Sign in to follow this  
Mid

Endangered Species Act

Recommended Posts

The cost of Trump's Endangered Species Act proposal

Quote

 

The Trump administration has proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a law credited with keeping hundreds of species from going extinct.

The change would eliminate automatic protections for threatened plant and animal species, and make it easier for species to be removed from the list.

Wildlife conservation groups say the proposed change could have disastrous lasting effects on at-risk species.

Trump officials say the change will streamline the regulatory process.

The proposed change is the latest in a series of White House efforts to remove environmental regulations designed to protect vulnerable species and their habitats, as well as leave untouched some of America's most wild places.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44892275

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they're right - eliminating regulations certainly streamlines the regulatory process.

What scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. will allow Texas billionaire to import trophy of critically endangered black rhino he killed

Quote

FWS today approved the import permit for the black rhino trophy from Namibia – where rhino poaching has dramatically increased in recent years – even after thousands of members of the public weighed in during a 30-day public comment period, opposing the import. Ironically, the FWS action comes just two days before the world celebrates these unique animals on World Rhino Day this Saturday. Black rhinos are critically endangered, with fewer than 5,500 left in the wild, and just 1,946 left in Namibia. But for trophy hunters, the rarer the animal, the more valuable the trophy is, and the greater the prestige and thrill of killing it.

https://www.wisconsingazette.com/blogs/u-s-will-allow-texas-billionaire-to-import-trophy-of/article_2b06b01f-fc88-5577-8322-f8ea6517e354.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

“A law intended to conserve species and habitat has brought about the recovery of only a fraction—less than 2%–of the approximately 2,100 species listed as endangered or threatened since 1973.

“Meanwhile, the law has endangered the economic health of many communities—which creating a cottage industry of litigation that does more to enrich environmental activist groups than benefit the environment.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Geez, MIke. Get a clue someday, if you're from the PNW.

2014 report?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dacapo said:

2014 report?

 

 

22 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

which creating a cottage industry of litigation that does more to enrich environmental activist groups than benefit the environment.

The "environmentalists" have been using "sue and settle" quite a while before 2014.

https://www.uschamber.com/report/sue-and-settle-regulating-behind-closed-doors

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

damn you are an ignorant fuck

When I was in my early 20s, I appreciated ignorant fucks.... They didn't know any better..... As I grew older, I became more interested in educated fucks, who were much more exciting in bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get Greedus Trumpass Erectus removed from the list?

Speed the extinction of a species with no value to the human race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

damn you are an ignorant fuck

What is up with you today petal? Such anger. I think you need to ‘pump the bilges’. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, it's not only petal with the anger issues,, there are quite a few, even in this thread.

In the "drump is burning the forest" thread, 3 to 1 called me a "self entitled sociopath bitch with a gun" rather than look at the bottom 1/3 of a picture, and most of the other "environmentalists"  disappeared .

 

It might be anger at realizing every time they clicked the "Donate NOW!!"  button,, they were paying $ix figure $alarie$   instead of "saving the last endangered _________ ".

I would be angry realizing I had been duped.  Most folks would.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's sound Republican logic.

We still have racial bias despite all the years of Affirmative Action: therefor Affirmative Action has failed and we need to get rid of it.

We still have Endangered Species after years of the Endangered Species Act and all those pesky gov't regulations. Therefore it has failed, and we need to to get rid of it.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

rather than look at the bottom 1/3 of a picture

and again - because you are really slow - animals die in forest fires in nature. you keep posting these pictures that you think have "meaning" and the only meaning they convey is you are a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

To be fair, it's not only petal with the anger issues,, there are quite a few, even in this thread.

In the "drump is burning the forest" thread, 3 to 1 called me a "self entitled sociopath bitch with a gun" rather than look at the bottom 1/3 of a picture, and most of the other "environmentalists"  disappeared .

 

It might be anger at realizing every time they clicked the "Donate NOW!!"  button,, they were paying $ix figure $alarie$   instead of "saving the last endangered _________ ".

I would be angry realizing I had been duped.  Most folks would.

 

I didn't get the bottom part of that photo, maybe because it was kind of small on my phone, was the significance a dry creek bed? Was it that there was fresh growth from the ashes?

