Reptile & Amphibian Forums

If you care at all about the environment in this country it is important that you vote in next fall's elections. The below is just one example of the irreperable damage this administration is responsible for. This is the time to get involved!

Joe
================

EPA Biologist Resigns in Protest of Wetlands Study

WASHINGTON, DC, October 23, 2003 (ENS) - A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biologist has resigned in protest of the agency's acceptance of a controversial study that concludes wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb, according to a statement released Wednesday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The EPA's approval of the study gives developers credit for improving water quality by replacing natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments, PEER says.

"In the Bush administration's bizarre world of 'sound science,' wetlands cause pollution and there is no evidence of global warming," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "EPA's new position that wetlands pollute stands the Clean Water Act on its head and sends the all clear signal to developers that no project is out of bounds."

The report was financed by a group of local developers in Southwest Florida. It concludes that wetlands generate pollution and recommends that developers be allowed to avoid federal wetlands restrictions by allowing a few cattle to graze in the wetland so it can classified as "improved pasture."

The agency's acceptance of the report was too much for Bruce Boler, a former state water quality specialist to take - he resigned after three years with the EPA.

In his resignation statement, Boler cited the stance taken by the EPA Regional Administrator Jimmie Palmer that the agency "would not oppose state positions, so if a state had no water quality problems with a project then neither would EPA."

The state of Florida has already signed off on the controversial wetlands report.

"Ultimately, the politics in southwest Florida have proven to be stronger than the science," Boler wrote in his resignation letter.

Although it is very depressing.

Florida is a world of hurt in a lot of ways.

It doesnt surprise me that the EPA rolled over on its back like a stray poodle in heat on this subject. It seems the same organizations that are put in place to *prevent* these types of travesties from happeing are the same ones that actually *promote* it. The current administrations stand on the enviornment is disasterous, but make no mistake, the FORMER administrations position on it was equally as abyssmal, dont fool yourselves into thinking it wasnt. It seems developers have a powerfull lobby in Wasgington,lots of money to throw at it, and politicians sewn up in their pockets.

The real loser in this is the future generations of children of OURS and our childrens, who may never even get to see unspoiled habitat, or habitat that hasnt been "Divided" and parceled out.Dean is right....this is OUR time to do something about this and stem this tide of greed. My only question is how? and for that I have no answer.

Sincerely,

Fred Albury

S'all about money and money talks.

I think that supporting legislation that values the environment
is important...

and supporting organizations like the nature conservacy
(www.tnc.org)Who basically BUY habitat.

It's awfully hard to compete with wal mart and all the retirement villages (people just keep getting old and wanting to move to Florida you know)
but...politicians do care about what is going to get them votes.

So...if enough people get riled up about things like this...

Education of the masses. And try to get them to care.
Most people just don't understand the signifiance of this habitat.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

The general public can move mountains if you can just get them to love something and care. Therein lies the challenge.

that they are under Congressional Investigation for violating non-profit status and giving their leaders hugh plots of land for small donations? What do you think they are going to do with it other than put up a resort home for themselves?

How about logging and drilling on land that they own that is reserved as an endangered native bird habitat.

Here's the proof since people that disagree with me keep wanting references-http://www.familywateralliance.com/nature_conservancy.htm

Did you know they get 30 million it taxpayer dollars besides their 700 million in donations? Why the h*** are they getting tax dollars from the govt.? Think they made a deal?HUH?Kickbacks?

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/30/sheriff.htm

How about their officers salaries and unbelievable holdings (like large buildings and such).

http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/20010422.html

Nope, you proved my point well. Another fraudulent "environmental" organization getting the foolish public to throw money at them. Especially for getting the land set up as a reserve to be protected and then logging and drilling on it for profit! After all, they need more than $700 million a year just to get by! Nope, not environmentalists at all, just in name to get their money!

Rodney

Just use a search engine and put in something like Nature conservancy and fraud, or investigation and you will get tons of hits from newspapers around the country.

Rodney

With due respect Fred - the Bush assault on the environment is in a different league altogether - he is simply the worst thing to happen to our natural heritage in recent history. Read his record on the environement - just the facts are available from the NRDC web site.

