hmmm... got to love these half formed propaganda pieces.

What species is GUARANTEED extinction because of the 4000, square meter area
around the mine?
or is it a small minnow from one of the proposed small dams to prevent
flooding?

What is the assumption here... pollution? destruction of habitat?

Maybe a wild grass only found here? Details.... please... or go away.
I am assuming the .5 million + pounds from the company to be spent by local
environment groups is unable to save this species?
http://www.mcleaninternationalmining...ages/press.htm

Before I send email to a company about what they are doing I need far more
details than you bothered to give. Since it is a UK company, mining in
the UK, isn't this mostly a problem for the UK? Not that I am unconcerned
if there are legitimate concerns here.... but I certainly can't tell that
in the blurb you posted. And you didn't give any links to places with more
complete information.

John



wrote in message
...
Please read this itll only take you a minute - it could be your local area
next...!
The corporations are at it again, this time focussing their attentions on
a small part of the SW of England. A large international mining company
claims to have found platinum in the UK and in their quest for money are
going to extinquish at least 1 species from our planet. Butterflies, birds,
small mammals, fish and even some plants are at risk from extinction if this
corporate monster is not stopped.

Please, please, please send as many emails as you can to register your
views at - like i said, it could be your
area next...

Thanks
Harry
P.A.W.E

wtfxyypuifivbssvpwguryfnrlnnckfwhjdumblcertxmkvcyc nfsetflvgkfqtkbbfkzjvyldlo
okfxbnjegbnojyceyerztdgl

TOO SHAE!!!!

I agree many close friends nearly lost their farms over the last 2 summers
becuse of enviromental kooks like this!!!!

They were not alowed water from a resevore that ( man made resevore) the US
government promised them in writing that they would have garenteed warter.
Many of these farmers started Farming in the Klamith Basin post WWII and for
many years they have been ver prosperouse... but the plight of the small
farmer has always been borrow big in the spring and pay back in the fall...
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



"Thirsty Viking" wrote in message
...
hmmm... got to love these half formed propaganda pieces.

What species is GUARANTEED extinction because of the 4000, square meter
area
around the mine?
or is it a small minnow from one of the proposed small dams to prevent
flooding?

What is the assumption here... pollution? destruction of habitat?

Maybe a wild grass only found here? Details.... please... or go away.
I am assuming the .5 million + pounds from the company to be spent by
local
environment groups is unable to save this species?
http://www.mcleaninternationalmining...ages/press.htm

Before I send email to a company about what they are doing I need far more
details than you bothered to give. Since it is a UK company, mining in
the UK, isn't this mostly a problem for the UK? Not that I am
unconcerned
if there are legitimate concerns here.... but I certainly can't tell
that
in the blurb you posted. And you didn't give any links to places with
more
complete information.

John



wrote in message
...
Please read this itll only take you a minute - it could be your local
area
next...!
The corporations are at it again, this time focussing their attentions
on
a small part of the SW of England. A large international mining company
claims to have found platinum in the UK and in their quest for money are
going to extinquish at least 1 species from our planet. Butterflies,
birds,
small mammals, fish and even some plants are at risk from extinction if
this
corporate monster is not stopped.

Please, please, please send as many emails as you can to register your
views at - like i said, it could be
your
area next...

Thanks
Harry
P.A.W.E


wtfxyypuifivbssvpwguryfnrlnnckfwhjdumblcertxmkvcyc nfsetflvgkfqtkbbfkzjvyldlo
okfxbnjegbnojyceyerztdgl

I support conservation and being responsable with God's resources but not at
the expense of a mans living....

Absolutely not. How dare people with conservation in their minds dare
endanger a mans living. So long as we make a living screw the
environment and all other considerations.

Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living. Take a look back
over history and this will tell the story of mankind having to change
their living in order to survive. If protecting the environment means
we have to change the way we live then so be it.

To expect to preserve what is left of our natural world and NOT to
have to address and modify the way in which we live is simply to
deceive ourselves..

At the end of the day the world turns and things change, we have to
change too in order to protect the things we value.

"Steve Newport" wrote in message
...


Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living.

