. Truth is, we’re not in control, the laws of nature are, and they don’t always agree with us, or work with us.

Jack-
Science can tell us the way the world works, but it can’t force us to use it’s knowledge and understanding, and it can’t make our judgments for us. Our values are our own, and the decision of how to express those values, or whether to retain our values in the face of nature and technology. But to do that, we don’t have the option of remaining ignorant and oblivious. We must keep our eyes, ears, and minds open, and not simply assume that because we’re so smart that we got it all figured out.

We have rambled around this thread for a while now any you still haven’t convinced me that my property rights are less important than your wishes. If you want to fulfill your desires and use my land to do it, PAY ME FOR IT.

Stephen

You talked in the other side about words.

What I notice about words is how some things are personified.

Some people talk about nature as if it has a will or a goal. You mention science cannot force us to use its knowledge. I don’t think that people necessarily believe in these personifications, but the use of the language in this way frames the questions.

Science, for example, is primarily method and a body of knowledge. It doesn’t tell us anything unless we ask the right questions and it doesn’t play favorites. Science in the past has been used to prove all kinds of things we now consider wrong or even odious. Somebody asked the wrong questions.

The complaint I have about extreme environmentalists is that they are anti-science. They have determined that human intervention in the environment is bad and must be minimized. This is not a scientific opinion. There is no body of evidence to support this contention and as a matter of fact no goal or state to base an experiment.

There is no doubt that some human intervention in the environment has caused trouble. But consider the “natural environment”. The green and pleasant environment of England is almost completely man-made in that it resembles very little the pre-human equilibrium. The vast beech forests of Central Europe are the result of clearing by Neolithic humans. They are not natural. We are learning the grasslands of the eastern plains in North America were the creation of the local Indian populations and their burning. Otherwise it would turn into woodland. The piney lands of the SE are similarly there because of human intervention and burning. The forests on the slopes of the steeper Alps were established and are maintained by humans. Otherwise there would be only meadow. In short, much or maybe most of what we see as natural is not what nature would produce without human intervention. When we point to the problems, we neglect the successes.

No animal or fish has ever become extinct from regulated sporthunting or fishing, none, nadda, zip.
Unmanaged old growth timber will support very little wildlife. You would find very few deer, and bees would starve to death.

There are far more deer and wildturkeys in the United states now that at anytime in recorded history.

Few farmers leave a crop field fallow anymore( unless they are paid to not produce anything), they would rotate to a crop like soybeans that will replenish the soil and create its own nitrogin.

The best eco-system for a diverse population of wildlife is broken (managed) woodlots, surounded by farm fields.

The very best management for “cool water” streams comes from brushy growth in a buffer zone around it, it shades the water much better and filters the runoff much better than old growth timber, it also offers more bugs to the fish that inhabit cool water streams.

The prairie states natural grasslands can only survive if its tilled and churned by hoofed animals, at one time it was done by buffalo, now its done by beef, if you have ever ate buffalo you would know why it switched to beef.( the steaks taste like wet newspaper).

If rats are going to someday save the world and cure something, citys are all set, lots of rats there.

I’ll make all the cityslickers a deal, If you dont try to manage the country, I wont try to manage your city!

Anyone that gained their knowledge about the enviorment from the disney channel, or a book that stated ; Ages 6-12 at the top, with lots of pictures, might want to rethink their ideas for management….just a tip.

Beagle:

Got any sources for those statistics?

Few species are tied exclusively to old growth, however for many old growth provides optimal habitat (say for nesting or foraging). For some groups, old-growth forests support higher diversity (more species) than younger forests (for example, tree species or epiphytes - plants that live on trees or other plants, but use them only for substrate - that is, aren’t parasitic on them), such as lichens and mosses. The scientific advisory team under Jack Ward Thomas (part of President Clinton’s “forest summit” process) estimated that 482 species were at risk from rates and patterns of forest harvesting that prevailed before the listing of the Northern potted Owl. That is, these species were tied to some degree to old growth forests (35 mammals, 38 birds, 21 reptiles/amphibians/ 149 invertebratess/150 plant)s

http://oregonstate.edu/~muirp/ogstruct.htm

It is sometimes asserted, especially by apologists for the forest industry, that old growth forests support fewer species than seral forests do. This claim is irrelevant to any intelligent discussion of biodiversity, although it may hold true for some species groups such as sparrows, annual herbs, and butterflies. It most certainly does not hold true for epiphytic macrolichens. In B.C. lichens are, for the most part, nowhere more diverse than in old growth forests
http://www.bcen.bc.ca/bcerart/Vol6/lichens.htm

Forests cover much of Ontario. However, today’s second-growth forests are less diverse than the original mixed-hardwood forests and provide habitat for fewer and different forms of life. Today’s forests support more deer, but they provide fewer homes for warblers, wood ducks, saw-whet owls, blue-spotted salamanders, bats, wolves, grey foxes and many other species. Some species, like elk and woodland caribou, are no longer found in southern Ontario.

