Posted on 12/17/2001 6:34:17 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Federal and state wildlife biologists planted false evidence of a rare cat species in two national forests, officials told The Washington Times.
Had the deception not been discovered, the government likely would have banned many forms of recreation and use of natural resources in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Wenatchee National Forest in Washington state.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Hey space cadet, animals don't have rights !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
This one first. It is a matter of historical record that humans have extirpated numerous species by various means, both direct and indirect: passenger pigeons, scrub oxen, dodo birds, various western antelope, dozens of native grasses, and pretty soon the American Elm. The recent phytopthora infestation that arrived on European rhododendrons may destroy every riparian hardwood tree species on the West Coast... Clearly we do have the power to extirpate species.
Most species extirpations were the result of direct efforts to kill them, whether for food, plumage, sport, or as pests. Are you saying that those who did the killing are not responsible for that? Further extinctions were derived incidentally by those wishing to make a product cheaper, the impact of whose business activities crossed their property lines. Are they responsible for that? If people chose to market services to the public re-establishing endangered species, do you think that this is not a legitimate business?
Lets say you own a factory and it has a sewer pipe dumping an effluent into the river. Are you accountable for that effluent when it crosses the property line? What if you destroy the value of private property with it? What if that valued property is somebody's endangered species management business?
, and I am compelled to resist with all resources available, any movement, plan, or agenda that has as it's basis the idea that we do.
You would resist the voluntary efforts to preserve these plants and animals too? (You did say "any plan.") Perhaps you mean that you would resist such a plan if it were instituted by coersion. That's fine, but why should people be compelled to abandon their use of their property by virtue of your use of yours? How do you propose to resolve such disputes without government developing an interest in managing that contest?
- Either you have similar motives, or you do not, and that was all that I was looking for. - OK?
If all you are seeking is to validate your existing opinion, please don't read my book. The fascists of the world would need you more to continue justifying their regulatory hegemony.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
If you take action to promote any of those ideas, then you are an extremist.
Well, I gave you a chance to back down and you didn't. So here we go: an extremist, by definition, is someone whose views are supported by nobody or a vast minority of people. Now, whether you agree with them or not, there is a substantial number of people in this country who do support animal rights and environmentalism. Rather than quibble about the exact number (you'll have your statistics and I'll have mine), it is definitely not a "vast minority". Therefore, simply being an environmentalist/animal rights activist doesn't make you an extremist, since you're not doing anything "extreme" in the American scope of views on the issue.
Of course, it also depends on what you call an "activist". Is an activist someone who votes for environmentally-friendly candidates? Or someone who makes a donation to PETA, or peacefully marches against the AWNR proposal? Or someone who murders people who don't share his views on animal rights? I think any reasonable person would call the last example an "extremist", but the other examples are safely in the "mainstream," even if it is in the Democratic "mainstream".
But going by your words, anyone who "takes action to promote any of these ideas" is an extremist, and that covers all of the examples above. Is it a common tactic of yours to call those who don't agree with you in any facet of your life an "extremist"? Maybe I should call my wife an "extremist" the next time we can't agree on where to go for dinner, and we'll see how far that gets me. =)
I have been subjected to the same subjective 'school teacher talk' that you have, but I find most of it decidedly lacking in the area of objective documentation of those assertions.
The recent phytopthora infestation that arrived on European rhododendrons may destroy every riparian hardwood tree species on the West Coast...
It may, or it may not, but Phytopthora is not man's creation, and it could wage it's attack through natural means too, which would have a similar result.
"Clearly we do have the power to extirpate species. "
Clearly you have that opinion anyway, but I question whether it is based solely on objective observation.
" If people chose to market services to the public re-establishing endangered species, do you think that this is not a legitimate business?"
It would be perfectly legitimate to market to individuals or groups willing to do business with them, but it is not legitimate for government to compell me to pay for it. That would be a clear violation of separation of church and state. ( I don't pay tithes to the catholic church, or the mormon church through taxes, do I?)