Steve,

While your opinion is good and your espoused beliefs are well based and I
agree that conservation is needed. Conservation does not have to be painful.
If the community makes decisions about what they want conserved and how they
want it conserved, then they may. BUT and this is the big but in every
conservation debate. That community must share the costs and the financial
pain the decision brings.

When conservation action results in one mans living being lost, then the
community which imposes the conservation has a responsibility to share their
"living" with those affected by the decision. That is only fair and
equitable.

I know nothing of you apart from you post here. But please if you want to
foster conservation of anything start by considering the needs of those
disadvantaged by the conservation decision and how to ease their burden.

I live in a small town in Australia, which over the past 40 years has seen
the loss of three of the four sawmills which paid for this community to
exist. All in the name of Forrest conservation. I am aware of the
conservation arguments. In the case of managed Australian Forestry they are
lots of emotive balderdash with basically no foundation in truth or fact.
(They do however buy votes in cities).

This community is now officially recognised by our government as the 7th
most disadvantaged in the State, after 6 city welfare slums. I am yet to
see any form of compensation or reconstruction in the town to replace the
200 jobs that were lost when the city based protesters and activists
arranged for the local people to be plunged into an economic downward spiral
that has seen unemployment above 20% for two generations.

The place for conservation to start on this planet is in the cities of the
western world. There is little point in even trying to start to conserve
the worlds resources until the western world, and the urban dwellers in
particular, start to conserve the material and resources that they drain
from the rest of the planet.

They burn energy like it is an endlessly renewable perfectly clean resource
to make their lives comfortable, convenient and pleasant.

They refuse to consume fruit, vegetables and Meat unless it is in perfect
condition without blemish or flaw.

They can't utilise enough of their god given intelligence to purchase a
product unless it is contained in at least three times as much packaging as
is necessary.

They fool themselves with reducing landfill and recycling programs which
conserved nothing. 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.

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

Matt

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

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...

Nature destroys way more of the enviroment each year than man has since adam
and eve walked out of the garden! Volcanoes and earth quakes and natural
forest fires do way more damage each year... Volcanoes spill tons of
poisionous gasses into our atmousphere...




"Steve Newport" wrote in message
...


I support conservation and being responsable with God's resources but not
at
the expense of a mans living....

Absolutely not. How dare people with conservation in their minds dare
endanger a mans living. So long as we make a living screw the
environment and all other considerations.

Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living. Take a look back
over history and this will tell the story of mankind having to change
their living in order to survive. If protecting the environment means
we have to change the way we live then so be it.

To expect to preserve what is left of our natural world and NOT to
have to address and modify the way in which we live is simply to
deceive ourselves..

At the end of the day the world turns and things change, we have to
change too in order to protect the things we value.

I agree with much of what you Say.
Oregon ( USA) is one of the main states that provide lumber and wood base
products in the USA. In the 50's we provided close to 28% of the USA's
wood product needs. and about 12% of our production was shiped over seas
in the form of products. in the last 10 years only about 18% of our
production stayed in the USA and about 21% was shipped outside te USA in the
form of raw timber. Oregon has the highest Unemploymnet rate right now in
the USA followed by Washinton ( the state above us) I am very lucky to have
the Job I do.. as I know many people that have gone from 12 -15.00 an hr
jobs to 6.75 a hr jobs ( if they are lucky to get one) a recent news story
told of 3 men that just graduated college with masters degrees in enginering
that are working at a fast food joint.

I agree with you that product packaging needs to be alot more conserviate
and I have to say " THANK YOU" to the PC gaming Indrustry, I have noticed
many game on the store shelves come in 2 differnt boxes the 2nd being 1/3rd
the size. I like this for 2 fold its more responsable as well as nice for
me cause I save the boxes for games I want to sell later....


As far as tre and forest conservation I suposrt it and Oregon State
University has recived many rewards for agriculture acchevments for
developing tree species that grow to a harvestable size in 1/2 the time....
I just hope that over the next 20 -25 years we can start releasing more of
Oregons land to be harvested for timber now...