I have a friend who is a devout Christian, an avid hunter, has more guns than most of us and he supports wildlife conservation in a deep and meaningful way, in other words, with cold cash.

And somehow, my tree-hugging lefty self deeply admires this man, because the reality of nature of the back country, of the high country, of the forests, is that the trees and the predators and the prey don't know anything about politics. They tend to either find a healthy balance, or they collapse.

When people derive a quality of life from a healthy environment, they tend to take a vested interest in the health of that environment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

and again - because you are really slow - animals die in forest fires in nature. 

It's not really a major problem. Far more animals die from bad game management, and things like CWD than from fires. They have an evolutionary ability to survive forest fires.

They do not have an evolutionary ability to survive cross contamination of fucking prions (!) from factory farming operations.

Why is it, in this area, I tend to side with the gun nuts who world rather shoot and eat a deer than buy a package of factory farmed meat? Factory farming -- along with genetic engineering -- should rightly be considered a crime against Nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mikewof said:

When people derive a quality of life from a healthy environment, they tend to take a vested interest in the health of that environment.

MikeUnderPop.thumb.jpg.e9ebe5bbd788ae09e5bb3208b78ce576.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:55 AM, mikewof said:

It's not really a major problem. Far more animals die from bad game management, and things like CWD than from fires. They have an evolutionary ability to survive forest fires.

They do not have an evolutionary ability to survive cross contamination of fucking prions (!) from factory farming operations.

Why is it, in this area, I tend to side with the gun nuts who world rather shoot and eat a deer than buy a package of factory farmed meat? Factory farming -- along with genetic engineering -- should rightly be considered a crime against Nature.

Some people just do not have it in them to kill, field dress and butcher their own game.

Hypocrites they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Some people just do not have it in them to kill, field dress and butcher their own game.

Hypocrites they are

I don't. I can do it to birds and fish, not mammals though.

But the point is that I don't suggest that people who hunt are part of the problem. They're usually part of the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a boy like 50 years ago my Dad made it a point of taking me hunting with his Larrabee Gun Club. We stocked pheasant and quail like hundreds of birds a year. Out of that the quota was something like 20% of gamebirds stocked. There were tags The New York State Fish and Game Conservation Authority issued and we had to document every bird we shot, tag it and give an accounting at the end of the season to that authority. Aside from displaying out hunting licenses prominently on our backs, we were also asked/allow to have a shoulder patch from The New York State Fish and Game Conservation Authority. The moto on the patch read, "Hunters Pay For Conservation".

This is still the reality. It is hunters who protect, strengthen and reinforce game stock.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2018 at 6:55 AM, mikewof said:

...in this area, I tend to side with the gun nuts who world rather shoot and eat a deer than buy a package of factory farmed meat? Factory farming -- along with genetic engineering -- should rightly be considered a crime against Nature.

And what of the fishing pole nuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

And what of the fishing pole nuts?

Good point, all that split bamboo for fly rods ... we're going to drive the Pandas from their native habitats in search of bamboo, and they'll infest office cubicles, yoga studios and nail salons that have those little bamboo plants in ceramic planters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that large scale farming of meat and fish can be unclean.

I am one of those that does not like to kill so I hire it done. Well, except for crabs.They are pretty much just bugs and I dispatch them humanely. 

My consumption of animal products is a fraction of what it once was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

When I was a boy like 50 years ago my Dad made it a point of taking me hunting with his Larrabee Gun Club. We stocked pheasant and quail like hundreds of birds a year. Out of that the quota was something like 20% of gamebirds stocked. There were tags The New York State Fish and Game Conservation Authority issued and we had to document every bird we shot, tag it and give an accounting at the end of the season to that authority. Aside from displaying out hunting licenses prominently on our backs, we were also asked/allow to have a shoulder patch from The New York State Fish and Game Conservation Authority. The moto on the patch read, "Hunters Pay For Conservation".

This is still the reality. It is hunters who protect, strengthen and reinforce game stock.

Yeah, it's reality ... and I'm okay with it in 99% of the cases, there are enough elk, foul, fish deer and even moose to keep the hunters busy. But I don't agree with allowing hunting of predators like mountain lions and wolves. If they're a danger, yeah. But the reason the ungulates are so overpopulated is because we've wiped out so many predators over the last 15,000 some years.

