Environmentalists fail to prove their case | High Sierra Topix  

Environmentalists fail to prove their case

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar

Postby Buck Forester » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:42 am

JM21760, you make some good points, but I'm a little lost on your "Cat" analogy in some respects. The Cat too eats animals and often kills for "sport", if you will. Even if they are not hungry they will kill a rodent or a bird, just because they like to do so. It just seems you are blaming humans for this trait when in fact many predatory animals do so. I'm not a hunter myself, but I'm not anti-hunting and I certainly eat meat, but I prefer to turn a blind eye to how my hamburger patty got on my plate. I love fishing (although I rarely keep the fish I catch). I love stalking big trout and fooling them with a fly, there is something inherently exciting about this to man, whether it be stalking a trout or an elk. From my Christian perspective, God did make humans differently. We are the only creatures made in "His Image", which means we can reason and plan and manage and create and know right from wrong. So we are in essence above the Cat. But that said, God gave us a big (and wonderful) responsibility to take care of His creation, both animals and their habitat, including ours. If we weren't "above" the Cat in the first place, then we couldn't care for them, we would merely compete with them and place no value or concern on their well-being. I don't think a Cat cares about the survival of other species, it just does what it does. We can and should care about the Cat, we have the capacity to do so, although we don't always do a very good job at it.

As for global warming, I read both sides and I respect the science from both sides and I do believe there is a warming trend, but I am not convinced (nor am I not NOT convinced, ha ha!) that it is caused by humankind. It's a passionate subject, no doubt, so I think much of it goes beyond science. When I worked at REI I spoke at great length with a climatologist from UC Davis, and he definitely falls into the camp of a more liberal, environmentalist worldview, and he studies this extensively (both historically and current) and he was completely convinced this global warming is a natural cycle, which really surprised me coming from him. I just don't know what to make of it. I feel if we are to err, when it comes to the environment, we should perhaps err in favor of the environment rather than err on the side of business. A good example of this was the big fish kill in the Klamath River a few years ago... there was good science saying we needed higher releases to ensure survival of the Chinook run, while there was good science from the NAS saying the releases sought by the Bush Adm. was adequate. Well, a worst case scenario occurred and the low releases favoring the farmers, along with hot weather and not much rainfall, is what triggered the huge fish kill. No one wanted the fish to die like that, not even the farmers nor the Bush Adm., but they errored on the side of taking their chances with low releases (with science backed by the respected NAS but opposed by many other science/gov organizations), which in most cases would have been fine, but it didn't work out. With global warming the consequences are much more severe than one river's fish kill. I guess there's consequences to be paid with either choice. I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions!
Last edited by Buck Forester on Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.



User avatar
Buck Forester
Founding Member
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:38 pm
Location: Lincoln, CA (Sacramento area)
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby BSquared » Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:06 pm

Very nicely put, Buck. When we're playing with things like our own atmosphere, best to err on the side of caution, I agree.

As to "true believers:" I'm not a true believer, I'm a scientist ;) "Back off, man, I'm a scientist!" :unibrow:
User avatar
BSquared
Founding Member
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Jericho, VT
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker

User avatar

Postby caddis » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:35 pm

Makes you wonder what used to go on around the forests 200 years ago, before the Native Americans had chainsaws, fire arms, and the concept of money, and their "Home Range" was stolen from them.
I had a hard time understanding where the rest of your post comes into play in this topic so I’ll only respond to this


The native’s would burn the forest in order to bring more game this seems a lot more wasteful then scientifically managing the resources... So much for living in “harmony.” Regardless, it’s not a fair comparison when you talk about the natives crudely using vast resources compared to 300 million people using those same resources in a much more advanced society

As for having their home range stolen….ah well…it’s what they did to each other long before the white man showed up.


But there's also no doubt that environmentalism, generally, has had real, positive effects on the world we live in, from preserving wetlands to bringing back the osprey, eagle, and pelican, to --as George so succinctly put it -- protecting the very lands we love to hike in and write about on High-Sierra Topix.


I think it should also be noted that environmentalism is not the same as being an environmentalist.

I would say I am in favor of doing what is best and reasonable for the environment but I don’t subscribe to certain doomsday-environmentalist theories


Lastly: Global warming is still nothing but a theory and a poorly understood one at that. Weather is dynamic and global weather over that last 100 million years is even more so; From Ice ages to tropical environments. Computer models have not even been close to accurately predicting the “rise” of global temperatures. If the temps are increasing globally then how does that account for those areas that have decreased in temperature?