Not only does old growth support more species, they tend to have more rare species than other forests. Few species in the East seem to be truly “dependent” on old growth, though. Any such species likely disappeared when the region was heavily logged. “My own opinion is that obligate species are already gone,” Haney said.

In Eastern forests, that may have included such extinct species as the ivory-billed woodpecker and Carolina parakeet. Also, the loss of old growth may have contributed to the demise of the passenger pigeon. That species, once so numerous they blackened the skies, depended on the strength of huge old trees to support their large colonies and to provide an ample supply of food.

But a number of species that are uncommon in other areas can be found in great numbers in old growth. The blackburnian warbler, the black-throated green warbler and other canopy-dwelling warblers can be found in numbers 30 to 40 times greater than those in younger forests, Haney said.
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/keynotes/summer99/forests.htm

The Pacific Coast old-growth forests supports two to ten times more plant life than the tropical rainforest (although it does not support as many different plant species). In the typical old-growth forest, 400 tons of plant life flourish as opposed to 180 tons per acre in the tropical rainforest. A remarkable 1,800 tons per acre grows in some of the redwood forests.

If invertibrate animals in the soil are included in the diversity tally, the old-growth forests of Oregon support more animal species than any other place in the world: A section of forest floor one meter by one meter is often home to two hundred thousand mites of seventy-five different species.

http://www.creationethics.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=webpage&page_id=8

Jarandhel,

I think you could find the the exact same statements on any DNR website for any state in this Country.

I’m quite sure that you know how to navivagate on the internet, so you could find the info you seek if you care to learn more about it.

Damn that owl Gore for inventing the internet, now anyone can check facts presented by university studys that are hardly “right wing”.

If we could just ban the internet, Dan Blather could still be telling everyone the truth about every issue!
Gee.. I miss those times, dont you?

Beagle:

No animal or fish has ever become extinct from regulated sporthunting or fishing, none, nadda, zip.

I don’t think anyone here has said that they have, or have been arguing to outlaw sporthunting or fishing. We just want to keep it regulated, and your argument doesn’t really support getting rid of regulation.

Unmanaged old growth timber will support very little wildlife. You would find very few deer, and bees would starve to death.

I addressed this in my previous post.

There are far more deer and wildturkeys in the United states now that at anytime in recorded history.

Considering deer and wild turkey are not endangered species, and no one here has suggested we stop hunting them, I fail to see the relevance of this information. Hell, if you know any place near Harrisonburg, Virginia where you can buy fresh venison, please by all means let me know!

Few farmers leave a crop field fallow anymore( unless they are paid to not produce anything), they would rotate to a crop like soybeans that will replenish the soil and create its own nitrogin.

Ok, I’ll grant you that. But there’s not really a method of managing forests to achieve the same ends. Rotation doesn’t replenish the animal species that were lost in most cases. My point was simply that leaving something unused does not necessarily make it without worth, and sometimes value can be gained in that manner.

The best eco-system for a diverse population of wildlife is broken (managed) woodlots, surounded by farm fields.

While it’s possible such an environment may support the greatest number of different animals and plants (I have no statistics one way or another on this at the moment), if every forest was rendered into such a habitat we’d see a net loss of biodiversity. It’s like going for a diversified stock portfolio, but investing in the exact same diverse stocks as your neighbor, and his neighbor, and his neighbor… etc. It might be diverse, but overall stock diversity would be dropping as more people choose the same set of diverse stocks and no others.

The very best management for “cool water” streams comes from brushy growth in a buffer zone around it, it shades the water much better and filters the runoff much better than old growth timber, it also offers more bugs to the fish that inhabit cool water streams.

Yes, because clearly low-lying bushes on the banks provide far superior shade to overhanging canopies that could provide shade all day long from any angle of the sun. That’d keep the water temperature down and support the fish just the same or even better than the thick canopy of an older forest. Right.