For example, there are something like 3/4 of a million pronghorn in places like Colorado, New Mexico and Western states. Hunting them is necessary, because nothing slower than a bullet or an arrow can catch them, they're the second fastest land animal on the planet. There used to be a North American cheetah that could catch the Pronghorn but the Paleo Americans drove them to extinction about 15,000 years ago ... it seems they were just like contemporary North American ranchers, and they viewed them a competitors, rather than necessary components of environmental stability.

If we allow North American predators to go extinct -- and right now animals like certain lions, wolves, ferrets and bears are deeply threatened -- then the animals that these predators hunt become out of balance, and the effect ripples down through the food chain.

 

Another example ... some guy from Ohio recently moved to our neighborhood, he had a job working remotely for some computer company. He comes to the community meeting bitching and moaning about the prairie dogs in the Open Space behind his house. He's complaining to everyone there that they're going to come into his yard and eat his expensive landscaping. To the man and woman, everyone who grew up around here reassured him that they don't want to come into his yard because they like to burrow where they can have a 360-degree view of predators. But nobody could shut this asshole up! The board didn't give him permission to exterminate them on Open Space, and I don't think they could anyway. I forgot about the whole thing for a year. Then recently, we started getting infested with coyotes. My son and I and the coonhound headed out to the open space to hopefully find some coyotes burrows. I tend to break up the nests with a shovel and then spray bleach into it, they then ideally head away from the edges. I found a burrow in a culvert, broke it up, and then we're behind that guy's house who moved here from Ohio. I suddenly notice, not a single prairie dog on the entire ridge. Literally, fifty or so prairie dog holes, but no prairie dog barks. That guy apparently took it on himself to poison or airgun all of them since the board wouldn't exterminate them. But what is on that hill, infesting all those former prairie dog burrows were rabbits, rabbits, rabbits. So many freaking rabbits, the prairie dogs tend to keep them away, but they can't do that when some guy kills them. That explained the infestation of coyotes, they had a ready food source of rabbit meat. They can't catch prairie dogs because they're bloody intelligent creatures, but even my old hound dog can trick and kill a rabbit, they're idiots.

A few months ago, I noticed that someone was baiting the rabbits, and I've seen fewer of them. Except when there are no rabbits and no prairie dogs, what takes over? The bloody field mice! Now I have field mice all over the place. They're getting into the garage, they're in my garden eating the tomatoes and there is no way that I know to stop an infestation of field mice other than predators.

 

And here's the other thing ... it seems the reason we had this huge outbreak of CWD is because the factory farmed animals passed it to the wild deer through their droppings, it seems that the plants uptake the prions that cause the CWD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

When I was a boy like 50 years ago my Dad made it a point of taking me hunting with his Larrabee Gun Club. We stocked pheasant and quail like hundreds of birds a year. Out of that the quota was something like 20% of gamebirds stocked. There were tags The New York State Fish and Game Conservation Authority issued and we had to document every bird we shot, tag it and give an accounting at the end of the season to that authority. Aside from displaying out hunting licenses prominently on our backs, we were also asked/allow to have a shoulder patch from The New York State Fish and Game Conservation Authority. The moto on the patch read, "Hunters Pay For Conservation".

This is still the reality. It is hunters who protect, strengthen and reinforce game stock.

I suspect this is bordering on bs, if not deep in it. the same crap was claimed about a year ago by these ridiculous cock suckers who 'trophy hunt' in Africa, for example. in reality, their 'contributions' amounted to approximately five percent of the total (annual?) conservation budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I suspect this is bordering on bs, if not deep in it. the same crap was claimed about a year ago by these ridiculous cock suckers who 'trophy hunt' in Africa, for example. in reality, their 'contributions' amounted to approximately five percent of the total (annual?) conservation budget.

Trophy hunting is a tiny, tiny proportion of hunting compared to game stock, it's like comparing the number of Lamborghinis on the road to the number of Chevy trucks.

Drive through some of the places down South or on the East Coast that are overpopulated with deer, there is no way that these stocks can be managed without hunting. My friend in Indiana reports that his state recently changed the tag requirements, now when he shoots a deer he only has to report the kill to the warden, but not actually show the kill.

