Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This story is on the front page of one of our (UK) papers today, and it is shocking. I am sure one of the major conservation groups will set up some sort of petition, but if you know of any other ways this can be stopped, please try!

The effects of such a plan will be devastating. I cannot believe that lessons have not been learnt from the catastrophic effects of such pipelines elsewhere in the Amazon, especially in Ecuador. I am talking about the effects on the forest itself, the ecosystem as a whole, and the people that live there.

This CANNOT be allowed to happen!

Anyway, it's early morning now and I've been up all night radio-tracking hedgehogs, so I need some sleep! So I'll leave this one here.

THE STORY

Oh no!! As if we haven't lost enough frogs and other animals.

They must build a pipeline from the amazon rainforest up the Andean mountains, which at that point are easily over 15.000 feet, and then down again to the coast. Is that even posible?? Pumping up the oil 15.000 feet for the first time is one thing, but to withstand the extreme temperatures is another....

Well, it's already 60% complete unfortunately. So yes, even though it seems impossible, others think it is! Let's hope the funds don't materialize!

oo

Who cares!
We need oil period.
If you were so concerned and upset stop driving your car and walk!!!!! That would help ease the demand for oil and then they would not need to look for other ways to fulfill the demand.
Yes, it sucks for the animals/reptiles but what the Hell are you doing about the construction of homes/apartments/malls/ex/ex/ that leave millions of reptiles, mammals homeless or DEAD!
You guys will look for anything to b!t(h about! Bush this Bush that. You make me sick!!!!!!!!!!

Mmmmmmmmmmm....quite a mentality you have there!

Who cares!

Apparently not you or you wouldn't defend something so absurdly ignorant.

We need oil period.

I agree we do need oil, but other less harmless fuel sources are available. Of course this would cost the oil companies billions of dollars if we all drove cars powered by electricity or fuel cells. The technology is not being used so people like Bush can line their pockets.

If you were so concerned and upset stop driving your car and walk!!!!! That would help ease the demand for oil and then they would not need to look for other ways to fulfill the demand.

Well, how do you know the person who started this post isn't already walking, riding a bike, car pooling, or taking a bus to help use less oil. Obviously they care about the enviroment or they wouldn't have started this post!

Yes, it sucks for the animals/reptiles but what the Hell are you doing about the construction of homes/apartments/malls/ex/ex/ that leave millions of reptiles, mammals homeless or DEAD!

I agree humans are destroying the enviroment but we are talking about pristine rainforest, coastline, and mountain regions with a diverse ecosystem, not land where malls and apartments are being built.

You guys will look for anything to b!t(h about! Bush this Bush that. You make me sick!!!!!!!!!!

Bush is not half the man Bill Clinton or Al Gore is. They would have never have attacked Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction that don't even exist, nor would they destroy the rainforest. This is why we B---H!

Glad to see some people care!

Don't you mean Bush is'nt the 'half-man' that Clinton is?
Bush is one of the best presidents that this country has ever had, period. He made a brave and honorable decision, as the leader of a countrywho's population, unfortunately, contains a significant number of scared, spoiled, cultureless, hypocritical little by-products of freedom and now he's paying the price via critisism by these champions.
It's too bad that war isn't the only cost of freedom.
You're right about Clinton when you say that he wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist. Instead, he would probably be spending millions of dollars making trips back and forth to Iraq to have lunch with their rulers, while working out "diplomatic resolutions". In other words, negotiating deals with them regarding weapons that do exist, selling you and your children and their children out like he did with the Chinese.
It'd be alright though as long as he gave you the tax break that meant you'd be able to afford that new and beautiful gas-guzzling SUV, right? Speaking of fuel, the possibilities for using other forms have been there for years. Clinton could have made the changes that you think would be better for our pocketbooks and the environment when he was in office.
I'll never understand the people that think eating is more important than sleeping or respect the people that wouldn't, out of the same fear and greed that they accuse their leaders of, protect theirs and others rights to do both.
Where Bush enters the oval office with another executive, wearing a tie, Clinton would enter with a prostitue, wearing edible underwear.
Don't even try to compare them. One is a man that has integrity and the other is a boy that doesn't. Clinton should have been a trash talk show host, not a president.
And who, with half a brain, cares that we have yet to find the weapons that we expected to find, which, by the way, are probably hidden in Bill Clintons basement. We had more than one objective, none of which were to steal anybodies oil.
We are still in the process of liberating and assisting in the reformation of the Iraq government and justice is being served to the men involved in the crimes against the citizens of Kuwait. Crimes that took place before Clinton was even elected.
This is my first and last post to this thread. I wouldn't mind debating these topics on a more appropriate forum with courageous rebels, if you will, but I've got better things to do than argue with frightened little ingrates on this forum.

