Posted on 09/23/2005 8:36:54 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
Everyone knows republicans get hammered on the environment in every single election cycle...
I just thought it would be interesting to hear freeper opinions about it.
On one thread I made the following post:
Now that I think about it many surfers are environmentally friendly...if that says anything. They want to protect the ocean.
Me, I think thats a legit thing to do.
If you see what washes up on the shores of Hawaii sometimes you will think people shouldn't litter the oceans either...
If your neighbors threw all their garbage in your yard you would have a fit...
Not to mention that if you are a sportsman (hunter/fisherman etc) you want to protect what you do right? Its in the self interest of the sportsmen (and even some industries) to protect the enviroment and to manage game. Given I am no kook about it, but I think it needs to be done. Otherwise my grandbabies will never have the thrill of catching a nice fish or shooting bambi.
Its just in Hawaii the ocean is in your face, and in Nebraska and 90% of America, its not close enough to home to worry about. The average joe doesn't see it...
Anyway I just thought this is as good of time as any to hear everyone's two cents on something conservatives get hammered on all the time...
I guess my position is that hunters, fishermen, the tourism industry, and basic citizens have a vested interest in protecting the environment to some extent.
While I am no tree hugger and I think bambi taste good fried...I think there needs to be a common sense approach to protecting the environment.
What if you are a bass fisherman but you go to the lake and see all the fish floating belly up? It happened down the road from where I am... someone poured their excess chemicals in the river and viola... no more fish.
We talk about gun rights all the time here...but what about this? Doves, quail, deer, rabbits, etc are going to have to live somewhere...
Add your two cents. I think it will be interesting...
The "environmental movement" has now become (perhaps has always been, only now coming clear to others) a front mechanism by which liberal politics EXPLOITS human emotional, subjective issues to fund raise and increase negative and often wrongful impressions about 'big business' and anyone else using, it seems, technologies and/or industry, by one means or another.
I USED to think it was noble to support groups like the Sierra Club and others until I found out the reality of these groups and, by way of comparing their newsletter "ugencies" about issues with actual statistics and conditions and legislation, etc....to consider things entirely per the environmental groups, many of them, you'd think that anyone who builds a building and employs anyone making anything other than granola and rubber shoes is vile, conspiring to destroy "all of nature" and other such excesses of unreality.
I exaggerate, I realize but I am making the point here that I took over time every issue of alarm from many ongoing newsletters from several of the higher profile environmental groups and then gathered information from elsewhere and the one consistency was that the environmental groups make it seem an emergency to vote for Democrats and to never build a road again, nor chop down a tree, nor fail to attend an Al Gore pep talk.
They use these groups for fundraising purposes for the DNC and mostly, that's it. While I love trees and wilderness as much as anyone, human beings need habitats and jobs and incomes and that's the reality of our human population and human activity in ever increasing population numbers is nearly always in odds with pristine, underdeveloped areas. I would feel far better about environmental groups if they were forbidden from funding any political party because they (almost all of them I am aware of) so far do that and they have lost credibility of information and intent in my view because of these covert fundraising methods.
I've responded to more of thier "alert" messages by faxing and writing my legislators than I care to honor up to but stopped doing so many years ago after realizing I was moreorless being used as a pawn for liberal gluttony. I write, "gluttony" because accordingly, these groups and members seem more focused on raising political campaing dollars than anything else, by way of pleading with people about trees filled with beetles.
yeah, we're not omnivores, we're supposed to graze on grass and plants. mooo.
Lighten up. I'm kidding.
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be proactive in going for cleaner energy solutions, but my point is that the enviro-wackos are overreacting to beyond the point of lunacy.
Agreed. Drill in ANWR. Doesn't Kerry's bloodied band-aids from his three purple hearts constitute a health hazard? Where are they? Did he dispose of them properly?
I think we should cut down on pollution and give incentives to people for carpooling, using bikes, and walking. Not only would it help the air, but oil prices as well.
The environment should not be used to obstruct property rights or for socialist, world government agendas. Environmenatlists need to respect nature and work with it, not control it. One mistake they made was to say to never chop trees...it caused massive fires.
I was thinking of getting a degree in this area, so it is important to me. The more I learn about it, the more concerned I become. But, there needs to be a balance. I agree with everything in your post.
Good management of these resources permits harvesting on a regular basis, whether the resource is timber, fish, deer, or whatever, without causing damage to the means of production.
Competent ranchers and farmers already do this, with neither overpopulation nor overharvesting. Good game and timber management does the same.
Not harvesting the available resources merely makes the existing resource base more susceptible to disease, infestation, or cataclysm (fire in timber, car accidents with deer, etc.)
The ecology is a dynamic system, and management must be dynamic also: capable of adjusting to conditions as they change. A dynamic system cannot be effectively managed with static rules.
No one-size-fits-all set of rules will be sufficient, and local control is the most capable of management vs bureaucrats in offices hundreds (or thousands) of miles away.
Right you are. The land will more or less always give back what you put into it in terms of planning and yield. That's what we all pray for, anyway.
Nobody I know of actively seeks to destroy the land. After all, we have to live on it, too.
The earth is in natural decay ever since the fall of Adam and Eve. This doesn't mean that we can't try to keep it tidy but it does mean that we will never get it back to its' original shape. Environmental activists think we can.
Let me also throw in sensible tree maintainence. California for the last 5 years has suffered million$ worth of property damage because someone wasn't allowed to deforrest deadwood. Had such been accomplished, maybe 1000+ people would still have their homes.
Time to dig out an older tagline....
State of Fear BUMP
Michael Crichton's State of Fear novel has been FRecommended. Why? It shows the truth behind enviro-Nazi propoganda and how screwed up it is when it's put up next to facts.
Plus, it shows a Ted Kennedy-esque actor getting devoureded by 'peaceful' island natives (involves a trip to an island near the end of the book). ;-P
Yes, agreed, it's a good read. Read it when it was first released.
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.