"Lets say you own a factory and it has a sewer pipe dumping an effluent into the river. Are you accountable for that effluent when it crosses the property line?"
You Bet!
" What if you destroy the value of private property with it?"
Then it is a Tort, to be settled by the constitutionally created courts.
"You would resist the voluntary efforts to preserve these plants and animals too?"
Not if I'm not compelled by law to pay for it.
" why should people be compelled to abandon their use of their property by virtue of your use of yours?"
They should not.
" How do you propose to resolve such disputes..." As I stated above, that was the original intended purpose of our courts.
"If all you are seeking is to validate your existing opinion, please don't read my book. The fascists of the world would need you more to continue justifying their regulatory hegemony."
I find that sarcastic, and fail to see how it adds to this discussion. - I was hoping that you would provide motivation to read your book, both to myself, and to others lurking here. :-)
Voting for an environmentalist is simply an uninformed decision, it hardly constitutes activism.
Loud or obnoxious public activity to pursuade others to join you in an attempt to get laws passed to compell others to worship your 'god' (the Earth, animals, plants, fish etc.) as a national religion, such as the endangered species act.
I am not going to go over the fossil record for your benefit. Suffice it to say that the archaeologists I have dealt with were reliable and honest people and there are charlatans in the business. When you find bones, tooth marks fitting human dentition, and nearby tools or weapons on a regular basis, it is pretty compelling evidence. When you confront records of declining bounty payments against population surveys it is pretty compelling evidence. Your stance appears to be one of having to prove that the species were destroyed by people beyond whatever standard pleases you, which I doubt is possible. At this point, I am willing to accept a preponderance of evidence. Other records are historical (such as the dodo and passenger pigeon) and you are certainly welcome to show me what is lacking about that. (See? Two can play that game.)
Unlike many, I don't see anything necessarily immoral about species loss. In some cases extirpation is absolutely an essential process especially when in the presence of humans. For example, I think that the reintroduction of the grizzly bear in my area would be an ecological disaster. I just want an honest means of assessment of the relative risk of adverse impact to producing assets and I don't want it made by the state and I don't want producers to operate without accountability.
Your continued (and rather broad) admonishments that you don't want any laws to coerce you to do anything to protect species indicates to me that you haven't read what I wrote very carefully. Hence my tendency to get a little testy. Free market management means just that. It is a way of verifying an honest assessment of the economic risk of loss of an asset associated with economic activity so that pooled risk can insure that asset instead of relying upon the police power of the state to enforce rules by fiat. If you went to my website and came away with the idea that I am proposing a bunch of laws, I can honestly ask how. It sure wasn't in anything I wrote.
You say you want a system that only compensates an owner via tort after the asset is destroyed. That is patently ridiculous. Nobody rational will accept the equivalent of waiting until you injure a kid or destroy private property with your car to find out that you were an uninsured driver with no ability to pay just compensation, nor should they expect the state to be the insurer of last resort.
Let's look at your idea in the example case of phytopthora on imported rhododendrons. Your assertion is, that because phytopthora is a "natural" phenomena its introduction isn't necessarily an issue. I have seen the photos of infested oaks around the source nurseries (called sudden oak death syndrome) and know for a fact that the fungus originated in Europe (the lead biologist studying the problem is an acquaintance of mine). By the time anyone could prove that you were the sole source of phytopthora, demonstrate the scope of the loss, and prove that phytopthora was the sole cause of that loss, the fungus would have escaped containment and that loss account would be WAY beyond your ability to compensate the (by then) numerous owners of dead trees. You would run for protection under bankruptcy laws. If that is the system you want, then we surely do disagree.
Such statutes may well exist. After all, though few are prosecuted for it, it is illegal for a policeman to file a false report (I know, I know, stop laughing so darned hard, you'll bust a gut!).
RICO laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished, but any number of laws governing criminal conspiracies and terrorist organizations apply to ELF ... if the feds cared to do their jobs (are you listening, Mr. President?).
Shall we coin a new term: e-NVIRO-LIARS?
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.