Its funny how Bush followers always bring up Clintons personal life! So the guy likes to doink young interns. I agree that this is immoral but what does that really matters when it comes to world conflict. OK so Clinton tried to settle things diplomatically without war. Whats wrong with that? If the US gets involved every time their are atrocities or so called weapons of mass destruction we will be fighting wars all over the world. Do you really think we are fighting for our freedom in Iraq, the freedom of the US? I support our troops but feel this war was unecessary. Obviously we have strongly differing opinions and I also will not post again in this thread!

People, this isn't about Bush, Clinton or anybody for that matter. You know what is at stake!

Hmmm. Let's see. Post an article where the first word in the title is "Bush" and the first sentence is about "Bush", then tell everyone that this isn't about Bush. Could you be just a little more hypocritical??? You could have easily gotten your point across by citing excerpts from the article pertaining to the environmental issues. You chose to post the whole article, which is mainly about Bush. Cut me a break. Who are trying to kid? You knew exactly what you were doing! For once why don't you grow some nuts and just say what you're really thinking. We all know you can't stand the president or the U.S. for that matter. It's funny how when someone mentions Clinton's faults, it's suddenly not about the president anymore. How provocative!

Actually, re-read my original post. Go on, take the time. I think you will see that not a single mention of Bush is made. My plea is for the environment.

The journalist that wrote this front page story can't fail to mention Bush because he is the main player in this story.

For your benefit shall we pretend it's Mickey Mouse that is looking for the funds? Or maybe David Beckam? Or let's face it, anyone? Just so that we don't mention the one person involved, and get your childish back up.

I did re-read your post...several times for your amusement! Low and behold, the link YOU provided takes me to the same article every time. Bush, Bush, Bush. Stop trying to act like that was an accident! My point was that you are conveniently implying that this isn't about the president yet YOU posted a link that is all about the president.
"Oh, but my plea is for thje environment". That's what you want everyone to believe. Your hidden agenda is clearly to mock our president, our way of life, and the U.S. in general as you've obviously done on the "open discussion" forum so many times. You and Stoeckl have a cowardly and sneaky way of slinging mud in the face of our country by constantly posting articles defaming it or the pres, and then back-peddling by saying your post meant something completely different. You must think Americans are incredibly stupid. Call me childish all you want. At least I have the courage to tell the truth and stand by my convictions. I don't cloak the true meaning of my posts. In any case, you just keep pulling worms out of ponds thinking that you're doing something and I'll go back to my "real" job.

That's funny, I thought you said my post mentioned Bush in the first paragraph. And you need to get it into your head that I am not hiding behind any hidden agenda against Bush. I have an objective outlook on life. If someone does something good, that's great. If I disagree with something, I'll say it. For example, I praise Bush for his efforts with the Sharon at the moment. He is the only one it seems working towards a solution. However, I disagree with his plans to destroy the Peruvian rainforest, and with it, all the wildlife. It might have passed by your notice that it will be the boas that suffer here!?

OK, we need oil and gas. But, I don't think that others should be made to suffer and that the US should exploit it's OWN fossil fuel resources before depleting that of others.

You need to also get it into your head that not every resource on our planet is there to be exhausted. Humans are the most destructive creature ever to walk on earth, and we don't seem to learn from any of our past mistakes. That is called progression. Something we kid ourselves is happening.

"That is funny"! I couldn't find the post where I accused you of mentioning Bush in the first paragraph. I did however check my first post in this thread where I said that the "article" you posted mentions him in the first paragraph, the same "article" that YOU posted. Perhaps you should re-read my post with your good eye. In any case, that's irrelevant here. Stop trying to discredit my posts with frivolous, idiotic accusations and stick to the point. Now I see you're trying to appeal to the masses by playing both sides of the fence. In one sentence you laud Bush for his relationship with Sharon, then you accuse him of planning to "destroy the Peruvian rainforest, and with it, all the wild life". Are you kidding me? A little melodramatic, don't ya' think?
By the way, didn't your country start the industrial revolution??? Didn't animals once flourish where there is now a house that you live in? Where does your country get it's energy? Do you use oil...for anything? How did you get to the rainforest? Did it involve means of transportation that perhaps might pollute the air? If you're against polluting the environment, then take the first step and stop polluting these forums with your diarrhea and toilette paper articles!

What type of vehicle are you using to get around that unforgiving terrain in the rainforests where you are making such a difference? Surely it's more environmentally hazardous than that little go-cart you were bragging about (on the open discussion forum) that you putter around in at home. Do you live in an environmentally friendly straw hut that was specifically built so as to not harm the wildlife where you live? If yes, Bush would be proud of you.

Where are I work there are no roads. The only means of transport is canoe, and walking. Sorry to disappoint you. For the first 3 years I slept in a hammock, clung between two trees. More recently I have had a roof over my head as a more permament field station was built. Again, sorry to disappoint you.