As far as recyling... oregon is one of the leading states in Paper
recyling... We are a close 2nd to New York... I just read in a magazine
that the USa recyles close to 28% of its paper.. I know that kind of low and
we have a long way to go... metal and Plastic needs way more improvment
too... but we are getting there....

but to say that its just the US that has a problem alot of Europian
countries are way worse than the us for waste.... BTW, The Big dog always
gets blamed for the mess...



"Unicorn" wrote in message
.. .

"Steve Newport" wrote in message
...


Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living.

Steve,

While your opinion is good and your espoused beliefs are well based and I
agree that conservation is needed. Conservation does not have to be
painful.
If the community makes decisions about what they want conserved and how
they
want it conserved, then they may. BUT and this is the big but in every
conservation debate. That community must share the costs and the
financial
pain the decision brings.

When conservation action results in one mans living being lost, then the
community which imposes the conservation has a responsibility to share
their
"living" with those affected by the decision. That is only fair and
equitable.

I know nothing of you apart from you post here. But please if you want to
foster conservation of anything start by considering the needs of those
disadvantaged by the conservation decision and how to ease their burden.

I live in a small town in Australia, which over the past 40 years has seen
the loss of three of the four sawmills which paid for this community to
exist. All in the name of Forrest conservation. I am aware of the
conservation arguments. In the case of managed Australian Forestry they
are
lots of emotive balderdash with basically no foundation in truth or fact.
(They do however buy votes in cities).

This community is now officially recognised by our government as the 7th
most disadvantaged in the State, after 6 city welfare slums. I am yet to
see any form of compensation or reconstruction in the town to replace the
200 jobs that were lost when the city based protesters and activists
arranged for the local people to be plunged into an economic downward
spiral
that has seen unemployment above 20% for two generations.

The place for conservation to start on this planet is in the cities of the
western world. There is little point in even trying to start to conserve
the worlds resources until the western world, and the urban dwellers in
particular, start to conserve the material and resources that they drain
from the rest of the planet.

They burn energy like it is an endlessly renewable perfectly clean
resource
to make their lives comfortable, convenient and pleasant.

They refuse to consume fruit, vegetables and Meat unless it is in perfect
condition without blemish or flaw.

They can't utilise enough of their god given intelligence to purchase a
product unless it is contained in at least three times as much packaging
as
is necessary.

They fool themselves with reducing landfill and recycling programs which
conserved nothing. 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.

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

Matt

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

but to say that its just the US that has a problem alot of Europian
countries are way worse than the us for waste.... BTW, The Big dog
always
gets blamed for the mess...

If you read my post you will see I didn't blame the US. I blame the western
world. That should have been the "First World" I suppose as Japan, Taiwan
and others are also in this as well as the Western World.

IMHO All consumers are to blame, large and small

Matt

Oh, come on! I bet you even believe that dinosaurs became extinct
without the help of man. grin

Wuffman wrote:

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...

Nature destroys way more of the enviroment each year than man has since adam
and eve walked out of the garden! Volcanoes and earth quakes and natural
forest fires do way more damage each year... Volcanoes spill tons of
poisionous gasses into our atmousphere...




"Steve Newport" wrote in message
...


I support conservation and being responsable with God's resources but not

at

the expense of a mans living....

Absolutely not. How dare people with conservation in their minds dare
endanger a mans living. So long as we make a living screw the
environment and all other considerations.

Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living. Take a look back
over history and this will tell the story of mankind having to change
their living in order to survive. If protecting the environment means
we have to change the way we live then so be it.

To expect to preserve what is left of our natural world and NOT to
have to address and modify the way in which we live is simply to
deceive ourselves..

At the end of the day the world turns and things change, we have to
change too in order to protect the things we value.

"Unicorn" wrote in message
.. .

"Steve Newport" wrote in message
...


Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living.

Steve,

While your opinion is good and your espoused beliefs are well based and I
agree that conservation is needed. Conservation does not have to be
painful.
If the community makes decisions about what they want conserved and how
they
want it conserved, then they may. BUT and this is the big but in every
conservation debate. That community must share the costs and the
financial
pain the decision brings.

When conservation action results in one mans living being lost, then the
community which imposes the conservation has a responsibility to share
their
"living" with those affected by the decision. That is only fair and
equitable.