You can vote for Bush, but don't do so telling yourself he is really no worse than others - his environmental record is stunning.

The below summary if an overview of a very detailed explanation of the Bush environmental record from the NRDC. The details are available at:

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressReleases/030116.asp
========================
New Report Documents the Bush Administration's Sweeping Assault on the Environment
NRDC Says White House "Rewriting Rules" for Industry

WASHINGTON (January 16, 2003) -- For the second year in a row, the Bush administration undermined America's landmark environmental laws, as federal agencies announced -- on almost a daily basis -- regulatory changes to weaken safeguards for our air, water, forests, wildlands, wetlands, wildlife, and public health. That was the principle finding of a new report by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), which details more than 100 anti-environmental actions over the past year and highlights the fact that the administration intensified its assault after the November mid-term congressional elections.

"Last year, the White House escalated its efforts to weaken or roll back our bedrock environmental laws," said Gregory Wetstone, NRDC's director of advocacy. "And it's going to get worse. America's environmental protections have been challenged before, but never have they faced a threat as far-reaching, insidious and destructive as one posed by the Bush administration and the new Congress."

The report, Rewriting the Rules, Year-End Report 2002: The Bush Administration's Assault on the Environment, shows that the White House has enlisted every federal agency that oversees environmental programs in a coordinated effort to relax regulations for oil, coal, logging, mining, chemical, automakers, and other industries. The report also shows how the White House Office of Management and Budget played a central role in coordinating this onslaught.

Additionally, the report found that the administration, emboldened by the results of the November elections, accelerated its efforts to make major policy changes that benefit industry at the expense of the environment and public health. Some of the most glaring examples documented in the report include:

* Changes to the Clean Air Act by the Environmental Protection Agency that provide the nation's oldest and dirtiest power plants and refineries with loopholes exempting them from installing modern pollution controls when they upgrade or expand their facilities in ways that increase emissions.
* New EPA and Army Corps of Engineers policies to relax and, in some cases, end Clean Water Act protection for millions of acres of wetlands and other waterways; eliminate corporate liability for "factory farm" pollution; and exempt mining waste from regulation as a pollutant under federal law.
* A series of proposals by the Forest Service and other federal agencies to eliminate requirements for environmental review and public participation when considering logging, mining, drilling, development and other projects in all 155 national forests and on millions of acres of public lands.

"It's no accident some of the Bush administration's biggest handouts to corporate interests happened after Election Day," said Wetstone. "Americans voted for many things in November, but they didn't vote for a sweeping attack on the environment."

The report also notes how the Bush administration routinely tries to minimize public scrutiny of its anti-environmental policies by withholding information from the media until late on Friday evenings or around major holidays. For example, the EPA announced its major changes to the Clean Air Act a few days after Thanksgiving and on New Year's Eve. The administration also uses environmentally friendly euphemisms to mask the true intent and impact of its policy proposals. For example, the White House dubbed its plan to allow timber companies increased access to old-growth forests -- under the guise of fire prevention -- the "Healthy Forests" initiative, and refers to logging as "thinning."

"America's landmark environmental laws have safeguarded our health, improved our quality of life, and preserved our natural heritage," said Wetstone. "The Bush administration's quiet, back-door assault on environmental protections is no less an attack on the air we breathe, the water we drink and the last remaining special places we hold dear."

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 500,000 members nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

One thing to think about though, is all the asinine environmentalist that don't know squat about science. Ask these idiots about conservation of matter and they have no idea what you are talking about! Most environmental organizations in existence today will let anyone do almost anything, if you give them some blood money. How many of the organizations are run by lawyers who make their living by suing anyone they can--and then will give their blessing once some money is coughed up? It happens all the time.