Just my 2 cents
Image
User avatar
caddis
Founding Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: Lemoore
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby BSquared » Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:04 pm

Well, this has gone on long enough, and I've certainly said enough. :lol: But for those who want the best information on global warming (there is no serious controversy about the ozone hole) I have a URL to recommend, despite my advice to read books instead of web pages: http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument. This is a National Academy of Sciences' global-warming website, and I think it provides a very good overview of the entire problem, particularly how certain or uncertain we are about various aspects of global warming.
User avatar
BSquared
Founding Member
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Jericho, VT
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker

User avatar

Postby Buck Forester » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:05 pm

BSquared, I don't necessarily disagree with your views or those of the NAS you linked to, but remember it was also the National Academy of Sciences recommendations that Bush based his Klamath River releases that devestated the chinook run on the Klamath that year. So, although I respect scientific study and conclusions, I also take some of it with a grain of salt too, because it is ever-changing and not always accurate. And I have also noticed that many sciences also have an "agenda" as well, they are not as neutral as we are led to believe. You can get science to pretty much back any conclusion you want, even if they are contradictory to each other. Even in legal juries the defense and prosecutors call on scientists to prove their differing points and come to different conclusions based on the same data. I do try and listen to all sides, whether it's politics or science or philosophy, etc., and on some things I make up my own mind, on others I just don't know who to believe. Global warming is one of those things I really don't know what the true causes are, or whether we could control it or not, and there is good science on both sides. But again, if it were me, I'd err on the side of being a good steward of God's creation.
User avatar
Buck Forester
Founding Member
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:38 pm
Location: Lincoln, CA (Sacramento area)
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby ERIC » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:58 pm

I was probably a bit premature in locking this thread (my bad), so I've decided to re-open it. It's a sticky subject, so just be extra careful to avoid personal attacks and name-calling and I'll keep the thread open. :-#
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2909
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Location: between the 916 and 661
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Postby mountaineer » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:20 pm

Eric,

How do you get that little spy gysmo in your signature to work? I want to do that! :D

P.S. Anybody who disagrees with me on the environmentalist wacko subject is a left wing, tree-hugging, moronic, loser. :D
User avatar
mountaineer
Founding Member
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:35 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby ERIC » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:42 pm

mountaineer wrote:How do you get that little spy gysmo in your signature to work? I want to do that! :D


http://www.danasoft.com/customsig.php \:D/
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2909
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Location: between the 916 and 661
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Postby mountaineer » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:41 pm

Thanks, I have seen it show up in a couple of places recently and thought it was pretty cool.
User avatar
mountaineer
Founding Member
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:35 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Environmentalists fail to prove their case

Postby dave54 » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:03 pm

hikerduane wrote:Where I live on/in the Plumas NF in Northern CA,
... I've seen one a couple times close to where I live, but it has been a number of years now.



Just north on Lassen NF is the Creeks Project, very similar to the Meadow Valley Project. Still finishing up the planning stages, the Lassen folks were keeping on eye on what happened [litigation] south. Interestingly, the activities planned on both the Meadow Valley and Creeks project are nearly identical to the management of Collins Pine Company does on their lands, and Collins is FSC certified, praised by environmentalists as a responsible timber company and an example of stewardship, etc. The Nature Conservancy also uses similar forest management activities. So when someone else does it it's good, but when the FS does it is bad.

I don't know everyone who worked on the Meadow Valley project, but on the Creeks project the planning team involved a wildlife biologist, an aquatic ecologist with a national reputation, a silviculturist who describes herself as a tree-hugging hippie chick, a transportation system planner who fly fishes all the streams in the affected area, a fire planner who is a certified FBAN (to the best of my knowledge no major environmental group has a certified FBAN on staff) and a recreation planner whose family has lived in the area for decades -- all local folks who have spent a good part of their careers with boots on the local ground. Yet their competence and motives are attacked on the environmental industry websites.

The environmental industry has long since lost any credibility on forest management issues. They are now rightly seen as a barrier to healthy forests.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby hikerduane » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:08 pm

I recall things once in awhile. Former President Clinton said something in Seattle shortly after getting elected along the lines of let local communities work things out. The QLG tried to do just that. A Sierra Club member who is a lawyer (Michael Jackson), a Forester who I think worked for SPI, former County Supervisor Bill Coates and a few others.

I didn't know it was modeled after Collins Pine. Everyone should look at their practices. Although I don't like the plantation look when going into the Caribou Wilderness via Hay Meadow.

I was talking to a rancher neighbor on Sunday afternoon and she said the logging close to where we live would extend beyond the immediate area of all of our homes. I thought the thinning and logging would only be around the outskirts of our community. Since it extends beyond some, maybe that is another reason it has been fought against.
Piece of cake.
User avatar
hikerduane
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Meadow Valley, CA, Carson City, NV
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby AldeFarte » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:27 am

Right on Dave. ZERO credibility. They are a barrier to proper mgt. of all resources. Hunters , trappers, Fishermen{women},Timber companies, forest service managers, etc. They all have a vested interest in Sustainable harvest of renewable resources. That means healthy resource. They are the last ones that want to see things disappear. Or diminish to a point where they are no longer a viable renewable resource. I have read and am old enough to have witnessed the fact that sometimes the ugliest timber harvest is the best for the resource, because it scarifies the land and that is what a healthy forest needs to replinish. Mineral soil. Of course no one wants to see that, or a nasty old fire, but it IS healthy. The Indians had it right and they did it for entirely selfish reasons. Old growth is awsome and beautiful but not neccesarily healthy. It is the end game. Our generations seem to have a need to want to keep things the way they are. The world is not static. {I.E. climate} I am of the belief that the enviro orgasmizations have an alternate purpose other than saving the environment. Tho many people join them in the belief that they can help by doing so. Remember Luke, the power of the dark side can be deceptive. jls
User avatar
AldeFarte
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Eklutna, Ak.
Experience: N/A

PreviousNext

Return to The Campfire



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests