Environmental Activism? Wilderness Concerns?

[Normark]

Hey Guys...

The " Nature Conservancy "

What a Frigging Joke....

They're a bunch of tree hugging anti hunters...

ttyle

Eric...

 

[Bumppo]

How are those Zebra mussels coming along in lake erie? (seriously) The last I heard the were de-oxygenizing the great lakes.

 

[Thomas Linton]

How are those Zebra mussels coming along in lake erie? (seriously) The last I heard the were de-oxygenizing the great lakes.

They filter the water so efficiently that they remove all the small plant life - breaking the chain of life.

 

[abo4ster]

Actually the Nature Conservancy is probably the best one of the lot. At least they tend to live in reality when it comes to a balance of society and nature. Speaking from personal experience, they have a pretty good relationship with most of the timber companies in the southeast. Nonetheless, they do have their radical fringe. However, I also appreciate many of the purchases they have made in liu of land going to a developer...

Which is a pet peeve of mine. I find it ironic that when a tract of land in a third world county is cleared it is deforestation, but in this country it is development.

I think as a society we have lost touch with nature as to where we think we are not apart of it and when we go to the 'woods' we are stepping in. We should realize that whereever we are, we are in nature.

For example, Leave No Trace - someone carries in their butane stove made out of aluminum, polyfill sleeping bag, nylon tent, plastic bag to carry-out thier pooh, plastic this, plastic that, etc.
Someone else builds a fire and a shelter from the materials in the area, wipes their ass with a rock, etc.

Who did more damage to the environment??? The butane, aluminum, polyfill, nylon, and plastic had to come from somewhere...

And I know that in terms of scale, there are heavy populated and/or popular areas that could not take volume of use, my point is merely that I don't think we look at a big enough picture.

 

[Normark]

Hey..

Not sure what the latest is on the Zebra Mussle..

I do know the Lake is cleaner than it ever has been....

As for the Plant Life..
The water is cleaner,which lets light go deeper, and actually the plant life is growing like,,well,,Weeds and then it breaks off and floats around in large masses..
This is a Serious problem in Lake St.Clair

We've just been hit with a massive Fish Fly hatch the last couple of nights...
We have several of these every summer..

This also tells me that the Lakes are in pretty good shape..
Lots O Bugs,, means cleaner Water.. The Fish do well with the bugs too..

All in all I think the Lakes are in pretty decent shape.Phosphates seem to be down as well..

ttyle

Eric....

 

[Guyon]

Hey Guys...

The " Nature Conservancy "

What a Frigging Joke....

They're a bunch of tree hugging anti hunters...

For me, there are hard-to-assimilate ideological differences between many hunting organizations and their environmental counterparts. Better to spend my money on DU or some similar organization like the NWTF, methinks. However, I have seen groups like The Sierra Club aligning themselves with hunters in ways that they did not previously. Such cooperation seems hopeful, at least. Case in point:

http://www.sierraclub.org/huntingfishing/

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2005-01-28.asp

However, at the same time, I've read other reports that, for many of its members, Sierra is less than genuine in terms of hunting/fishing support. For example...

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060417_1p.html

 

[Normark]

Hey QB...

I agree with you on the part of better kept as is then developed.. For sure....

The problem is,, once these tracts of land are bought up,, the no tresspassing signs go up and no one gets to use it for anything..

We have a local Conservation authority here, that has their hands and noses into everything..
Some people aren't getting building permits for various things because of different things they don't like..

For the most part it good that they are there, however,,when they buy up pieces of property with money that is given to through taxpayers dollars,, it should become what we call here in Canada "Crown Land" Owned by All..

Basically what it has become is Private Property again,, bought with taxpayer dollars..

The deer woods we hunt about 3 hours away one year had No Tresspassing signs posted a couple of days before deer season opened...

We freaked out on the township warden...

I had him read me the usage policy of those particular pieces of land as dictated by the agreement it was obtained by,,and "hunting and trapping" were in the usage policy...

He was forced to go to the township council meeting and have the signs removed....

Hunters 1 - Anti Hunters 0

ttyle

Eric....

 

[lambertiana]

As time goes by and I look at the world my children will inherit, yes, I do have some concerns. I do what I can to limit my footprint - less consumption and trash production, higher mileage cars, etc. I depart somewhat from many of my fellow conservatives who feel that the world is ours to subdue and conquer; I view it more as a stewardship.