Carbon dioxide is considered as a major problem for global warming, and trying to reduce emissions of it is total nonsense. Every living thing produces it! Every bacterium that is involved in decomposing something produces it. Every tree that falls and rots produces it. Every tree that burns in a forest fire produces it. Even volcanos produce it (and a lot more than we ever could!) The only easy, realistic way to reduce it, in reality, is to cut trees down and put them into houses PREVENTING the wood from decomposing back into soil and carbon dioxide! Tell that to an environmentalist, and all of the sudden, they can't tell which is worse--cutting down trees or letting more CO2 into the environment! How many of these environmental groups sue to prevent the thinning of forests? How many of these idots understand that a burning tree produces a huge amount of CO2, and cutting trees WILL reduce CO2 caused by forest fires? And then they are against CO2 and thinning trees also!

I can easily see why such a study would actually be valid in many people's eyes(not mine). I am sure that a wet land area will produce a LOT more carbon dioxide with all the decomposing plant and animal matter involved, not to mention all the living things in the wetland producing it. A large portion of that plant and animal matter wouldn't be present in nearly the same volume on a golf course or housing project, thus reducing CO2 produced per area of land.

No, I am not against saving wetlands, just pointing out the nonsense that the fraudulent "environmentalist" push on us all. I don't think CO2 is any problem at all, but environmentalist do think it is, and that goes against their other arguements, and science!

I heard a very interesting interview on the radio the other day. They were interviewing a scientist that invents devices to measure things like ozone/co2/etc. Anyway, did you know that most scientist think the earth is actually cooling? (about 1,700 scientists signed a petition saying there is global warming and that we are causing it ---and another 17,000 who say there is no evidence of warming, and even if someone had that evidence, there is no evidence that it is even being caused by us!) You will hear about the 1,700 scientists on the news all day long, but you will never hear about the 17,000!!

The evidence that disproves global warming is gathered using satellites to monitor the earth's heat. This shows that the earth is indeed cooling. Why don't you hear about this on the news? No money in it for environmental orginizations and it doesn't make for good ratings for the news shows! It is believed that increased building has caused the readings of earth based monitoring to be inaccurate. Readings of temps. are generally taken around airports, capital cites and such. Due to all the new building of roads, homes and businesses over the years has caused the reading to steadily climb. Ever notice how hot it gets in an asphalt parking lot? Has anyone ever told you that the measurements taken only show a major increase in heat at night and in the winter? Has anyone ever told you that summer and day time highs are either not effected or almost not effected? Has anyone ever told you that if it was cooling, it would be worse because crops yeilds wouldn't be as large and a lot of people would be starving due to a food shortage?

Frankly, I'd take global warming over an ice age any day! On top of that, I wouldn't trust an environmental organization to tell the truth over the white house. They both make their living as lawyers, or is it liars. It seems like all you have to do nowadays is mention ethical or environmental and no one could be opposed to you regardless of what you actually do. Not to mention the foolish public throwing money at you! Environmentalism is BIG BUSINESS, yet most radical liberals both endorse environmentalism and condemn big business. Does that make sense?

Just something to think about.

Sorry for such a long post, but it really makes me mad thinking about all the damage environmental organizations are doing. I don't like businesses ruining the environment, but I really hate environmentalist doing the same while claiming they are saving us all--had to vent a little!

Rodney

First off, let me say that I am an evironmentalist & I do care about habitat destruction. However, I am not one of those environmentalist whackos who would have you believe that WE humans are the cause of every bad thing that happens to the environment.
Rodney makes some good (even if they aren't popular) points in his rather lengthy post.There is good & bad on both sides but I would trust this administration over the past one on ANYTHING! You just can not trust the liberals on anything & that's what the evironmentalist whackos are.
I personally support the thinning of forrests (done responsibly of course)& I support the drilling of oil in Alaska. Until we find a good substitute for oil, we need to use whatever resources we have in our own country to avoid dependancy on middle eastern nations.
In my humble opinion the most important issues facing our nation & our world are not environmental issues but moral & ethical issues. Our nation has gone spiritually & morally bankrupt & noone seems to care about that.
We love spending quality time camping, fishing, herping & many other things & we are involving our 4 year old twin sons in these activities as well & they love them! I would be greatly disturbed if they or their children were unable to enjoy these things in the future. However, I am far more concerned about them growing up & being bombarded by all the lies taught in our schools & by our society in general that says there is no God & that it is ok to do what every you want, including drugs, sleeping around, killing babies etc. I want not only my kids but all future generations to know that there is a better life waiting for them when this one comes to an end; and this administration supports morality.
The bottom line is this if given a choice between voting for a prolife/profamily/proGod candidate & a pro-choice environmentalist whacko such as the previous administration, I will take the former EVERY time!