The prairie states natural grasslands can only survive if its tilled and churned by hoofed animals, at one time it was done by buffalo, now its done by beef, if you have ever ate buffalo you would know why it switched to beef.( the steaks taste like wet newspaper).

Funny, didn’t the whole dustbowl effect come from the overgrazing of that area? *shrugs* I have no information about the grasslands and hooved animals, nor am I really sure how it got introduced to the conversation. Are you quoting a list of talking points or something?

If rats are going to someday save the world and cure something, citys are all set, lots of rats there.

That’s like saying the passenger pigeon can still save the world because we have pigeons in central park.

I’ll make all the cityslickers a deal, If you dont try to manage the country, I wont try to manage your city!

Born and raised on 21 acres of land in South Jersey, even raised horses on part of it while leaving the rest forest. Don’t try to pull the city slicker bullshit when people just disagree with you.

Anyone that gained their knowledge about the enviorment from the disney channel, or a book that stated ; Ages 6-12 at the top, with lots of pictures, might want to rethink their ideas for management….just a tip.

You know, I was going to come back with a quip about people who got their ideas from brochures by the logging industry, but it’s just not worth it. If this is the best way you can express an opposing viewpoint, that’s kind of pathetic. I’m not going to stoop to the same level.

I think you could find the the exact same statements on any DNR website for any state in this Country.

Yeah, you might want to go back and look at the list of sources I cited for the opposing viewpoint. One of them was a department of conservation and natural resources for the state of Pennsylvania.

Jarandhel wrote :

“Hell, if you know any place near Harrisonburg, Virginia where you can buy fresh venison, please by all means let me know!”

Broadway, Timberville, there used to be a place in Mt. Jackson. Weyers Cave, Elkin, WV. and Staunton.

If you are not finding fresh venison in Harrisonburg, VA, you are not looking very hard.

Steve:

Heh, thanks, I might actually be able to pick up some before I have to move this summer then. You’re right, I haven’t been looking very hard, haven’t really made it enough of a priority to. This conversation has just been getting me in the mood for some.

For the most part, this has been a fairly interesting thread to read. Three quick comments:

First, I find that there’s often more political or ideological balance in this thread than in a lot of the other discussions here. Many people who are often hard-core conservatives or liberals elsewhere come across as having a relatively nuanced approach to environmental issues. This inspires me with some hope.

Second, it’s been said various times and in various ways in this thread that humankind may be able to change the environment to such a degree as to make its own existence impossible but not to the degree as to eliminate all life on earth. My view is we should add the words “yet” to these proclamations. Via our technologies, we find ourselves in an ever more powerful position vis a vis the planet. We used to believe, for example, that the oceans were so impossibly huge and rich that we just couldn’t possible do something as unthinkable as threaten to overfish many of the largest predator species. Now we know better.

Would a full-scale nuclear war eradicate all life on the planet? I don’t know for sure and neither do you. How about if we become more adept at something like nanotechnology? Could we conceivably transform every molecule on the planet, from the atmosphere down to the mantle? Sounds nutty, but so would have nuclear weapons or the Internet to most of our forefathers.

Third, my feeling is that, since we don’t know of any other life in the universe, we ought to be exceedingly careful with what we have here. Perhaps we as a species are the most supremely conscious and intelligent (scary thought) beings in universe. If so, then we ought to protect ourselves as well as the biosphere. Whatever our environmental perspective (sacred or practical), we ought to recognize and respect the miracle that we’re here at all.

21 acres and some horseies, too boot!, I was way out of line not classifying you as a country boy.

All humor aside, I didn’t see any studys posted by major universitys, or state DNR agencys.

No need to post anything for me, read it yourself, being an employee of the DNR, I may not know everything, but might know something?

Rather than argue on this thread, I’ll leave it to others to hash out.

Beagle,

“There are far more deer and wildturkeys in the United states now that at anytime in recorded history.”

That wouldn’t be because of the unregulated hunting of their natural predators would it?

tomd-
Nature won’t care about whether you kill that species. It will also not care one wit about your concerns about your property. The death of that species will cause a number of consequences regardless of whether you like it or not, that will unfold unthinkingly (at least by our standards) and relentlessly. The more species you knock out, the more unstable nature’s response get. It’s not a matter of the liberal elements of nature trying to get on your nerves, it’s just what they do. The question is, how badly do you want to push property rights that are purely the invention of the human mind on a natural world that has no capacity to allow for them?