That being said, there also has to be a balance struck. I have no problem with meat hunting, although I am not comfortable with trophy hunting or using squirrels for target practice just because it is fun (however, if the said squirrels are causing some real problems, then that may be a different issue). I still drive a car. I will not go back to stone age technology to satisfy the treehuggers who dominate certain parts of the state in which I live (treehuggers who, for the most part, do not live what they preach - they still drive SUVs, buy plenty of oil-derived products while demonizing the oil industry, wear leather and use animal products while saying that harming animals is bad, etc, etc, I have seen it all in Kalifornia).

In my immediate area my biggest concern is the urban sprawl that is eating up so much of the arable land. Eventually we will have to come to terms with that (says the hypocrite who has his own house, don't let anyone else build more houses and ruin my neighborhood).

And as far as spreading subdivisions into what were once fringes of wilderness, that is a real problem. Not entirely because of the loss of wilderness, which is not really a good thing, but also because those areas are also high-risk locations that are prone to floods, landslides, wildfires, etc, and those folks always come to the public trough to feed after their homes have been destroyed and have no shame in asking me as the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their own stupidity.

 

[sodak]

I think that apples and oranges are being mixed.

The thread originally discussed activism. I absolutely *hate* activism and most activists. Society in most countries has methods by which citizens can address the govt. for perceived problems. Only in totalitarian regimes or where these methods have been used to exhaustion is activism a viable option. Most activists that I've run into deal in outright lies and junk science because to them, the ends justifies the means.

When people talk about the wilderness going away, I don't believe it. Maybe in some areas it gets developed, in others, it is being reclaimed. In total, I don't see it going away any time soon.

Now if we are talking about conservation, I'm all for it. Ironically, the people that all these "activists" love to hate are usually the *best* conservationists, and have been for centuries. Hunters, for example.

We don't need to apologize for using the earth's resources. Do we need to be good stewards? Absolutely. We are. We are making tremendous progress in cleaning up and living more efficiently. That does not mean, however, that we need to walk around with our heads permanently hung in shame. That's ridiculous. Everything that lives has an impact. Big deal.

Carbon footprint? Maybe we should shut down our coal plants that provide power and let everyone fend for themselves in the winter. But they'd be burning wood then instead. Bummer. Is any attempt made to quantify the good that is done in using fossil fuels? What about the researcher who jumps in his/her car (because the buses aren't running late at night), goes down to the lab, and finds a cure for cancer? Was it worth burning that half a gallon of fuel?

Every time I see "activists" get their panties in a bunch, they want to do one of two things:

1. Save me from making bad decisions about my own life by wanting to legislate more of my freedoms away.

2. Steal more money from me in the form of taxes for something that they believe in, but can't get the majority of people to agree with them. Not much fun being in the minority, is it?

Either position is incredibly arrogant. You can't know what is best for everyone else. Those people who posted about balance were absolutely right. I'm tired of people preaching that we need to continuously apologize for simply living our lives.

Of course, if you can't come up with reasonable counter-arguments, you can always resort to name calling....

 

[beezaur]

About 10 years ago, a group of people in my area put up a fight to save a section of the local creek and the adjoining farm. It was a long, drawn out legal battle . . . now there is one less quicky mart/gas station in town but there is a 50 acre tract of wetland and former farm( now wooded) where children can experence the water in the creek and the thousands of fishes and animals and trees that call that area home. . .

Please don't think I am "pro-developer" or "anti-environment," because I most certainly am not. But here is the flip side to that situation:

Who owns the land in question? In many cases it is a couple, or widow, or widower, who is developing their land to fund retirement. When I say "fund" I don't mean trips around the world. I mean taxes, home repairs, and medical expenses. Generally these are people who planned for retirement in the 1960s, and had things get more expensive than they planned for.

Second, who are these children playing in the creek? In most cases I know of, they would be 1) trespassing, and 2) doing damage to the streambed in violation of the law. Generally speaking, there are no kids playing in these saved creeks. More often there are meth cooks making their products or illegal dumps.

The sad fact of highly restrictive land use policies is this: you end up with a whole bunch of people paying taxes (which have skyrocketed) on land which they have no way to use. Their land gets assessed as though it were going to be developed as a busy commercial area, yet they can do nothing with it. In many cases they are literally prevented from constructing so much as a walking path.

So the old folks sell the land they love as their home -- the place they planned to grow old on -- after they have spent their savings on taxes (and in some cases legal battles) then move to an appartment in town. Generally the sale covers previous expenses, so the economics is about "net zero." They gain nothing and lose their home for economic pressures. Some people think this is a good resolution; I do not.

The land ends up getting saved alright, but the only ones who are allowed to occupy it are the animals. No one comes to play, even when the land is "accessible," except for a few trespassing hunters and drug addicts. I mean that quite literally.

So it is truly a huge problem, the environment, and one which will only get worse.