God bless America!

Eric

Rodney,

You and Eric have jumped in with your contributions but seem to have quickly resorted to name calling and un-referenced assertions. Would it be possible to keep that out of future posts? It doesn't really inform anyone of anything other than your inability to carry on a civil discussion.

I am curious if you recall the radio show you were listening to that stated so few scientists actually belive that global warming is occuring? My reading indicates the opposite.

Below is a very good (and short) overview of the debate on global warming written by a NASA scientist. I think it does a good job laying out the issues.

Joe
===============

The Global Warming Debate

By James Hansen

The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. --Richard Feynman

In my view, we are not doing as well as we could in the global warming debate. For one thing, we have failed to use the opportunity to help teach the public about how science research works. On the contrary, we often appear to the public to be advocates of fixed adversarial positions. Of course, we can try to blame this on the media and politicians, with their proclivities to focus on antagonistic extremes. But that doesn't really help.

The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious, political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence). Indeed, science thrives on repeated challenge of any interpretation, and there is even special pleasure in trying to find something wrong with well-accepted theory. Such challenges eventually strengthen our understanding of the subject, but it is a never-ending process as answers raise more questions to be pursued in order to further refine our knowledge.

Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism.

I have argued in a recent book review that some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. But some of the topics focused on by the skeptics are recognized as legitimate research questions, and also it is fair to say that the injection of environmental, political and religious perspectives in midstream of the science research has occurred from both sides in the global warming debate.

continued here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Propaganda trumps science in Limbaugh world. Sad but true.

If more time was spent reading rather than dittoing in righteous indignation...

Thanks for having the guts to bring this up, but Bush was annointed by God, and certainly has no intentions of doing anything that might harm our planet and the creatures that dwell here...

Who said anything about Limbaugh?
I don't agree with propaganda over science. There is no place for propaganda in any aspect of life.
However, too much of the stuff that passes for science is in reality nothing more than propaganda.

Eric

I was refering to the the worry/fear mongering politicians, peta members, green peace activists & animal rights lobbyists who think that animals are more important than humans.
If you choose to consider yourself a part of the groups I am refering to then you are choosing your label.

Eric

Eric,

You stated or implied that those who disagree with you are "environmentalist whackos" Thats not actually saying anything, just name calling - its not productive.

If you believe someone is wrong then please state your opinion and do try to offer some supporting evidence.

You say, for example, "You just can not trust the liberals on anything & that's what the evironmentalist whackos are. "

That type of arguement is an attempt to demonize your oponent in the debate so that you don't have to actually provide evidence for your assertion. Its decidedly unhelpful, as Mr. Rumsfeld says

You also said, "Our nation has gone spiritually & morally bankrupt & noone seems to care about that. "

and...

"However, I am far more concerned about them growing up & being bombarded by all the lies taught in our schools & by our society in general that says there is no God & that it is ok to do what every you want, including drugs, sleeping around, killing babies etc. "

Here your saying that people (liberals? environmentalists?) are liars and permiscuous athiests. Do you think this is fair or balanced? (Hope Mr. O'Rielly doesn't sue me over the use of that term!)

My point is that its hard enough to have a civil discussion concerning environmental issues with out people getting dogmatic and posting personal attacks, maybe we can reign that in?

Joe

.

Check this out. It tells how many scientist disagree with all the global warming theories.

http://www.pushback.com/environment/fraudulent-environment.html

The liberal media won't tell you this info. so you can make an informed decision.--They will only tell you one side of the story. Listen to both sides and then make up your mind. (And don't make up your mind and then try to validate your decision!)

I didn't think I was calling anyone names, but if I did, I appologize. And I have heard this info. on multiple radio stations. (KGO and KSFO to name 2 of them) The scientist in me gets really aggitated when people present opinions and theories as facts when there is little evidence to support them.