And the wild boars ... cripes, that's a whole 'nother mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I suspect this is bordering on bs, if not deep in it. the same crap was claimed about a year ago by these ridiculous cock suckers who 'trophy hunt' in Africa, for example. in reality, their 'contributions' amounted to approximately five percent of the total (annual?) conservation budget.

I suspect you think it's bullshit because you don't know shit.

FYI, Ducks Unlimited has an annual budget more than twice that of the Sierra club and spends most of it on habitat conservation.

For 80 years, Ducks Unlimited has put those conservation dollars to work for wetlands and waterfowl. Each year, our goal is to dedicate at least 80 cents of each dollar that we spend to conservation. We met that goal again in FY17, with 83 percent of expenditures going toward our mission.

In FY17, Team DU conserved more than 248,000 acres, bringing our cumulative total to over 14 million acres conserved since DU was founded in 1937! We have come a long way from our humble beginnings.

DU's efforts, including the current Rescue Our Wetlands campaign, are funded by supporters and partners who share our conservation goals. Significant support also comes from advertising, licensing agreements, and royalties generated through the power of the Ducks Unlimited brand.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lookee what cunt just said something that essentially tows his 'party' line. if you know shit, then cough it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

lookee what cunt just said something that essentially tows his 'party' line. if you know shit, then cough it up.

That quote was from the Ducks unlimite annual report.  Here is another.

You can find even more organiaztions

https://www.theoutbound.com/imogene-cancellare/a-biologist-s-top-picks-conservation-organizations-you-should-suppor  The Sierra club doesn't show up.

They don't show up here either  https://www.gviusa.com/blog/10-best-organisations-to-follow-help-endangered-animals/

Here is a free google for you.  https://www.google.com/search?q=habitat+conservation+organizations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Our goal for the ongoing Rescue Our Wetlands campaign is to raise $2 billion for wetlands conservation by December 2018. When we achieve our goal, DU will have successfully completed the largest wetlands and waterfowl campaign in history. We are almost there. When FY17 ended in June, Rescue Our Wetlands had already raised $1.82 billion.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Autonomous said:

And what of the fishing pole nuts?

They are different.   I don’t know why.   At least in Ohio and Indiana there appears to be a clause on the fishing license requiring them to leave a beer can full of chew and their bait container behind, and at least one line hanging from a tree.    Bird hunters especially seem to take a vested interest in protecting the environment so the birds come.    There are too many deer anyway, those guys could hunt with bump stocks.    Freshwater fishermen are terrible environmentalists despite all the time they spend sitting in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why do wetlands need to be rescued?

(Hint: It's not because environmentalists, and liberals are savaging them, dumping waste, and filling them in to build on.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lark said:

They are different.   I don’t know why.   At least in Ohio and Indiana there appears to be a clause on the fishing license requiring them to leave a beer can full of chew and their bait container behind, and at least one line hanging from a tree.    Bird hunters especially seem to take a vested interest in protecting the environment so the birds come.    There are too many deer anyway, those guys could hunt with bump stocks.    Freshwater fishermen are terrible environmentalists despite all the time they spend sitting in it.

Some guys don't raise the toilet seat before they piss in a public restroom either.... I wonder if they think about that when they need to take a crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

That quote was from the Ducks unlimite annual report.  Here is another.

You can find even more organiaztions

https://www.theoutbound.com/imogene-cancellare/a-biologist-s-top-picks-conservation-organizations-you-should-suppor  The Sierra club doesn't show up.

They don't show up here either  https://www.gviusa.com/blog/10-best-organisations-to-follow-help-endangered-animals/

Here is a free google for you.  https://www.google.com/search?q=habitat+conservation+organizations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

 

 

I can't get past the fact that you vote for the 'party' of deception and exploitation, fkg anti-conservation, innit. wonder how much of that shit you presented is truth? am I a cynic? godamn right I am.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I suspect this is bordering on bs, if not deep in it. the same crap was claimed about a year ago by these ridiculous cock suckers who 'trophy hunt' in Africa, for example. in reality, their 'contributions' amounted to approximately five percent of the total (annual?) conservation budget.

Let's see, one of us knows from his experiences and that other knows fukall.

Wanna take a stab at which one of us is which?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

And why do wetlands need to be rescued?

(Hint: It's not because environmentalists, and liberals are savaging them, dumping waste, and filling them in to build on.)