One other thing -- to anyone who thinks the land will be passed down from generation to generation, forget about that. When you ineherit something valuable like land, you pay the federal government something like 55% in taxes. Almost no one can afford that, so they are forced to sell. Guess who they sell to. That's right, it is developers.

Thus one very good way to fight development is to fight the inheritance tax.

Scott

 

[Guyon]

The thread originally discussed activism. I absolutely *hate* activism and most activists. Society in most countries has methods by which citizens can address the govt. for perceived problems. Only in totalitarian regimes or where these methods have been used to exhaustion is activism a viable option. Most activists that I've run into deal in outright lies and junk science because to them, the ends justifies the means.

Activism need not mean political lobbies, endless fundraising, and rallies in front of the state capitol. It simply can mean "being active" in the (as you put it) stewardship of our resources. Activism can be as simple as raising the thermostat 5 degrees in the summer or carpooling to work. It can involve teaching the next generation how to take better care of the resources that we have.

When people talk about the wilderness going away, I don't believe it. Maybe in some areas it gets developed, in others, it is being reclaimed. In total, I don't see it going away any time soon.

Like you, I have only general impressions on which to go here. I would sure like to see some statistics that contrast acreage being developed to acreage being reclaimed by the wild. I don't know where you live, but I see so much more development than I do wilderness conservation.

We don't need to apologize for using the earth's resources. Do we need to be good stewards? Absolutely. We are. We are making tremendous progress in cleaning up and living more efficiently. That does not mean, however, that we need to walk around with our heads permanently hung in shame. That's ridiculous. Everything that lives has an impact. Big deal.

Well, it is a big deal if you take the big picture, and many scientists these days are doing just that, while pointing out the sweeping environmental changes that are going to result from our dependence on fossil fuels. I know lots of folks like to cover their eyes and ears and side with the few remaining naysayers. If it lets them sleep easier at night or continue to make a buck, well then, there's not much you can do to change their minds. My point? That's where "activism" in the form of education can make some differences--for the next generation at least.

Carbon footprint? Maybe we should shut down our coal plants that provide power and let everyone fend for themselves in the winter. But they'd be burning wood then instead. Bummer. Is any attempt made to quantify the good that is done in using fossil fuels? What about the researcher who jumps in his/her car (because the buses aren't running late at night), goes down to the lab, and finds a cure for cancer? Was it worth burning that half a gallon of fuel?

I don't think anyone here was trying to freeze people to death, but rather, to suggest that we might be more cognizant of the choices we make. Maybe that researcher should stay at home and work during the day. Wouldn't he still find the same cure eventually?

Either position is incredibly arrogant. You can't know what is best for everyone else. Those people who posted about balance were absolutely right. I'm tired of people preaching that we need to continuously apologize for simply living our lives.

I'm not sure that I read any such post to this effect. Most people here have posted about acting responsibly toward the environment.

You're the one who posted the following: "Development doesn't bother me at all. I couldn't care less how big a carbon footprint that I leave." My response suggested that part of the problem with the environment is that everyone is thinking about himself or herself and not about the environment. The "me" mentality often gets in the way of acting responsibly.

Of course, if you can't come up with reasonable counter-arguments, you can always resort to name calling....

You pre-emptively try to fend off ad hominem attacks in you last post, but you're just as guilty of another logical fallacy--hyperbole. As in... let me make the most dramatic, exaggerated example I can think of (cure for cancer versus half gallon of gas) in order to argue my point.

Sodak, no one here is asking you to apologize for living your life. I think that some have suggested, however, that everyone can make small lifestyle changes that will continue to add to what you call our "progress in cleaning up and living more efficiently." That is activism in its finest form--at the grass roots level.

If we just had horrible traffic pollution in Atlanta and nowhere else, it wouldn't be much of a problem in the bigger picture. But because traffic emissions are growing the world over and not just in Atlanta, CO2 levels, smog, air pollution, etc. continue to get worse. It's cumulative, of course.

The same principle applies to conservation and efficiency efforts though. If people continue to improve efficiency at the local level, the changes do add up.

 

[beezaur]

Maybe that researcher should stay at home and work during the day. Wouldn't he still find the same cure eventually? . . .

Well, no, not a cancer researcher working at home. You need facilities for that. And instead of penalizing someone who is making a lot less than many (these guys often make $30k a year and have virtually no benefits) how about concentrating on finding cleaner transportation?

I have no problem with activism. Activism is one of the only ways citizens can get things done and not get run over by big government.

If I may, I would like to make one suggestion: that the truth be held dear and not be sacrificed for political agendas. This is my one request of those involved in activism.

