Wuffman wrote:


So when these tree huggers found out a fish that is not native to the
Klamath basin was in the resevore they decided that it may die off if the
water level droped any more and got the EPA to shut down access....

I support conservation and being responsable with God's resources but not at
the expense of a mans living.... just to be kind and not long winded I
won't even mention the Spotted owl thing.. or the green toad that stole my
grandmas house after she lived there for over 60 years!

Brian
Salem Oregon

Brian,

I have often wondered what George H.W. Bush would have said about the
spotted owl not being worth one American job if the bird that would have
been killed there had been the American Bald Eagle. Having been picked
as the American national bird, it has special protection that many
people don't want to extend to our other precious birds.

Too bad.

Louise
North Carolina

Conservation is a system problem that you need to approach from top to
bottom to be truly effective.

In the case of garbage the first thing is not to generate so much of it.
Effective theft control strips would save mountains of packaging that are
designed to make packages too big to get in you pocket and hog shelf space
to crowd out your competitor. Wrapping the fish in news paper instead of
plastic works great as well. Use the waste twice on the way out. If people
would accept it there are any number of edible coating we could cover meat
with.

The biggest bungle of all time was passing up atomic power plants and
sticking with coal an gas. Don't get me wrong I like the gas lease checks
and hope that they hit a well that my wife can tell her boss in two week I
going some were I don't know where yet but it isn't goanna be here. But we
could have safe, clean plentiful, cheap energy has we listened to reason
instead of emotion.

I am most failure with soil conservation that is an expensive ongoing effort
to prevent soil erosion. We are making a truly giant leap with no till and
reduced tillage at reversion the carbon loss in the soil and actually
building topsoil in day to day farming operations for the first time.

No Till will increase the arable land a substantial amount by allowing great
slopes to be farmed safely. Other genetic modification for salt tolerance
promise to make crops grow when watered with sea water. That one single
thing could go a long way toward solving food crisis we face in the next 50
years.

Conservation doesn't have to cost anything it can save money if it is done
right. Unfortunately our society is not designed to take a long look at
things. A politician looks only to the next election, the corporate officer
only to the next quarters numbers but if you look around agri business there
a lot of privately owned business. Four out of six of the big six grain
merchants are private multinational companies.

If I am not mistaken a small hotel room will hold a conference of well over
50% of the cotton sold and not a one need to make a phone call to make a
decision. So long range planning does pay you can only get away with the
inefficiencies of corporations where there is a lot of money to burn

The FDA, USDA, USGS. Corps of Engineers and even the EPA is coming around do
a good job of staying divorced from it's political funding and sticking to
their missions. Some to the point that they keep coming to work long after
the quit paying them.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

"Unicorn" wrote in message
.. .

Please explain. Do you want bigger holes?

Nope. Less consumption!
The issue is not about garbage and recycling of paper or metals. It is
about lowering the consumption in the first place. Why should a smallish
proportion of the worlds population account for the majority of the
consumption. Don't dig bigger holes. Just don't polute the environment
with
unnecesary consumption.


They are a panacea for a guilty conscience which
achieves nothing in the form of real conservation but meet the
politically
driven statistical notions of international agreements.

A great man once said "There are lies, Bloody Lies and Statistics"
before
you ever espouse anything in this life, make sure that our argument is
based
upon more that statistics. Winston Churchill was a very astute man.

Yep, there are fisherman who still sweat that it's seals, other
fishermen
or
something else - but NOT them - that's catching all the fish.

Yep, and a close look will probably show a combination of over fishing and
the ecological disruption of some goose that thought the seals needed
protection that changed the balance. A combination of to many seals and
too
many fishermen. Does that make the fishermen completely responsible
toredress the situation. I think NOT.




All conservation arguments are based upon population and sampling
statistics. Neither of which can be relied upon as either accurate or
unbiased.

So they are therefore un accurate and biased?

Conservation groups tend to only include the results which aid
their cause. Their opposition does the same. The truth is somewhere
in
the
mire in between.

Ah, some sense. Why doesn't your post follow this sense?

Because it is my opinion and as such does not have to agree with yours.
Your responses do however show a blinkered view or ecology and
environmental
issues, commonly encountered in the wealth city person who has no real
concept of what living near the land is about. They rely on such paragons
of honesty as green peace for their scant knowledge.


Matt

PS I include myself in the "They" . I would not be on the Internet
using
resources if I was not.

If you are speaking of the water rights issues in Oregaon, the fish is the
native SALMON, not a man-introduced species. And the reservoir is the
problem (from the fish's point of view, not necessarily mine). Although it
has no legal standing, the native americans below the dam do and those
rights have clearly been violated (as have most such rights that the US govt
has so benevolently supervised for the benefit of the native americans that
(apparently in the US opinion) cannot look after their rights themselves).
Farmers have drained the reservoirs to the extent they simply don't allow
water through and the salmon are dying in stagnant pools of no running
water.