Jack-
Why are you gauging your response to the more moderate of us by the more extreme. We’re not totally against development, hunting, things like that. We just want more care taken.

As for the successes you mention, the question is “success at what?” and were those successes without consequences, especially adverse ones? If your argument is whether or not stable ecosystems can result from human intervention, then the point is conceded. If it’s that we can tamper with nature without the possibility of backfire, you’re mistaken.

I’m not saying we do nothing. We don’t have a choice. We got to support our populations, live lives that have some semblance of enjoyment in them. That gets distinctly harder the shakier the ecosystems we depend upon get. We need to keep the natural ecosystems going, because we don’t understand them well enough to replicate them- and perhaps we never will. We don’t need to be playing God. That only invites the real one to show us who’s boss.

Stephen

You are right. Most people on both sides of the liberal-conservative divide believe in both development and protecting the environment, although by different methods.

This looks like a place where we can find compromises and where the vast middle can whack the extremes.

I guess the other point I hope we agree on is that there is no tamper free environment.

I guess the other point I hope we agree on is that there is no tamper free environment.

It depends on the criteria by which you choose to judge an area tamper-free. Does an area farmed in the neolithic that has since grown back up relatively free to find a new balance count as a natural area or one that’s been tampered with? I would think common sense dictates that at some point it be considered that nature has taken over again, but that’s just my own perspective and others criteria may vary. *shrugs* There’s also the issue of interconnected ecosystems… where does the ripple effect caused by changing one ecosystem end? Does tampering with one ultimately tamper with them all?

I’ve been reading the foregone statements with some enjoyment. I see a lot of talk about trees, deer, etc. Some mention of virmin. But here is a cute little ditty that needs some explaining.

We know that Noah was truly wise,
cause He didn’t swat those two little flies.

We have all swatted flies to some degree or another. When do we stop swatting flies, because of they almost have become extinct? That could apply also to moles, gnats, or anything that makes life a little bothersome. How do we tell which insect is carrying the West Nile Virus before we swat it?

Most people on both sides of the liberal-conservative divide believe in both development and protecting the environment, although by different methods.

I suspect that one reason there’s a considerable dovetailing of conservative and liberal views in this thread is because none is us is sitting in some council meeting trying to decide the specifics of environmental policy. That’s where the real battles are waged, whether the council is international, national or local.

For example, a Time/CNN poll of several years showed about about three quarters of Americans viewed global warming as a serious problem. But there’s a lot less agreement on how to address it.

Raise taxes on gasoline? Well, a lot of concerned folk will draw the line there, especially in light of rising prices.

Raise fuel efficiency standards? Not if it threatens jobs in Detroit or somehow messes with people’s desire to buy the SUV of their dreams.

Ultimately, much of the issue seems to come down to cost and convenience rather than ideology. This raises interesting questions about belief. A person who believes in global warming in the abstract may start to question the idea if some governmental program starts costing him or her money.

My experience is that people often wind up believing in whatever’s convenient for them to believe. This is why people will defend actions of their own political parties (deficit spending, let’s say) that they’d condemn if another party were doing it. Our logic is appallingly influenced tribal loyalties. This is who we are as a species.

This is why people will defend actions of their own political parties (deficit spending, let’s say) that they’d condemn if another party were doing it.

You’re probably right, Reed, but maybe we should give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they defend the actions of their party because the party is fulfilling a need they place at a higher priority than their position on another issue. Maybe the opposing party does not fill that need, so the actions they disapprove of are not mitigated by that.

Warren,

Thanks for the excellent links, and research.

Tomd,
My dad shoots armadillos on his property with no compunction (they eat his peppers). He does not, however, shoot red cockaded woodpeckers at will. All of our property rights are mitigated in such a way as to promote long term sustainability. If you build on your property, you must meet building codes (so when a tornado blasts through, your house doesn’t take out the next door neighbors). Timber, mineral, water, hunting, and building rights are all regulated to some degree. Why? Because we’ve consistently proven that we can’t be trusted to behave in our own long-term interests. As for your question about what do we swat, and what don’t we swat… how about we agree that we put some thought into what’s best for our country and our world, and try to regulate our behaviour so we can all enjoy it as long as possible? No one said it was easy. It just takes some effort. Before you saturate your land with DEET to get rid of that mosquito, you may want to know that it will permantly kill all the bald eagles on your property and prevent them from returning for at least 150 years. (It destroys their reproductive systems).