It seems like now-a-days, if you tell the truth, you are considered a right wing wacko and if you are politically correct and wrong about something, you are a good liberal. What ever happend to just being right or wrong about something or telling the truth or not?

Rodney

n/p
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

When you were sleeping through Science class in elementry school did you ever hear of a process called PHOTOSYNTHESIS?? Plants take in C02 and release Oxygen. Chopping down trees increases the amount of C02 because there are less trees to convert it. Without plants there would not be enough oxygen for animals. We are talking Extinction here! the formula is;
CO2 H2O=CH2O O2 Or Carbon dioxide water is converted into Glucose Free oxygen.
If you are going to act like you know science....please read what you are expounding first.
Frank

PS. My wife is a Biologist...I just stayed awake in school

I think my key is stuck....Anyhow it is Free Oxygen and glucose that is produced, Necessary products!
frank

Go back & re-read his post. He didn't say that "living" plants give off co2. He said that "decaying" plants give of co2 & that is true.

Eric

My objection was that his solution was to cut down living trees and make houses out of them to solve the CO2 problem. That is DUMB! Reread his post and you will see what I mean. Remember this all started because of a report favoring building on wetlands of south west Fla paid for by the builders in that area.
Frank

I know what he said & I can't be sure of his intentions, but I believe it was said with tongue in cheek.

Eric

That is why they are called Trolls. Nothing constructive...just statements designed to provocate rather than improve....Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

What you seem to be missing, is that plants only produce oxygen and consume CO2 DURING photosynthesis. Plants even consume oxygen and produce CO2 at night! (though not as much as they do the reverse of during the day.) Every molecule of oxygen that is produced, and every molecule of CO2 consumed during ANY plants life, will revert to the original balance in place before that plant existed! -- Conservation of matter.

If a plant produces, for example, 10 lbs. of oxygen during it's life, as it decomposed back into soil, it will consume 10 lbs. of oxygen in the decomposition process--regardless of whether it is oxygen consumed in a fire or oxygen consumed by various bacteria and other organisms during rotting.

If you harvest the plant in a way that prevents it from turning back into soil, you have created a net gain in oxygen and a net loss in CO2 for those years-(until, it eventually does decompose by either a house fire, termites, that house being torn down, etc.) You will have that gain for far more many years than you would by not harvesting the wood.

Not to mention the benefit to the forest by thinning it a little.

Consider the Spotted Owl fraud. Here is a bird that is well known to nest in cities. Most famous are a couple of different pairs that liked the K in the Kmart sign to make their nest. And then we are told that large trees can't be cut because it will remove their ONLY nesting sites. No one mentions the fact that a lot of forest thinning is done by cutting the SMALLER trees to prevent fires from getting so powerful that the larger trees can't survive them! Small fires are normal and often good for the health of a forest, huge fires kill everything and obliterate the forest for many decades. So what did the "environmentalists" do. Eliminated thousands of lumber jobs, hurt the economy with higher lumber prices, hurt the environment with unstoppable fires. They were able to do all this by filing court case after court case and convincing judges that "business is bad" and "we are good". (and please judge, don't listen to the forestry service that knows what should be done!)

Another point to think about regarding global warming. Plants absorb a lot of heat during photosynthesis.--The same amount of heat they give off during a fire or rotting (conservation of energy). If CO2 and heat levels rise, plants will grow faster and larger (all the while absorbing more heat) and producing more OXYGEN. Ever notice how much better plants grow in summer? I believe that plants are the main force keeping the earth's temps. in balance, thought they can't control the temps. if there is a huge disaster like an asteroid or large volcano. Harvesting that wood in the overgrown forests would also give the ecosystem a net loss of temperature!! Tell that to a rabid environmentalist! Help cool the earth by cutting trees. --The science is there, but most environmentalists won't even consider the truth because it goes against their political views!

I consider myself an environmentalist too, I just don't believe things that environmentalist organizations tell me it they don't make since scientifically. What I object too, are people that don't look at the whole picture and only look at one little segment and think that that explains everything.--and then object to looking at the whole picture because it isn't politically correct.