'enviromentalists' and liberals don't actually do much of anything but bitch and demand "SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING" and pretend to know the answer.

Open Secrets on Ducks Unlimited and the Sierra Club 

Ducks Unlimited https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000044812

Sierra Club https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000259&cycle=2016

The people who actually spend time in the habitat have a real vested interest in their conservation and take direct action.

The Sierra club never makes that list.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

 

I can't get past the fact that you vote for the 'party' of deception and exploitation, fkg anti-conservation, innit. wonder how much of that shit you presented is truth? am I a cynic? godamn right I am.

 

You are ignorant and making a rash assumption there.  Follow the links and check the sources.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

billdbastard- your cute little murder fees aren't going to save the day, and you know it. that shit is merely for your rationalization that killing shit for kicks is wholesome and moral. fk you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

You are ignorant and making a rash assumption there.  Follow the links and check the sources.

I basically wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of 80% of the pheasant and quail we stocked could not be hunted don't you get?

If we released 250 birds a year, 200 were added to the acreage we posted/hunted, full stop.

In the decade and a half I hunted with the old man and a dozen of his cronies, we  ADDED 3000 game birds.

Answer me this one who thinks he is hot shit (but is actually clueless), how many of any sort of animal did you add to the wildlife population?

One other note, for about 5 years the birds we stocked had to have leg bands to ID the flight pen birds we stocked. We actually very rarely came across any of these years out, but would come across birds other gun clubs had stocked elsewhere....meaning that the population of birds we stocked in the couple of thousand acres we posted were moving off about the county in which we hunted and likewise for other hunters.

You just don't know jack-shit.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3to1 said:

I basically wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.

You know, fool, that doesn't bother me at all.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmed game birds aren't wildlife BillDBastard. What part of ringneck phaesant being an introduced species from China don't you understand? Chukar aren't native either. Neither are brown trout,  Brook trout west of Minnesota, or Rainbow trout east of roughly the rockies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy.... so your lineage is what? Are you native or alien?

Ring Neck's are as much a part of the eco-system as Timberdoodle, Grouse and Bob White.

All the birds we stocked were "flight pen" birds. Little doubt that they were probably taken as prey by other predators than "native" birds, but not by a greatly significant amount. They acclimated very well and proliferated.

BTW, in the event you don't actually know this, flight pen birds are not terribly mature. Adults, yes but hardly 6-8 months old. Now if you want to make a point about non-flight pen birds, agreed.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are an introduced part of the eco-system. Ringnecks are an invasive species. By your logic we shouldn't give a fucka bout the emerald ash borer because, hey, it's here! It's part of the eco-system now. The timberdoodle population peaked in the midwest after the logging boom flattened the pineries, it's been on a long decline since

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

'enviromentalists' and liberals don't actually do much of anything but bitch and demand "SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING" and pretend to know the answer.

Open Secrets on Ducks Unlimited and the Sierra Club 

Ducks Unlimited https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000044812

Sierra Club https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000259&cycle=2016

The people who actually spend time in the habitat have a real vested interest in their conservation and take direct action.

The Sierra club never makes that list.

SaorsaTrump.thumb.jpg.c5fd9cc6214dd54e921343e787a695e2.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

'enviromentalists' and liberals don't actually do much of anything but bitch and demand "SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING" and pretend to know the answer.

Open Secrets on Ducks Unlimited and the Sierra Club 

Ducks Unlimited https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000044812

Sierra Club https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000259&cycle=2016

The people who actually spend time in the habitat have a real vested interest in their conservation and take direct action.

The Sierra club never makes that list.

Ah yes, the good old "We hate the libby-rull Sierra Club" rant.

Of course it's all bullshit. The Sierra Club is highly effective which is why "conservatives" hate it so much. Personally I am a bigger fan of the Nature Conservancy but I am a member of the Sierra Club too.

-DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2018 at 11:14 PM, Mike in Seattle said:

Background

The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources. The Union of Concerned Scientists found (PDF) that “Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects.” [1]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

'enviromentalists' and liberals don't actually do much of anything but bitch and demand "SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING" and pretend to know the answer.

Open Secrets on Ducks Unlimited and the Sierra Club 

Ducks Unlimited https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000044812

Sierra Club https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000259&cycle=2016

The people who actually spend time in the habitat have a real vested interest in their conservation and take direct action.