Beagle,

I can’t make hide nor tail of what you are talking about. Seriously, I have no idea what point you are trying to make at all. I’m completely lost.

There was an interesting story about locusts. Remember them as in a plague of locusts. They attacked the crops of the Mormons in Utah. You don’t hear much about them anymore in North American because the Rocky Mountain locust is extinct. Nobody is quite sure why or how. The leading hypothesis is that farming encroached on their breeding grounds. But they are gone, if not forgotten. I don’t miss them. They have been gone for around a century and we haven’t noticed any negative effects. On the other hand, there are a lot of positive ones.

There is no magic to ecology. We have a dynamic balance among existing species. When new ones come in (as in various invasive species) there may be a problem. Sometimes the new things displace the old ones. When we lose one, the same thing goes. The funny thing about species is that each particular place on earth (with a few exceptions) has more species competing there now then ever before. But the earth as a whole has fewer. So far, our biggest problems have not come from the lost ones, but from the introduced ones.

BTW - among the invasive and destructive species are wild horses. Even cute animals can be problems.

But the earth as a whole has fewer. So far, our biggest problems have not come from the lost ones, but from the introduced ones.

I can’t claim a lot of biological expertise, but it seems as the phrase “the earth as a whole has fewer [species]” is a gross understatement. A lot of scientists are talking about a sixth mass extinction.

“The average extinction rate today is up to 10,000 times faster than the rate that has prevailed over the past 60,000,000 years. Throughout most of geological history, new species evolved faster than existing species disappeared, thus continuously increasing the planet’s biological diversity,” USA Today reported in November 2004.

My concern is that we’re still fantastically ignorant of how the system works and what role individuals species play in it. As I understand it, ecosystems lose resilience when they become less diverse. This makes those ecosystems more susceptible to major disturbances, such as climate change. And this may mess with the complex life-support systems on which we depend and yet only partially understand.

I’m not saying “the sky is falling,” but I am saying we shouldn’t be cavalier about mass extinctions. As Jack correctly pointed out, there are civilizations that have crashed and burned because of environmental problems. And they likely didn’t understand how serious the problem was until it was too late. My question: what happens when your civilization is global in nature and there aren’t any greener pastures to which you can move your tribe?

Julia,
I think you misread my intentions. I don’t advocate using deet or anything like it. What I initially said is that if I buy land I should be able to ust taat land for anything I want AS LONG AS I AM NOT CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS. Using deet and other chemicals that have been proven to run off ond harm others would and should be illegal. Cutting and selling my tember should not be.

The Scientific American article about the Neolithic global warming CREDITS our ancestors with staving off the next ice age. Climate change happens, whether we go along or not.

Jack, besides making a point and immediately negating it, this is interesting. If mankind - even unwittingly - managed to stave off a disastrous climate change, it seems to follow that we can do it again. I think (as you suggest) climate change can be consciously managed.

Tomd,
Haven’t you realized that cutting down all the trees in a very large property has negative affects on all the other properties around it? The refugee seeking animals would crowd onto the adjacent properties and cause over population and stavation there. I doubt you neighbors want to have dead rodents all over his or her land.

Jack,
Our ecosystem and biosphere is like a building or tower made out of wooden blocks. Kind of like that game called jenga. You can take away some species without much harm, like your locusts. The problem is that we do not know which species will cause the whole tower to fall becuase they are the keystone for development of the area. So when ever a species becomes extinct, it becomes a game of chance on whether or not the ecosystem can adapt to the loss of that species or not. If it cannot adapt easily, it will adapt in a way that is much more intrusive on humankind. We were lucky that the locusts’s removal did not cause the tower to fall, but maybe the next species to become extinct will.

We are going around in circles here. If I had a piece of property and wanted to sell the timber from it it’s none of your business, period.
From my above posts you can see how I feel about it.I won’t rehash it.

Warren:

The Jenga analogy is excellent. And it should be noted that even the pieces that can be removed without causing the tower to fall make it more likely for the tower to fall when additional pieces are removed.

Atlas of Ecological Impact

Once again, I will say that I don’t think we (most of us at least) disagree about the principles. We all want both a healthy environmental and resources we can use. We disagree about methods.

I don’t believe we ever want to go back to the past. It was not a golden age. Humans despoiled the environment as much or more than they do today, but low populations kept the global damage to a minimum. The slash and burn agriculture practices by many Amazonian Indians, for example would quickly destroy all the world’s resources if populations rose.