By the way, I never listen to Limbaugh. That is part of the problem. Instead of looking to science to find answers, too many people now try to find a way to USE science to hold up their political views and knock another persons party. Instead, try using science to FORM you political views and I think you will have a different outlook.

Sorry I am so passionate about this subject, but it really irks me what some environmentalists groups do. It seem like most environmetalists actions are either have a good intent and backfire, or are totally self serving to make themselves and their lawyers rich! (all the while telling everyone business are evil because they make some hard working business man rich).

Rodney

You said we could lower the earths global temperature by cutting forests. Should we replant those forests (in which case, they would start producing more heat), or just turn them into wastelands? In your research have you found how much of our remaining forests we would have to clear cut in order to compensate for man belcing green house gasses into the skies?

Are you seriously thinking that this is a viable way to combat global warming?

Joe

First of all, let me say that global warming estimates keep getting lower and lower. First it was 3-5 degrees in the next 100 years then it was 1-2 degrees, and now it is something like .5 degrees---and that could be lowered by about .1 degree (from a .5 to a .4 degree increase) by spending MANY TRILLIONS of tax payers dollars to lower green house gasses.--doesn't make good economic sense to me. (not to mention that the SAME scientist that think there is global warming today thought we were entering an ice age back in the 1960's!)

Do I think that allowing cutting of SOME trees (not clear cutting forests) could possible lower the earths temps. by a couple tenths of a degree over the next 100 years by making forest fires a lot smaller, rarer and easier to control once the start? Possibly. If CO2 is really a green house gass (I personally don't think it is) and you consider that cutting harvestable trees will lower green house gasses AND the heat produced from letting those trees go to waste, it could make a small difference over the next 100 years. Plus, who knows what the estimates of global warming will be 5 years from now? Will it continue to go down like it has in the past?

What I am really saying is that is seem like everything that "environmentalist" groups condemn actually helps the environment and almost everything they support hurts the environment. Why? They don't care about anything but money anymore.

I don't know of a singe "environmentalist" orginazation that isn't composed of a bunch of lawyers trying to make a buck by suing corporations. They aren't concerned about the environment, they are concerned about their bottom line. Green peace used to be a good one, but even the founder of Green peace quit and no longer endorses them because the lawyers took it over.

One other thing that no one mentions is water vapor. Yes, I am talking about fog/clouds/etc. That is also a very detrimental "gas" as far as global warming. I have heard that it has far more of an effect on global warming that CO2 does. Do you think we should eliminate clouds while we are it? I happen to think that rain is good for the environment.

Rodney

Enviromentalist groups are like churches....They may start with a good idea...but they all end up as businesses.
frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I did not miss that little point about photosythesis. I mearly pointed out that to destroy the forests as you so adamantly posted early on(making houses out of them)...Would eliminate the process. Your science is good but incomplete. It should not matter what plants do at night. When allowed to grow and function NORMALY they produce enough oxygen to get us thru that dark night. Perhaps that is why we are by nature Diurnal. Less activity means less air used. the CO2 balancing act you speak of would only hold true if all plants lived the same life cycle, dying or being born all at once. In the natural world forests grow and increase unless altered by geological or celestial events. The proof of this is the continuation of animal life on this planet vs the great extinctions of the past.
It is man who is offsetting the laws of nature to pervert them to his will...and it is man's production of pollutants that is shifting the balance. And then he complains when his errors result in damage, that it is not his fault (especially if it stands in the way of his making a buck), like a little boy with his hand caught in the cookie jar...just can't lie his way out of the truth.
It should be pointed out that man is the only creature that has to alter his enviroment to survive. Other species that have done so have become extinct.
But back to your comments. Fire is natures thinner-correct! Damn nice to see an intelligent arguement. pine forests need fire to help the seed of the next generation to grow by thinning the seed shell walls in the cones. It clears up dead wood. But, bulldozing a forest for homes is complete destruction and destroying wetlands is (as I stated before)eliminating Nature's nursery. That is the simple truth.
And no politician can change that.

