Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
Michael Mann Hurricane Update14 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction5 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought5 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係9 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To10 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
12 comments:
Quite honestly this article is bollocks. Just because you don't buy the re-discovery of the IBWO does not mean you should have this sort of attitude. You don't need the putative existence of elusive and rare birds to put forward a case for conserving habitat. You also don't need to keep people out of habitat to conserve it.
Well Mr. Beers also mentions the ruination of the Northwest due to the pesky Spotted Owl (my words, but read his). Or maybe he's in the "Spotted Owl is just a subspecies of Barred Owl" camp.
Jeez, I'm confused, I though the timber companies were ruining the Northwest, not the owl. This kind of gives away his agenda, IMHO.
Paul Sutera
Tom:
In your continuing zeal to reap scorn and criticism on the true believers, I hate to see you jump into bed with a right-wing extremist who is way out-of-touch with modern-day conservation ethics. In Jim Beers's world view, the FWS should only be spending taxpayer's money on things that can be shot, trapped, or caught on a hook. He is anti-nongame, probably anti-watchable wildlife, definitely anti-ESA, and apparently pro-invasive species! His personal vendetta against his former agency has colored his views on the broad scope of responsibilities that it has been given by Congress (which reflects the desires of the American public).
You don't need the putative existence of elusive and rare birds to put forward a case for conserving habitat. You also don't need to keep people out of habitat to conserve it.
Word.
You need credible articulate and passionate supporters of nature and wildlife for its own sake.
Obviously there are no such people in the CLO. But where are they?
"...I hate to see you jump into bed with a right-wing extremist..."
Sigh, once again.
As I've written many times before, I often link to sources (and accept comments) with which I disagree, completely or in part.
Please don't make me type this disclaimer everywhere on this blog.
Tom
And yet another mention of the evil "right-wing extremist" ... what is one, BTW? I'm for small government, self-determination ... am I a RWE?
And why should we prevent the LAST folks with suitable habitat for the [name your favorite real or imagined endangered species] be prevented from developing their property, when we did NOTHING about the FIRST people (with suitable habitat) clear cutting, etc.?
Most important things can be worked out WITHOUT government interference. The key is to follow what's happening, so that you can do things (such as helping a developer choose streetlights that leave the sky dark) in a helpful and non-adversarial manner, as opposed to a reactionary sting by an overpowered government backed up by ill-informed tree-huggers paving the road to hell with their good intentions.
Note that I did not post anonymously.
Most important things can be worked out WITHOUT government interference.
Ken, I'm sure you believe that, but it is a naive view. History is filled with people and companies who were willing to harm others for increased profits. Just think Love Canal. Because I was in the biz, I personally know of a large chemical company that vented a known carcinogen because the quarterly fine was small enough to be viewed as a cost of doing business. Only when the final became astronomical did they change their ways.
Yes, it's possible to sometimes affect change, but there are two criteria; first you need to know what's going on (not always easy) and second, the person or organization has to want to change (sometimes impossible).
reactionary sting by an overpowered government backed up by ill-informed tree-huggers paving the road to hell with their good intentions
Some mixing of metaphors there. I think this may qualify you as a RWE. ;)
They rave and rant and villify
They cry "fraud--let's crucify!"
Only Nelshole and his cohorts know
The Lord God pecker from their 'hole
Will their lawyers need to testify?
Having nothing to do with woodpeckers, the story of Love Canal is this something like this...
The toxins at Love Canal were disposed of in a clay containment vault by methods above and beyond standards of the day. In doing so, a community eyesore (an unused canal) was transformed into what we would now call "greenspace". Under pressure from the community, and reluctantly, Hooker Chemical sold the land above the waste for a dollar to the school district, for use as recreation space. Hooker warned never to build on the property. If I remember correctly, they wrote to the school district warning that there was some "willy nilly" stuff down there. The school district, not long after, re-sold the land to homebuilders, who proceeded to place residential basements within walls of the containment vault. Yuck!
So much for the greed of the chemical industry.
And sorry for the diversion.
That's one view. Here's another:
"However, Hooker only advised the school board that the area had been used for “plant refuse containing some chemicals” but that the central section of the property was appropriate for a school, and the rest of the property was appropriate for playgrounds. By hiding the true nature of the dumping that took place in the canal, Hooker exposed the residents of the Love Canal area to dangerous toxins for decades."
"Will their lawyers need to testify?"
Are you suggesting that lawyers lurk this here blog, and that someone may need to answer for...libel?
Post a Comment