Humans have behaved like other animals and we have to stop doing that.

The future lies with better management and better technologies. We have already started on the journey and it is much too late to go back.

I am encouraged by many developments. Solar energy is almost within the price range of middle class homeowners. Within a couple of years, consumers will want solar on new construction. Hybrid cars are making rapid strides. Genetically superior crops and trees will require less pesticides or fertilizer and still produce more output. An example I have recently been studying are super loblolly pines. They grow 25% faster, are straighter, need less fertilizer and pesticides. For each additional board that comes from one of these super trees, we won’t need one from an old growth forest that we might want to save.

Our biggest challenge will remain population. Developed countries are not a problem. Many of them will actually lose population in the next years.

We can make a difference if we make priorities. Those who throw up their hands in despair or believe that the best thing we can do is try to draw back to the fabled past are part of the problem.

Take a look at part of the solution at http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com.

The future lies with better management and better technologies.

I tend to agree with this, but figuring out what a “better technology” is can be tough. Genetically modified organisms carry their own set of environmental problems.

Then there are the political obstacles. It’s likely, for example, we could already have made a lot more progress toward fuel efficiency in the U.S. if the unions as well as the major corporations hadn’t been fighting against things like improved fuel standards. Moneyed interests prefer 1) the status quo 2) “solutions” that promise to line their pockets. This isn’t a criticism as much as a statement of facts.

We could make a lot more progress toward an environmentally friendly future if we could figure out a way to better align the politics and business interests with societal needs. I’m not sure how that’s achieved.

I’m not against genetically modified organisms, but I don’t think they should be allowed into the wild. I’d like to see a lot stricter controls on that, even to the point that they be grown in greenhouses or similar controlled environments only so they don’t pollenate natural crops.

Reed

The status quo is exactly why all true progressives should be proponents of the free market.

All those invested in the status quo, which includes all the established interests: government, big business, big labor unions etc, will naturally resist changes that create more competition for them or changes the existing relationships on which they are supported.

Only the free market, with new entrants and unpredictability inherent in freedom, can bring the changes we need to solve problems.

The established interests will always attack change as risky and untried. It is. They will always think of thousands of reasons why it won’t work. They are often right. But we have to continue to experiment and try new things. Most don’t work, so we can’t make the price of failure too high. We need the freedom to innovate and the freedom to fail. That is the free market. Messy.

Since whole industries can rise and fall in a decade, we just can’t have predictability. We don’t have time for all the paper work.

It is always true that whatever we have is unsustainable. There is a word for people and societies that only stick with what they have and don’t stretch to the next opportunity: dead.

Jack:

Most of us are, we just see the free market differently than you do. The free market does not have inherent fixes for the issue of super-corporations capable of setting their own prices on resources and largely not responding to customer demand (since they now have the capacity to great artificial demand for their products by advertising, rather than creating products which fill a real need/demand), which at this point most of the entrenched change-resistent establishment are. Regulation is one of the best tools we see to reduce the effects of such artificial forces on the market. Granted, not all regulations achieve this, and some appear geared in the opposite direction entirely. (I’d personally like to smack the person who decided we need to test lamps to the point they could conduct lightning safely and in so doing reduce the ability of people to cobble together simple decorative lamps and make a profit selling them.)

People overestimate the power of big corporations.

Of the original components of the Dow only ONE (GE) is still in business.

Many of the biggest firms today (Wal-Mart, Microsoft etc) didn’t exist or were very small when I was in college. It only looks like the powerful have always been that way.

Marketing muscle can’t sell what people don’t want. Consider Edsels and New Coke. In both cases, you had the best marketers at work with no result.

On the other hand, we still have many of the same government regulators as when I was in college. When the government has a product they want you to have, they can make you take it.

Government has an important role to play in society. Regulations are necessary. But you should not view government as above the fray or outside the system. Government is one of the players and not always the most progressive one or the one with the most interest in positive change.

We need the freedom to innovate and the freedom to fail. That is the free market. Messy.

Jack,

We agree on this. Quite messy. Large corporations often fear and resist innovation. Meanwhile, unfettered markets can result in environmental degradation. So government must mediate but is, as you point out, not always the most progressive group in the mix.