A thought; The majority of Indigos left in South Florida live in wetlands (not Golf courses or cities). If you are an Indigo fan. Are you advocating the destruction of their habitat?
Frank

PS..Thankyou for an intelligently reasoned out post.
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

My local Herp society!(for the record)
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Maybe things are different where you come from, but here in California and the West coast, environmentalism is insane. We have groups clubbing salmon and throwing them on the ground to rot because "they are not natural" since people pulled salmon from a river and harvested the eggs and milt years ago.--who cares that they carry the genes of their parents.--they are considered man-made and evil by the environmental lobby.

The Forestry department supports thinning of the forests because it is good for the health of the forest. The "environmental" orginazations do not because it is not good for their pocketbooks.

No harvesting of ANY trees is allowed in many forests due to all the lawsuits. (Nowhere in any of my previous posts have I endorsed clear cutting.) As a result we are having worse and worse fires that essentially sterilize the forest instead of renewing it.--there is no reseeding process. EVERYTHING IS DEAD. No animals, no plants-period. I have heard stories (recounted from fire-fighters) of birds bursting into flames while trying to fly out of the fires because the heat is so intense. It takes many, many decades for the larger trees to come back. The environmentalists even sue to prevent the forestry department from reseeding of these damaged areas! Is that nuts or what? If management of the forest was allowed, this would stop. "Environmentalists" prevent this from happening by bringing lawsuit after lawsuit. No one will fight them except for a hand-full of true environmentalist lawyers -- who aren't getting rich fighting them--they are barely surviving on donations. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, put environmentalist or ethical in the name of your organization and fools will throw money at you, regardless of what you REALLY do.

I'm totally for saving the environment, it's just that out here, "environmentalist" orginazations do the opposite. The envoronmentalists argue "any intrusion by man is bad". and "It's wrong to try to help an area recover because man helping is not natural"

We even had a case here where some oil was found in the ground when a road was being made. What was done? A lawsuit to remove the "contaminated" soil. Thousands of taxpayers dollars wasted and a lot of red tape and wasted time. Then, after all the lawsuits, the fresh clean dirt was covered with asphalt. What is one of the main ingredients in asphalt? You guessed it--petroleum. Now the soil is in the same shape it was before, but now there is a dump site with all that "contaminated" soil, PLUS all the wasted time/money/energy--for nothing--and many people support this nonsense because nature/conservation or some other catch pharase is used?

Rodney

I see you error here. You are looking at a Florida problem from a California view point. We are very different here.
To put it simply...Unlike you-we live in a tropical climate in South Florida. The entire system depends upon the wetlands. lake Okeechobee acts like the flushing system for the south. The water flows from it to the ocean by means of the Everglades. This also keeps the salt water from intruding into our aquifer. Over 90% of our wildlife uses the glades as their home and nursery. the moist warm air from the glades acts as a buffer to make the rain fall where needed. That is how it was supposed to work...
Begining in the 1940's two severe blows fell on South Florida. The first was the canal system that diverted much of the water from the glades, the second was the awakening of America to Floridas value as realestate. Millions of tons of Melaleuca seed were dropped on the glades to dry it up for housing. Our population exploded.
Because of this the normal flow of the glades was disrupted causing the normal healthy fires to burn off the peat layer that was our natural filtration system. parts of the glades became arid. because of the diverted water flow...salt water encroached deep inland. Big Sugar's biproducts caused huge buildups of mercury and other pollutants which settled instead of being flushed out. The people voted for a cleanup for the glades that would have rectified some of the problems but Gov Bush delayed it for 25 years to appease the sugar industry. What is left of our wetlands is critical for our enviromental survival.
The bottom line here is that this is about Florida-not California. We may hang chads here....but at least we keep our gubenatorial candidates under 1,000. Before you call me misinformed, Learn about my state. We don't have all the nuts and flakes you have running wild around your state. Business rules...and everything is prioritised by the make a buck rule.
There is an excellent book about Florida I would recommmend By Louis Porras (yes, the reptile breeder) THE ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT OF MAN ON THE SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA. It tells the story in a much more detailed fashion. Read it and then you might be qualified to express an educated opinion on issues involving our climate and developement
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I think we have beat this subject to death! It just really irks me when people start knocking the president and talking about a subject like global warming like it is a proven fact. That is really what got me going in the beginning!

http://pushback.com/environment/fraudulent-environment.html

It's been fun talking/debating with you.