Find the truth on all relevant matters: is it possible to have zero impact? What *will* I leave for future generations? Will severe environmental policies cause economic penalties that will be harmful? What are the full implications of taking control of land away from the owner? Is it possible that humans must displace creatures and alter the environment in order to live? Which environmental protections completely unworkable?

The scientific aspects are generally addressed pretty well by activists. They often point to what the scientists have to say, and quote them faithfully. But what about the survival of the society? Has anyone checked the consequences of striving for these often unatainable goals? Generally the answer is either that no checking at all has been done, or it is not adequately thought out: you cannot run a cancer lab at home.

To anyone involved in envoronmental activism, please find the truth and spread it. But consider the WHOLE TRUTH, not just what one side or the other wants to push down your throat.

As an engineer, I am on the front lines finding workable solutions to both the ideals of developers and the environmental policies of the government. Often both are idiotic and completely unworkable. People tend not to have the attention span for the whole truth.

So find the full truth and stick with it.

Scott

 

[sodak]

Dang it, Guyon,

I love how you use the quote feature, I wish I knew how to do that! I'll try to respond appropriately, top to bottom.

It's becoming clear to me that what you mean by activism I mean by conservation. I agree with a lot of what you have written on grass-roots stuff. When you say activist, I (and probably most people) picture the angry, strident, empty headed buffoons marching in the streets (illegally), holding up traffic (illegally), throwing blood on people, etc. That's what I mean when I say I hate activists. And I do.

Yes, I use hyperbole to make a point. That and analogies are the best way I can do that without getting too personal with others. I used an extreme example to counteract all of the extreme examples on the other side continually perpetuated by the chicken littles of the main stream media (MSM).

No, I wasn't suggesting letting people freeze at night, rather, a certain amount of people will consume a certain minimum of resources, whether it comes from a power plant or everyone's fireplace. So when I say I don't care about my carbon footprint, I don't. When another energy supply becomes economically as feasible as fossil fuels, the market will move us there, as it's always done.

A lot of your other points are quite good, I'll let let them stand. The only other thing that I would like to address is your reference to sweeping environmental changes. In the 70's, scientists were grimly warning of the impending ice age coming. Here we are 30 years later, and it's global warming. If the globe is around 6 million years old (give or take), I would suggest that we don't have a clue as to what it will do next. We can't even get the weather right a week out, how can we possibly tell for certain 100 years from now? Correlation does not imply causality. I'm not arguing that pollution, CO2, etc., is a wonderful thing, rather that there are far too many variables at work to lay the blame on any one thing. Just a couple of weeks ago, leading researchers have found that the Arctic was much warmer a long time ago than we thought. Warm like Miami. In the 1700's Europe suffered from a minor ice age. The debate is in no way decided, despite what the MSM says.

You talk about sleeping better at night. There is always the perception that we "know" better, but if continue to "do wrong" and therefore suffer from guilt. That's what I'm arguing against. There is nothing wrong with using natural resources. Yes, wasting is wrong. What I am saying, is that we don't get to decide for others what waste is. Only for ourselves. Once you start to go down that path, it's a slippery slope. <hyperbole on> I think a great place to start would be to tell knife makers they can only run their forges and furnaces every other day! Cut that nasty pollution in half. Who needs more than one knife? Besides me, of course... <hyperbole off>

Where does it end?

Edit - Beezaur, you beat me to it. I agree with finding the whole truth. That's 9/10's the problem usually.

 

[Outdoors]

The sad fact of highly restrictive land use policies is this: you end up with a whole bunch of people paying taxes (which have skyrocketed) on land which they have no way to use. Their land gets assessed as though it were going to be developed as a busy commercial area, yet they can do nothing with it. In many cases they are literally prevented from constructing so much as a walking path.

So the old folks sell the land they love as their home -- the place they planned to grow old on -- after they have spent their savings on taxes (and in some cases legal battles) then move to an appartment in town. Generally the sale covers previous expenses, so the economics is about "net zero." They gain nothing and lose their home for economic pressures. Some people think this is a good resolution; I do not.

Scott

In our state and several others, you can arrange to either be taxed at different rates for differing land uses on your property, or place a covenant on portions of the parcel to remove them from the tax roles. Seniors can also defer increased taxes (in our state) til the property is sold. Not a panacea, but they are attempts to give owners incentive to preserve natural areas.

Pat

 

[beezaur]

In our state and several others, you can arrange to either be taxed at different rates for differing land uses on your property, or place a covenant on portions of the parcel to remove them from the tax roles. Seniors can also defer increased taxes (in our state) til the property is sold. Not a panacea, but they are attempts to give owners incentive to preserve natural areas.