In fact, my impression is that the government is increasingly anti-small business (among other things) because those businesses can’t afford to make large campaign contributions. It isn’t as much business as government that needs reform. We need a more progressive and yet balanced political system, for the sake of everyone, especially those small business owners who are the engines of economic growth but can’t afford the legalized bribery that is source of most political power in the U.S.

Yes Reed

Government is a dangerous tool that can be perverted by bad guys. Even good people are temped to use it to solve problems where it doesn’t belong. Once invited in, it is hard to get it to leave.

The biggest enemies of the free market are big business, big labor and big bureaucrats. Careful when you advocate any interference with the free market, because you may get it. (or worse, America may become more like France).

I would add two things, Jack, to what I consider very good, sensible ideas on the subject: We need solid enforcement of environmental regulations, and to base what regulations schemes we do put forward on analysis of pollutant levels present in the water, in the soil and on the ground, and comparison to known levels of safe exposure thereby related. It’s not much good to have an environmental protection agency if we’re still stewing in our own toxic industrial products.

Stephen

Agreed once again. With the caveat that poison is in the dosage. Some things that are deadly in concentration are literally harmless (maybe even helpful) in smaller amounts. I know you said almost the same thing, but many times we get reactions that don’t fit these facts.

Careful when you advocate any interference with the free market, because you may get it.

We’ve already got interference, Jack. I’m not arguing for more of it. I’m arguing for government that is less beholden to large corporate interests and is more of a champion of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Julia,

“Before you saturate your land with DEET to get rid of that mosquito, you may want to know that it will permantly kill all the bald eagles on your property and prevent them from returning for at least 150 years. (It destroys their reproductive systems).”

And then you post…

“Beagle,

I can’t make hide nor tail of what you are talking about. Seriously, I have no idea what point you are trying to make at all. I’m completely lost.”

With all due respect, DEET is the major ingreident in insect “repelent”, it wouldn’t kill even a mosquito(much less an eagle) unless you drown it in in a tub of it.
At $5 or more an oz., I doubt many persons have ever sprayed their property with it. It has been aproved by the FDA for over 30 yrs to be applyed to human skin in %100 form with little reported side effects.

Did you mean “DDT” ? That can be quite a nasty pesticide if used unwisely, has been banned in the US for more than 25yrs, and is persistant and doesn’t break-down very well over many years.

One thing that CAN break it down(and many other nasty chemicals) is the common “cattail” that grows in marshes coast to coast. All the more reason to protect, and restore the cattail marshes nationwide!

tomd,

Regulations on cutting timber on your land can be justified in many ways:
1) Because the value of the homes in the nieghborhood is intrinsically related to its shadiness, and so they don’t allow tree cutting in your neighborhood.
2) You are allowed to, but required to plant new trees to replace the ones you cut.
3) The trees are part of an environmental system that the community finds as a necessity.
4) The timber must be cut in such a way as to prevent it from falling on neighbors houses.
5) Your specific timber is of an endangered species (such as the virus-resistant elm).
6) Your land has been designated a preserve of some sort, and is disallowed from any use whatsoever. (besides pitching a tent). ((You usually know this in advance)).

beagle,

I meant DDT. Thanks for fixing my error.

Julia,

I would add:

7) The tree’s habitat is needed for an endangered species who is the “cornerstone” of the local ecosystem.

In this case, clear cutting would be out of the question, but selective cutting would still work unless the endangered species was very low in population and very rare in distribution.

Julia and Warren

If you buy your land with an existing restriction, you should abide by the agreement. But if there is a change after the fact, you should be compensated.

If the shade from my trees is so important to my neighbors, they should help pay for it. We have such a thing in real estate; it is called an easement. But they should not have the right to get together and vote to take my rights for their benefit.

The same goes for an endangered species that turns up on your land. I recently bought some forestland. Right now, the land is cut over, but I expect that the revenue from the growing forest will help put my grandchildren through college. It is just like you setting up a college savings plan. What if some subspecies of an endangered animal shows up on my land twenty years from now. If society wants to save this thing, they should help pay for it and not just steal my grandchildren’s college fund, for the greater good.

The greater irony is that my efforts to restore the environment on my land will make it more attractive to both animals and humans. It might make it MORE likely that society will want to rob me or my kids later.

If society takes, it should pay.

BTW

One of the things I want to do with my land is plant American chestnut, to help restore what was lost in the last century. But forest management might cause me to cut some of them, even if they take. After working with these trees, I will expect get to know a lot about them and love them more than somebody who drives by on weekends to give me a hard time and a lecture on nature’s balance.

