Posted on 06/28/2005 8:03:52 AM PDT by GreenFreeper
eco-ping
It's more common than you apparently reailize. Our County is in the grip of three such cases.
I am not a radical environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination (and I recognize that radical environmentalism is often based on atheism, paganism, or nature worship). Neither do I advocate a draconian totalitarian state to "protect the environment." However, I merely wish to point out that if one believes in G-d at all then one must believe He created everything, and that everything He created has a purpose of some sort. To deny this is to imply that G-d only created mankind and nothing else (which is a denial of Monotheism) or else to take a view of the rest of creation that is absolutley humanistic.
Just as with the issue of racism, the wrong people are on the wrong sides of the argument. Logic demands that they should switch positions.
Well, what little expertise I may have, primarily concerns herpetofauna (though some beetles and butterflies as well). Having done some work with candidates for federal listing, I have not run across any deliberate fraud. Politicking, certainly. From my experience, the trouble comes from the media and environmentalists who twist words and data to fit their cause (read scare tactics). IMO there is just too much politics involved in the whole issue. How do we apply equal protection to species when they each have unique life history traits/strategies and respond to different elements. I can cry all day about Bufo fowleri declines and make a strong case for listing. However, that would ignore the boom and bust reproductive cycles. Blame the policy makers, not the scientists (gotta stick up for my kind in some capacity)!!
That's just a start on but one example.
I would not deny that that happens, probably with some regularity. However, the state I work in and the state I live in (2 different)reciever very little ESA funding. We are lucky to get a few thousand dollars to report population status/trends and prepare recovery plans for endangered and threatened species. Probably because our ESs are not the charasmatic kind (a few snakes, a salamander, a butterfly, and of course many plants). Despite the presence of quite a few listed species, I can't recall ANY property rights issues (although general park expansion does cause a stir).
Nope. It's because the regulations aren't capable of manipulating access to (I'm not exaggerating) trillions in real estate and natural resources.
Trillions$ Wasted BUMP!
Bet it's a low-population, not-so-desireable state.
I was referring to the funding aspect of ES protection. I would imagine the SW salmon get considerable funding and lobbying push from the pro-fishing lobby as well and the enviros. The Spotted-owls, Eagles, CA Condors, Ursus spp. etc. Are you inferring that the value of real estate and resources is the reason for funding discrepancies?
Its on my short list of readings to get to this summer. I have scoured the website and have even discretely passed it on to some of my "enviro-wacko" friends.
Fishermen have figured out that this is a screw job aimed at them. The only "pro fishing lobby" is PCFFA, which is an NGO of lawyers running on leftist foundation money residing in the same building as Gorbachev's Green Cross. Donors have included Tyson Foods, which has large aquaculture investments in South America.
See?
The Spotted-owls, Eagles, CA Condors, Ursus spp. etc.
Spotted owls = imported timber (especially from Canada) and converting timberland to development. Condors = access to land for residential development (even though condors will steal the nachos off your deck). Ursus = a real estate gambit I call "The Squeeze," not to mention raising havoc with ranchers who have the temerity to depress the market for South American cattle (see "Rockefeller," "Soros," and "Turner").
It's all the same. Those tax-exempt, "charitable" foundations don't donate all lovely money for nothing in return, I promise you.
Are you inferring that the value of real estate and resources is the reason for funding discrepancies?
"Infer" implies a subjective interpretation on my part, denoting that I am simply watching events and showing correlation without hard indication of a quid pro quo. There's plenty of quid going to the pros.
Try this little story on electrical power manipulation in California. It's a long post, but it should give you the idea how this works.
If they knew how they were being used (and by whom) they would retch uncontrollably.
My point in bringing up the pro-fishing lobby was that groups with vested interests will hijack the ESA to further the own agenda. This appears a easier task with well-liked species. You don't see hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into protection of the toothcave pseduoscorpion do you? This process seems to be much more effective when dealing with those charismatic species. Lobbying will only get you so far if the general public does not support such action. Garnering of both public and private support/pressure seems to be the key.
I agree with what you are saying though I don't think the valuation of propery/resources is the ONLY determination of funding. Otherwise, every endangered species would be exploited in the same manner. As it stands, the exploitation seems reserved to those species which can be sold to the public. Just my 2 cents.
Hmmm...3 species "saved" by banning DDT.
How many people have died worldwide from malaria and west nile virus?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.