The Sierra club never makes that list.

OpenSecrets

What The Dirty Energy Industry Earns From Millions In Lobbying

Read time: 3 mins

By Farron Cousins • Monday, July 15, 2013 - 15:04

dollar_oil.jpg?itok=rokAZgXL

When you combine the lobbies of electric utilities (representing the coal industry) and the lobbies of oil and gas interests, there is no industry that puts more money into buying politicians and influence from year to year than the fossil fuel industry. So far this year, the utilities and the oil and gas industry combined have already pumped a staggering $75.7 million into lobbying activities, and we still have more than five months left until the end of the year.

But that amount is a mere pittance when compared to the $285 million the two groups spent lobbying during 2012, or the $295 million they spent the year before. Again, when taken together, no industry outspends the dirty energy industry in Washington, D.C.

Like any savvy investor, the industry puts its money wherever they believe they can get the highest return on investment. And nowhere is that return higher than in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.

Just last month, Republicans in the House, joined by only 16 Democrats, passed a bill that, if signed into law, will force the Obama administration to come up with a five year plan on how best to expand drilling activities in America. The bill would require the President and his administration to vastly increase the amount of offshore areas available for oil drilling, giving the oil industry free rein over our coastal waterways. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah yes, the good old "We hate the libby-rull Sierra Club" rant.

Of course it's all bullshit. The Sierra Club is highly effective which is why "conservatives" hate it so much. Personally I am a bigger fan of the Nature Conservancy but I am a member of the Sierra Club too.

-DSK

yeah the SC and the NC are about preservation and access. Groups like Ducks Unlimited have become captive to a few very rich donors and is just a cover for anti-access forces now - https://www.hcn.org/articles/quack-attack-ducks-unlimited-fires-writer-over-stream-access-fracas

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah yes, the good old "We hate the libby-rull Sierra Club" rant.

Of course it's all bullshit. The Sierra Club is highly effective which is why "conservatives" hate it so much. Personally I am a bigger fan of the Nature Conservancy but I am a member of the Sierra Club too.

-DSK

Actually, I don't talk like that.  Tell you what, here is the Sierra club page on the florida panther.  https://www.sierraclub.org/florida/calusa/florida-panther-protection.

It gives you a nice description of the panther and a link to another page.  The only other thing is offers is a bitch about Brett Kavanaugh and a request for membership and donations.  It doesn't actually say that they are doing a thing.  Follow the link at the end.  https://www.sierraclub.org/florida/florida-wildlife-panthers-black-bears  That beauty gives you a cut and paste from two actual organizations (Florida Wildlife Corridor and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission) who are actually doing something.  the Unique Sierra Club IP?  A bitch about Scott and a request for membership and donations including used vehicles.

I won't bother to expect you to read the open secrets links above but,  the Sierra Club seems to run a few PACs and directs all of their money to democrats and in opposition to republicans.

The Sierra Club is highly effective in raising money for democrats.  Ducks unlimited runs NO Pacs, in spite of the fact that the budget far exceeds that of the Sierra Club and it contributes to both parties.  And yes, they do have a lot of rich donors.  They just don't spend much of the donations on buying politicians.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Let's see, one of us knows from his experiences and that other knows fukall.

Wanna take a stab at which one of us is which?

so comparatively speaking, I'm supposed to be ignorant cause I don't go into the 'woods' like elmer fudd and blow the shit out the residents (not to mention traumatize) like some hobbyist murderer simply because it makes you wet? bitch, your selfless 'good intentions' likely aren't doing much more than squat to tip the scales in any direction regarding any form of species preservation, and I'd probably bet money that if all the facts at hand were on the table, you'd have to eat shit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

so comparatively speaking, I'm supposed to be ignorant cause I don't go into the 'woods' like elmer fudd and blow the shit out the residents (not to mention traumatize) like some hobbyist murderer simply because it makes you wet? bitch, your selfless 'good intentions' likely aren't doing much more than squat to tip the scales in any direction regarding any form of species preservation, and I'd probably bet money that if all the facts at hand were on the table, you'd have to eat shit. 