We are on the verge of winning the elm battle with the Valley Forge and Princeton varieties of elms. The elm is the once and future monarch of the street tree. My grandchildren will see what I saw as a child. This is great news. Elms grow very rapidly. Goggle the Princeton elm and buy yourself a couple online for next spring. They still are not available in most garden stores.

Has anybody considered our environment may be metastable, rather than simply balanced?

A metastable system will tend to act as if its stable, until some kind of force within it pushes it past a threshold, where it’s behavior becomes chaotic, then settles into a new equilbrium. The question is, what happens when the ecosystems around us rearrange because of our presence? We should do our best to work out how far we can push a given ecosystem, and deal with the contingencies of what occurs?

jack,

I don’t know of any cases where property laws have changed without compensation to the owners. I’m sure there might be, do you have any examples?

Julia

The most obvious stares us in the face. You have an endangered species that turns up on or near your property. Your plants to cut timber or build a house are gone.

The Federal ESA prohibits “taking” of an endangered or threatened animal. “Taking” can also mean habitat alternation resulting in harm to the species. Whether on private or Federal land, whether intentional or unintentional, the “taking” of a listed animal is illegal. Protection in addition to this may be afforded through your State’s Endangered Species Act. The woodpecker or salmon decides to change the land use pattern by showing up (or being discovered by activists).

Note the broad language that includes “unitentional” damage, and This is from the government’s webpage.

I am in favor of helping wildlife, but I might not be able to afford to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars (my land) to the effort.

If it is worth saving, it is worth everyone paying for it.

That is why I like the Nature Conservancy. They help nature by paying for it. That is why I dislike Greenpeace. They raise money by making other people pay.

Tap, tap, tap. Still waiting for that analysis of President Bush’s environmental policy. Sadly, I fully expect it to be just a general overview of conservative environmental ideals and platitudes, rather than a survey of actual Bush administration policy. :(

Jack-
How can the government enforce environmental restrictions if property rights come first?

If I own the factory giving off the sludge that’s polluting the river, I can always argue that I can do with my factory whatever I want. If I own the land that I’m hunting the last of a species to extinction on, I can say: “This is my land, and all the creatures on it belong to me.” If I’m developing the land with similar consequences, then I can say the same thing.

Maybe there should be compensation under certain circumstances, perhaps a tax exemption on property that one discovers contains an endangered species. But I do not agree that the debate should center on property rights. In the end, this is about our interaction with nature, not human beings who recognize things like property lines and money. Species evolve in nature according to more real boundaries than our surveyed lines and lot numbers.

Jack,

I would think that anyone that is in the process of buying property would do the “do dilligence” nescessary to make an informed decision before buying.
This “it’s my property and I’ll ruin it if I want to” attitude is so typically American.

Rocky

I have no trouble with agreements that are on the property BEFORE. It is the ones enforced ex-postfacto

Stephen

Same thing with any law. If the government wants to change the terms, they should compensate. Otherwise you throw the whole burden on the landowner. If it is worth having, it is worth paying for. Not just making somebody else pay.

This arguement could easily go on forever.But one thing bothered me;someone up there said animal species will die out anyway?

First of all you have to realize what an invasive species is.Before the white man came to America,Native Americans were living pretty close to the ecosytem.They were in an almost perfect balance with nature.

The white man was pretty much an invasive species.A lot of animals have died since then.I don’t think they died naturally.

Egrassh

The Natchez society collapsed because they denuded the forest. The Anazai couldn’t cope with changes in the weather. The Maya destroyed their resource base. The plains Indians were over hunting the bison. The only reason things seemed in balance is because populations were low. Reduce the current population of N. American to precolumbian levels and there will be little environmenal stress. The question is how to get rid of 250+ million people. Should we ask for volunteers?

Yeah all the republicans go to another planet and ruin it all they want.Meanwhile we democrats will enjoy this beautiful country that we all love,enough to save it’s beauty.

Egrassh~
In case you didn’t know: Political parties don’t make or break the environment(they may make laws or not make laws), but essentially it is all the inhabitants of the planet and their actions!
I am a Republican and I can say I haven’t harmed it.By your measure though, almost all of Hollywood are Democrats, I would like to see how clean their industries are.

You harmed the environment when you went to the polls nov.2 2004 and voted for George W. Bush.

If you can’t think of anything better…blame me…..nice.