Leaving out both the fish and the native americans (who have conservation
and hunting rights) and those of any wildlife and bears. There is still the
issue of the livelihood of other (non-native) americans who depend on the
rivers -- fishermen, wildlife guides, people renting cabins to fishermen,
those selling gas and groceries to the fishermen, etc.... The issue is much
more complex than letting some fish wreck the livelihood of a small number
of farmers (who may or may not be contributing to the over production of
many foods in this country, leading to poverty of many family farmers who
cannot make any wage from their efforts (let alone a living wage)). Similar
issues surround those running and working at paper mills in the southeast --
many times the pollution caused in the river downstream (which is deamed not
economically correctable by the mill and it's state govt and thus exempted
year after year by the EPA) is such that the economic effects on tourism
(not to mention the increased medical costs of those living next to the
river) far exceeds the annual gross sales of the mill. But any mention of
forcing the mill to bring their effluent into compliance results in threats
to close the mill, thrusting one small section of a small county into
poverty. Their state responds to the blackmail each time, as the jobs lost
and live affected are all downstream, in another state (which doesn't get to
vote in the elections of those who are causing their problems).


"Wuffman" wrote in message
news
You obviously don't have a grsp of the situation... a fish that was put
in
a man made resevore does not have any more rights to the water than the
men
that use " some " of the water.... the fish is not on the endagered
species
list...
or even on the threatened speciaes list... it was proven in a court of law
since then tha the average amount of water that is used by the farmers in
the basin would not be detrimental to the survival of the fish there...

Louise Adderholdt wrote in message ...

I have often wondered what George H.W. Bush would have said about the
spotted owl not being worth one American job if the bird that would have
been killed there had been the American Bald Eagle. Having been picked
as the American national bird, it has special protection that many
people don't want to extend to our other precious birds.

Well, you being in NC, you might not have seen the follow up on the
spotted owl fiasco. Not surprising because even people in Washington
State don't know of it, thanks to the "even handed" and "unbiased"
news media.

The USFS only searched for the spotted owl in old growth forest. The
spotted owl is *not* an old growth species, so it appeared to be
endangered. ("The pigeon is an endangered species! We spent a year
searching for it in the Brooks Range of Alaska and did not see a
single one!") The spotted owl is actually a subspecies of the barn owl
and readily cross breeds with it, and shares the barn owls favored
habitat, fringe growth and new second growth.

I think the funniest owl nest find was the one in the 7-11 sign.

The "enviornmentalists" encourage lying "for a good cause". Is it a
"good" cause if all of the supporters are telling little fibs?

"Offbreed" wrote in message
om...
Louise Adderholdt wrote in message
...

I have often wondered what George H.W. Bush would have said about the
spotted owl not being worth one American job if the bird that would have
been killed there had been the American Bald Eagle. Having been picked
as the American national bird, it has special protection that many
people don't want to extend to our other precious birds.

Well, you being in NC, you might not have seen the follow up on the
spotted owl fiasco. Not surprising because even people in Washington
State don't know of it, thanks to the "even handed" and "unbiased"
news media.

The USFS only searched for the spotted owl in old growth forest. The
spotted owl is *not* an old growth species, so it appeared to be
endangered. ("The pigeon is an endangered species! We spent a year
searching for it in the Brooks Range of Alaska and did not see a
single one!") The spotted owl is actually a subspecies of the barn owl
and readily cross breeds with it, and shares the barn owls favored
habitat, fringe growth and new second growth.

I think the funniest owl nest find was the one in the 7-11 sign.

The "enviornmentalists" encourage lying "for a good cause". Is it a
"good" cause if all of the supporters are telling little fibs?

Lying for a good cause is the fastest way to completely lose public, private
and government trust. This distraction in particular is very intolerant of
people that get caught. In light of his predecessors escapades he leaves
anyone caught in in impropriety swinging in the wind.

To fudge the evidence once makes all you evidence suspect. Having read a
number of EPA papers most don't pass the smell test. Things like confidence
levels of 1 out of 100 in trial with less than 100 plots and discarded
outliers that were not included with the data and marked. Most papers would
be C papers in grad courses. C in a grad course is Unsatfistory.

Putting a scientist in charge of the EPA is a step in the right direction.

But getting caught with fraudulent evidence is a sure way to loose you
credibility.

The government should be encouraging the framers to upgrade their irrigation
systems to the most efficient possible and assuring them that they will
retaining their water rights. As most of the deals stand now if you don't
use all your water allotment you risk loosing it. Not exactly conducive to
conservation. Farmers are very reluctant to renegotiate deals with the
government. Past experiance has shown use we always get the short dirty end
of the stick.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger