Replies

Yes, there are problems,.. From Brian:

This story inspired a few e-mail messages and well, some show the liberal mind and some show the response to that. Here is an overview.

From Brian:

Matt thinks you just want to put forests off-limits to drive up the price of lumber because you're against poor people having homes.

From Dave;

Brian,

Sounds like Freeper logic to me. If I don't want businesses to slash and burn the environment. Makes perfect sense. I must be against poor people. Assuming the Moonie Times and Wall Street Urinal haven't spun the story they way they like it, a few caveats are in order - even within the stories as given.

The law of the land is that it is our duty to protect Endangered Species and their habitat . This presents two problems: Defining the species and defining their habitats. Both take studies which take money. Businesses couldn't get the ESA overturned in the courts and they couldn't get enough Congresspersons to repeal the legislation, so they took a different approach.

Since 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, businesses have lobbied strongly to defund the departments responsible for certifying Endangered Species and habitats. According to a recent story on NPR, there is now a 30-40 year backlog of study requests. Practically all money available is being spent to settle questions raised in court cases - no money is left for regular scientific studies. The business approach is - if you can't prove I'm destroying a species, you can't stop me. The environmentalists response has been to declare large areas protected just to be safe, and then the issue has to be settled in court - usually after a court-ordered study.

The spotted owl case appears to be a matter of someone not finishing his job, not that there aren't spotted owls in the disputed area. At this point, we don't know because the work wasn't done – although the air survey showed possible habitat. That particular bureucrat should be fired and a new study of the potential habitat areas done.

The Canadian Lynx study was not invalidated because the erroneous data caused by some researchers submitting DNA samples from pelts could easily be removed from the study. If I remember correctly the data was removed before the final report was given and therefore did not skew the final conclusions.

I'm not familiar with the details of the other cases, but when faced with the insufficient resources to determine what specific salmon waterways needed protecting, I could see someone wanting to protect everything until the scientific work could be done.

In any case - there's usually more to it than meets the Freeper eye in these cases.

Dave

From Brian:

And Brian is having a whole lot of fun sending the liberal’s message back to him with comments in enclosed parentheses.

Brian,

Sounds like Freeper logic to me. (Actually it was a brilliant Freeper parody of Democrat logic.) If I don't want businesses to slash and burn the environment I must be against poor people. (Just like, "if I want rich people to be able to keep more of their earnings, I must be against poor people." There's no logical connection in either case, which is why the parody was brilliant.) Makes perfect sense. (It should, you use that same invalid form all the time! ;-)

Assuming the Moonie Times and Wall Street Urinal (shoot the messenger, another demonstration of Democrat logic) haven't spun the story they way they like it, a few caveats are in order - even within the stories as given.

The law of the land is that it is our duty to protect Endangered Species and their habitat (ESA). This presents two problems: Defining the species and defining their habitats. Both take studies which take money. (Hey, as long as a new group of permanently-employed Democrat voters is created, you're all for it, right?) Businesses couldn't get the ESA overturned in the courts and
they couldn't get enough Congresspersons to repeal the legislation, so they took a different approach. (Poor Dave; always hating business---still working for one, though....)

Since 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, businesses have lobbied strongly to defund the departments responsible for certifying Endangered Species and habitats. (Turns out it was a pretty good idea, since the people staffing these organizations have turned out to have agendas and no scruples!)

According to a recent story on NPR (THAT left-wing Commie Pinko organization? They can't move their LIPS without lying! If they say "Hello!" it's a lie! National PUBIC Radio? Everything you say from here on out is obviously invalid!), there is now a 30-40 year backlog of study requests. (Yeah, they wanted to study PUBIC lice to see if they were endangered, but mean old businesses wouldn't fund it, because POOR people have most of the PUBIC lice, probably....) Practically all money available is being spent to settle questions raised in court cases - no money is left for regular scientific studies. (You mean the kind where they drive by the forest and then write a report that says "Yeah, it's all critical habitat"?) The business approach is - if you can't prove I'm destroying a species, you can't stop me. (The Democrat approach is, until you find a nesting pair of owls, LIE.) The environmentalists response has been to (LIE) declare large areas protected (LIE) just to be safe, (if in doubt, lie---yep, that's the Democrat way, all right) and then the issue has to be settled in court - usually after a court-ordered study (Just like evil Insurance companies----reject every claim the first time, and then fight the rest in court. Then LIE there! Hey, worst that happens is you're disbarred!)

The spotted owl case appears to be a matter of someone not finishing his job (of covering up the lies), not that there aren't spotted owls in the disputed area. (they're an entirely new protected species---the INVISIBLE spotted owl.) At this point, we don't know because the work wasn't done - although the air survey showed possible habitat. (What, were there Kmart signs on the satellite pictures?) That particular bureucrat should be fired and a new study of the potential habitat areas done. (You're slipping; you should have said, "fire the one guy, then hire 100 more Democrats").

The Canadian Lynx study was not invalidated because the erroneous data caused by some researchers submitting DNA samples from pelts could easily be removed from the study. (What about all the other LIES we just haven't picked up on yet? OOOPS yeah, I lied here on this one thing, but the rest of the study is all true....yeah, right). If I remember correctly (and I may be wrong) the data was removed before the final report was given and therefore did not skew the final conclusions. (They removed it probably when they figured out they'd get called on it---the rest they figured they could slide on, no doubt...)

I'm not familiar with the details of the other cases, but when faced with the insufficient resources to determine what specific salmon waterways needed protecting, I could see someone wanting to protect everything until the scientific work could be done. (It's a shame someone didn't protect your lot from your new house "Just in case...")

In any case - there's usually more to it than meets the Freeper eye in these cases. (Yeah---there's a lot of LIES! ---MAN that was fun!)

Brian!