I know nothing of you apart from you post here. But please if you want to
foster conservation of anything start by considering the needs of those
disadvantaged by the conservation decision and how to ease their burden.

I live in a small town in Australia, which over the past 40 years has seen
the loss of three of the four sawmills which paid for this community to
exist. All in the name of Forrest conservation. I am aware of the
conservation arguments. In the case of managed Australian Forestry they
are
lots of emotive balderdash with basically no foundation in truth or fact.
(They do however buy votes in cities).

This community is now officially recognised by our government as the 7th
most disadvantaged in the State, after 6 city welfare slums. I am yet to
see any form of compensation or reconstruction in the town to replace the
200 jobs that were lost when the city based protesters and activists
arranged for the local people to be plunged into an economic downward
spiral
that has seen unemployment above 20% for two generations.

The place for conservation to start on this planet is in the cities of the
western world. There is little point in even trying to start to conserve
the worlds resources until the western world, and the urban dwellers in
particular, start to conserve the material and resources that they drain
from the rest of the planet.

They might use less wood then - same result as above?

They burn energy like it is an endlessly renewable perfectly clean
resource
to make their lives comfortable, convenient and pleasant.

Ditto.

They refuse to consume fruit, vegetables and Meat unless it is in perfect
condition without blemish or flaw.

Indeed they do. It's bonkers. Loads of people get Salmonella, you only need
to heat to 70C to kill it I think. That shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.

They can't utilise enough of their god given intelligence to purchase a
product unless it is contained in at least three times as much packaging
as
is necessary.

Agreed.

They fool themselves with reducing landfill and recycling programs which
conserved nothing.

Please explain. Do you want bigger holes?

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.


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?

Matt

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

"Wuffman" wrote in message
t...
I agree with much of what you Say.
Oregon ( USA) is one of the main states that provide lumber and wood base
products in the USA. In the 50's we provided close to 28% of the USA's
wood product needs. and about 12% of our production was shiped over seas
in the form of products. in the last 10 years only about 18% of our
production stayed in the USA and about 21% was shipped outside te USA in
the
form of raw timber. Oregon has the highest Unemploymnet rate right now in
the USA followed by Washinton ( the state above us) I am very lucky to
have
the Job I do.. as I know many people that have gone from 12 -15.00 an hr
jobs to 6.75 a hr jobs ( if they are lucky to get one) a recent news story
told of 3 men that just graduated college with masters degrees in
enginering
that are working at a fast food joint.

Percentages don't say a lot. How has total production changed? Is the US
cutting less wood? (especially, will it in the future given YKW in the white
house?)

I agree with you that product packaging needs to be alot more conserviate
and I have to say " THANK YOU" to the PC gaming Indrustry, I have noticed
many game on the store shelves come in 2 differnt boxes the 2nd being
1/3rd
the size. I like this for 2 fold its more responsable as well as nice
for
me cause I save the boxes for games I want to sell later....


As far as tre and forest conservation I suposrt it and Oregon State
University has recived many rewards for agriculture acchevments for
developing tree species that grow to a harvestable size in 1/2 the
time....
I just hope that over the next 20 -25 years we can start releasing more of
Oregons land to be harvested for timber now...

As far as recyling... oregon is one of the leading states in Paper
recyling... We are a close 2nd to New York... I just read in a magazine
that the USa recyles close to 28% of its paper.. I know that kind of low
and
we have a long way to go... metal and Plastic needs way more improvment
too... but we are getting there....

but to say that its just the US that has a problem alot of Europian
countries are way worse than the us for waste.... BTW, The Big dog
always
gets blamed for the mess...

Better if all dogs stopped sh**ting in the wrong places rather than we all
blaming others?


"Unicorn" wrote in message
.. .

"Steve Newport" wrote in message
...


Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living.

Steve,

While your opinion is good and your espoused beliefs are well based and
I
agree that conservation is needed. Conservation does not have to be
painful.
If the community makes decisions about what they want conserved and how
they
want it conserved, then they may. BUT and this is the big but in every
conservation debate. That community must share the costs and the
financial
pain the decision brings.