Can we drop it now?

Ahhh, music to my ears. Bravo! Well said. Actually the "open Discussions forum is already active on this topic.

who bought him his "election." Never has been anything else.

That "pathetic puppet" is doing a hell of a job. Hooray for that! I don't agree with everything he has said and done, but I don't have to struggle to acknowledge his obvious success. What is it that Bush did to poor little you that hurt your feelings to the point that he's nothing more than a "pathetic puppet"?

Snake Feller

Nicely put. I couldn't agree more.

Sme people just like to whine a snivel about Bush and that apears all this is. I rember a while back people were yelping about a pipeline Bush wanted in Alaska and the animals rights humaniacs were yelping about how this pipeline would kill the deer herds that were already limited and this and that. Well the truth of tha matter in another part of the state were they already had the pipelines they were killing the deer because the warmth given off by the piplines kept the vegatation growing longer which in turn gave the deer more to eat they breed and boom the numbers exploded. There reasons for opposing the pipeline were nothing but their normal pariniod bull and this is all it looks like to me here. So Id like to see what they other side has to say.
-----
Jason & Danica
Heads I win tails you lose. Get out of my way I am coming through. Roll the dice and dont think twice when we crush....crush....crush em...crush em! Megadeth
Classic Dums

Great post! Thanks for sharing.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores basic ecological principles. I am not saying anything about Bush or you or the animal rights activists to which you refer. What I am saying is that boom in that deer population, due to the increased availability of their food source, is bound to result in a more disastrous course for one or several other species in that ecosystem.

Perhaps a lichen will be obliterated in its yearly cycle due to being out-competed by the "vegetation" you mention. Maybe the warmer climate being generated by the pipeline will impinge on the hibernation of several species who need that low metabolic state to survive. The point is, while the "yelping" about the deer herds may seem to be way off base in retrospect, it is impossible to know what catastrophic effects the pipeline is having on other species until decades pass and it is too late to do anything about it.

I am no tree hugger, that's for sure. Yet, there are places in this industrialized world that are relatively untouched by humans. Alaska, of course, is one of those places. Each summer, it teems with a diversity that is all but unparalleled in the natural world. Seeking to drill or otherwise industrialize Alaska, the few remaining tracts of rainforest, and other such places is just plain wrong. Geological surveys show us that the rainforests and Alaska are NOT the only huge reserves of fossil fuels left on Earth. Until an alternative energy source goes more mainstream, it is reprehensible to destroy such territory when another 25-50 years could make such a huge difference in how we produce and consume our energy.

Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with money, stupidity, and the mess we leave for our children.

Jesus, I know you support Bush but you surely don't have to agree with everything he does??? This plan is outrageous! I wouldn't care if it was the Pope proposing it, this plan is wrong. I cannot even be bothered to go into the reasons why. Hell, let's chop all the damn rainforest down and be done with it. As for the indigenous people that live there...who cares? Let's go to Madagascar and get rid of all the Dumeril habitat whilst we're at it. I mean please! That was not a political post, but an environmental one. If you cannot even begin to imagine the consequences of the finalization of such a plan, I will not waste my time explaining it to you. You know I thought people here, reptile breeders, people who I thought would have an interest in herps in the wild, would care. But no, still the same all BS from the pro-Bush, we need oil brigade. I give up! Let's destroy the world together! Who cares about future generations. Who cares about anyone else??????? Gold help us!

That Bish makes any of his decisions alone, all I hear from that guy is, yes we will defeat them, we will rein, we are the best, I really dont hear anything more, yes its the hardest job in the world I would say, because of all the beurocracy around specially in the states. its sad but its all about money and power, microchips and oil, and who shall we be friends with next.

just speaking my mind, I know i will be bashed for it but I dont mind, feel free

This Rain forest thing is sad, but its being destroyed by everyone, not only Bush, a huge part of the wood taken from there is being used for fuel and please tell me why they cant use the wood for themselves as fuel, I guess they sell the trees to make money, then they buy oil to make fuel, its all a game anyway. a sad one for all, I think we are all doomed anyway, somewhere down the line.

Happy days

steve

ps. If this doesnt make any sence just move on, Im hot and bored and maybe i will think diffrently tomorrow.

.

The article you have posted highlights the adverse effects of the outside world on South America's habitats and it's people. As a matter of fact, that article mentions how 42% of the population of people in one area had died as a result of diseases contracted by the indigenous people from foreigners. After reading this, how could any one even consider going to South America and risk killing almost half of a poplutaion. That Bush must be one evil cat to consider building a pipeline there! By the way Mr. Save The Earth, what are you doing there putting indigenous people at risk? Or is this yet another one of your double standards?

SnakeFeller