I agree that California's ecology problems and Florida's are completely different, but I doubt that the environmental groups are much different between here and there!

The fires that are Currently burning in San Diego, Ca. kind of proves my points.

Just curious, but where do you think all the O2 in the environment is produced from?

We know that it isn't from plants (unless prevented from decomposing). It obviously isn't from animals, volcanos, etc.--they do the opposite or space. It must be coming from some type of system that is somehow being temporarily interrupted. Phytoplankton makes perfect sense. It produces O2 and consumes CO2, then it dies, sinks to the very cold bottom of the ocean and is slowly covered with debris so it can't decompose (or decomposes very little) and release all the CO2 and consume all the O2 that it produced. It also is a HUGE volume of life that could be doing this considering the oceans size and that it can live within the top 20-30 feet of water. (I know it moves up and down with light levels, day and night, and such--just saying that it can be fairly thick compared to the average thickness/volume of life on the earths land areas). So many people think that all the O2 we breath comes from plants. That is such misinformation considering that as one plant lives and produces O2, another dies and does the opposite--another thing that irks me!--Too many wives tales that a lot of the public believe! LOL

Rodney

I never said we should destroy the forests to make houses. I said we should preserve them by the management of them which includes some cutting. Before we were here, there were small fires. By small, I mean that they weren't so intensely hot as to destroy everything--not small as in land area. Those fires simply got rid of a lot of undergrowth and some of the saplings. With environmental groups stopping ALL management of our forests, we are doing a disservice to them. Many of our forests are strangling themselves due to too many plants or too many large plants in too small an area -- and then burning uncontrollably during fires.

I also was just pointing out the amazing contradictions that "environmentalist" organizations have in their arguments. Not allowing the cutting of trees does the exact opposite of what they want regarding CO2 and global warming.

Also, stopping the cycle of trees turning into soil and then back into trees can produce the effects that so many environmentalist organizations want. Allowing the cycle to continue results in NO net positive effect on CO2 or O2 in the environment. Basically, a trees life is somewhat irrelevant in that everything that it produces, it also consumes in death-unless the cycle is artifically stopped.

It is the phytoplankton that seem to be the real saviors of the environment as far as CO2 and O2. And then they get removed from the cycle when the fall to bottom of the ocean, eventually turned into oil, and we burn the oil returning those elements to the environment again.

Rodney

Oh...I know about Phyloplankton (you over rate it). Besides...all the unrestricted runoff from agriculture and industry is messing with that too...Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Seems like I am always reading about algea blooms in lakes and areas of oceans where the algea is significantly increased and killing the corals and such due to the runoff. I think it tends to kill the Zooplankton, but helps the Phytoplankton.

Rodney

Not when the runoff consists primarely of pesticides. It has been fun..But no...We really have nothing to compare with the lunacy that passes for enviromentalism in your state...But try to find that book I recommended...it really is a good read!
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Seems like out here it is always more of a problem with phosphates from fertilizers and detergent runoff than pesticides. I also wouldn't think that pesticides would tend to kill phytoplankton since it is designed to be put directly on plants.

Rodney

1958 The state of Florida launched a major mosquito innitiative. DDT was sprayed in huge amounts to erradicate the pest. The result was massive introduction of the poison into the entire enviroment. Eagles died off as the eggs they laid had thin shells...from the DDT they ingested from eating fish. It is estimated that 90% of Florida's wildlife died off from this mistake. DDT was banned but the damage was never recovered from. Many species (especially birds) all but disappeared from our skies...Now the most common birds you see here are from other places that migrated and became established...Particularly members of the crow family. As far as the ocean goes...where do you think all that DDT washed to? I have to wonder how much of an effect it had there. I wonder about the Red Tides, the whale beachings...What is causing this??
Frank

In fresh water situations excessive phospates cause a massive overgrwth of algae which kills off the rooted vascular plants below...The result is death for all animal life that is dependant on those plants for food....and then for those who feed on the herbifores...FM
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thread moved form the indigo forum
-----
_____

PHWyvern