When conservation action results in one mans living being lost, then the
community which imposes the conservation has a responsibility to share
their
"living" with those affected by the decision. That is only fair and
equitable.

I know nothing of you apart from you post here. But please if you want
to
foster conservation of anything start by considering the needs of those
disadvantaged by the conservation decision and how to ease their burden.

I live in a small town in Australia, which over the past 40 years has
seen
the loss of three of the four sawmills which paid for this community to
exist. All in the name of Forrest conservation. I am aware of the
conservation arguments. In the case of managed Australian Forestry they
are
lots of emotive balderdash with basically no foundation in truth or
fact.
(They do however buy votes in cities).

This community is now officially recognised by our government as the 7th
most disadvantaged in the State, after 6 city welfare slums. I am yet
to
see any form of compensation or reconstruction in the town to replace
the
200 jobs that were lost when the city based protesters and activists
arranged for the local people to be plunged into an economic downward
spiral
that has seen unemployment above 20% for two generations.

The place for conservation to start on this planet is in the cities of
the
western world. There is little point in even trying to start to
conserve
the worlds resources until the western world, and the urban dwellers in
particular, start to conserve the material and resources that they drain
from the rest of the planet.

They burn energy like it is an endlessly renewable perfectly clean
resource
to make their lives comfortable, convenient and pleasant.

They refuse to consume fruit, vegetables and Meat unless it is in
perfect
condition without blemish or flaw.

They can't utilise enough of their god given intelligence to purchase a
product unless it is contained in at least three times as much packaging
as
is necessary.

They fool themselves with reducing landfill and recycling programs which
conserved nothing. 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.

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

Matt

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

Peter Hearnden writes

Percentages don't say a lot. How has total production changed? Is the US
cutting less wood? (especially, will it in the future given YKW in the white
house?)

That's not really very important.

What's probably more important is whether as much is growing as is being
cut down. Wood is at least sustainable.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Peter Hearnden writes

Percentages don't say a lot. How has total production changed? Is the US
cutting less wood? (especially, will it in the future given YKW in the
white
house?)

That's not really very important.

What's probably more important is whether as much is growing as is being
cut down. Wood is at least sustainable.

Fair enough. The answer is?



--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Peter Hearnden writes
"Oz" wrote in message
...
Peter Hearnden writes

Percentages don't say a lot. How has total production changed? Is the US
cutting less wood? (especially, will it in the future given YKW in the
white
house?)

That's not really very important.

What's probably more important is whether as much is growing as is being
cut down. Wood is at least sustainable.

Fair enough. The answer is?

No idea, you can look up the statistics yourself.

What I do know is that in the UK the value of standing timber is
approximately zero, and that produced for it's management (thinnings)
has negative value (you pay to produce it), for woods of about 10ac or
so. Even quality trees often end up as firewood due to the cost of
haulage and low value of timber.

Given the fact that in the UK any tree more than a modest diameter is
effectively protected forever I rather doubt that much in the way of new
planting will be done outside government lands and in settlements.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

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.

Opps, you mean we didn't kill then off? WEG

"Hvacmam" wrote in message
...
Oh, come on! I bet you even believe that dinosaurs became extinct
without the help of man. grin

Wuffman wrote:

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...

Nature destroys way more of the enviroment each year than man has since
adam
and eve walked out of the garden! Volcanoes and earth quakes and
natural
forest fires do way more damage each year... Volcanoes spill tons of
poisionous gasses into our atmousphere...




"Steve Newport" wrote in message
...


I support conservation and being responsable with God's resources but
not

at

the expense of a mans living....

Absolutely not. How dare people with conservation in their minds dare
endanger a mans living. So long as we make a living screw the
environment and all other considerations.

Your comment highlights a very important point. Conservation DOES
require sacrifice, even, god forbid, a mans living. Take a look back
over history and this will tell the story of mankind having to change
their living in order to survive. If protecting the environment means
we have to change the way we live then so be it.

To expect to preserve what is left of our natural world and NOT to
have to address and modify the way in which we live is simply to
deceive ourselves..

At the end of the day the world turns and things change, we have to
change too in order to protect the things we value.