Pat

It does help, but the government is greedy.

In some cases I have seen people who have purchased parcels on the cheap so they could live the simple, rustic life. I saw one parcel increase in assessed value from around $15,000 to over $500,000 in two (2) assessment cycles. The guy could not afford the taxes so sold. He made some good coin on the deal, but it isn't what he wanted to do. I was there on business, of course, doing things for the soon-to-be 6 homes per acre on this guy's soon-not-to-be rustic 5-acre parcel.

It isn't necessarily a completely bad thing, the development I mean. There are more people than there used to be, and they need habitat too.

Scott

 

[Outdoors]

From the local government perspective, remember that those new developments require services that the government has to pay for. Water, sewer, streets, schools, libraries, parks, etc. Taxes are how the government pays for these services. Not to imply that there is no waste involved, but there are legitimate expenses.

Pat

 

[Horned Toad]

Dang it, Guyon,

I love how you use the quote feature, I wish I knew how to do that! I'll try to respond appropriately, top to bottom.

.

put the [/QUOTE] where you want their quote to stop and enter your text then put the

hit preview first to make sure you got it right

took me a while to figure that one out

 

[beezaur]

Pat,

The guy's taxes rose before there were improvements. He was driven off his land to make room for others who would receive those services. I don't know where he ended up, but I am sure it was not 5 acres of forest, unless he left his job and the area.

But yes, understood about the necessity of taxes.

The thing I was trying to get at is that, when people talk about what they are leaving for future generations, there are two huge parts to that: 1) a clean environment, and 2) a healthy society.

There are sometimes severe economic consequences to environmental policies (which often set unattainable goals). Economic effects of environmental policy get drown out by officials "making the hard decisions" or "doing the right thing" to save some tiny aspect of the environment at all costs. Usually thise costs are born by the little guy in the long run: the mom and pop outfit that can no longer afford the disposal fees for this or that; the on-site septic systems with their elaborate electronic control and expensive maintenance contracts. It is a million small economic pressures.

Environmentalists who are so concerned with what is left for future generations often have so little concern for the economic means and opportunities they will leave their children. The same applies to some developers. I have had to explain to more than one water systemowner with septic contamination that they are drinking their own waste products, and all I hear back is, "Doesn't make me sick. Why should I fix it"

This is what I see: one group screams science and pays no attention to money. The other screams about money and pays no attention to science. They are both wrong, and both groups actively lie to serve their own agendas.

At the end of the day, human beings need an environment that is clean and adequate for needs. They also need an adequate and strong economy.

What is the religious group that goes around sweeping the path before them so they don't kill any bugs? Some environmentalists are headed that direction. It is not a sustainable philosophy. That kind of thinking will eventually destroy the society.

Scott

 

[Guyon]

Well, no, not a cancer researcher working at home. You need facilities for that. And instead of penalizing someone who is making a lot less than many (these guys often make $30k a year and have virtually no benefits) how about concentrating on finding cleaner transportation?

Oops. That's the problem with language. It just seems to get in the way of communication.

When I wrote that about the researcher staying at home and working during the day, I simply meant that he/she might choose not to make another extra visit to the lab at night--ie. that he/she could choose a work schedule that allowed for only one trip in to the lab per day. That's all.

sodak, I hope you're right about all the current predictions being wrong. However, you might find this page of interest: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

It's author, a climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey, challenges readers to find actual, reputable scientific articles predicting another ice age in the 1970s. I quote below a snippet from this page:

To clarify a little: I am interested in "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's by scientists, in scientific journals?". That means articles in scientific journals and reputable books. I am not particularly interested in what appeared in the popular press or on TV and do not intend to discuss it here (but see context), since I do not regard these as reliable sources for scientific information.
Note that many of the oh-there-was-an-ice-age-predicted type articles tend to focus on non-science articles for their sources: newsweek, for example. This is cheating on their part. Newsweek isn't science, of course. If newsweek was quoting peer-reviewed journals, then they should go back to those.

On the other hand, we do have, these days, a slew of reputable publications warning of global warming and its effects. Many can be found linked off of Connelley's page above.

 

[benchmade_boy]

i am not a tree huger nor a anti hunter but i really do get p!$$ed when i catch people down at our small locol river noodling or gunfire down at the river when nothing is in season. i totally inderstand hunting but not when you kill somthing and leave it ther and dont eat it i hunt all winter and i keep and eat inything i kill (with the exeption of paririe dogs and jack rabbits) wich i would eat but they carry disses iv even had some cottan tails with dissesis. i do what ever i can to preserv nature and i hope you do to