I don't think that's why you are ignorant.  It seems to be your natural disposition.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Actually, I don't talk like that.  Tell you what, here is the Sierra club page on the florida panther.  https://www.sierraclub.org/florida/calusa/florida-panther-protection.

It gives you a nice description of the panther and a link to another page.  The only other thing is offers is a bitch about Brett Kavanaugh and a request for membership and donations.  It doesn't actually say that they are doing a thing.  Follow the link at the end.  https://www.sierraclub.org/florida/florida-wildlife-panthers-black-bears  That beauty gives you a cut and paste from two actual organizations (Florida Wildlife Corridor and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission) who are actually doing something.  the Unique Sierra Club IP?  A bitch about Scott and a request for membership and donations including used vehicles.

I won't bother to expect you to read the open secrets links above but,  the Sierra Club seems to run a few PACs and directs all of their money to democrats and in opposition to republicans.

The Sierra Club is highly effective in raising money for democrats.  Ducks unlimited runs NO Pacs, in spite of the fact that the budget far exceeds that of the Sierra Club and it contributes to both parties.  And yes, they do have a lot of rich donors.  They just don't spend much of the donations on buying politicians.

 

 

 

and here we have this asinine jerk off basically claiming the Sierra Club isn't much more than a racket like the literal one that fronts as a political party, the one he willingly supports with his ignorant votes..

just because you claim the Sierra Club 'buys politicians', (whatever the fk that means) doesn't mean their efforts are remotely misguided or ineffective. gtfo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

I don't think that's why you are ignorant.  It seems to be your natural disposition.

 

I'd be 'civil' with you if you weren't such a disingenuous weasel.

btw, your 'nature photography' is a little sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'd be 'civil' with you if you weren't such a disingenuous weasel.

btw, your 'nature photography' is entirely uninspiring.

Well your first two posts were

I suspect this is bordering on bs, if not deep in it. the same crap was claimed about a year ago by these ridiculous cock suckers who 'trophy hunt' in Africa, for example. in reality, their 'contributions' amounted to approximately five percent of the total (annual?) conservation budget.

followed by

lookee what cunt just said something that essentially tows his 'party' line. if you know shit, then cough it up.

Your idea of standards of civility don't seem too high.  The fact that you respond before it would be possible to read any of the links I've posted also shows a willful ignorance.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in 2018, your word, and those of your ilk mean shit to me. I think you live in an alternate reality, I think you're fk'ed in the head like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

in 2018, your word, and those of your ilk mean shit to me.

OH SHIT, you are even ignorant of ELKS!!!!!!!!!

We don't have many actual big, horny, hairy elks in FL but right here in Punta Gorda we have the second largest Elks lodge in the US.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

floridian, heh.

No shit Sherlock, I've been citing Florida conservation activities. I would think that even someone with your limited intelligence would have deduced that.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

...   ...

I won't bother to expect you to read the open secrets links above but,  the Sierra Club seems to run a few PACs and directs all of their money to democrats and in opposition to republicans.

.....

Because you know the "Open Secrets" web site is full of shit and you don't want to see the facts?

Guess what, in the past the Sierra Club has helped Republicans. Right now, I wouldn't be surprised if they give no money to Republican politicians, because the Sierra Club wants to protect & preserve the environment. No Republican politicians are willing to vote that way.

What do you want, an effective organization helping YOU have clean air & water, and a nice healthy planet to live on, or richer Republicans?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

What do you want, an effective organization helping YOU have clean air & water, and a nice healthy planet to live on, or richer Republicans?

-DSK

he can't answer, his head just exploded.

then again, maybe there's no conflict there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Guess what, in the past the Sierra Club has helped Republicans. Right now, I wouldn't be surprised if they give no money to Republican politicians, because the Sierra Club wants to protect & preserve the environment. No Republican politicians are willing to vote that way.

It'd be wonderful if there were Republicans interested in conservation. There used to be. - t. roosevelt, hell even Barry Goldwater said we had a right to live in a clean and pollution- free  environment. There aren't any right now. The Republican party has become captured by the extraction industrys and the pollution lobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

No shit Sherlock, I've been citing Florida conservation activities. I would think that even someone with your limited intelligence would have deduced that.

Sao why don't you tell us how you personally benefit from supporting the planet rapers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

And why do wetlands need to be rescued?

(Hint: It's not because environmentalists, and liberals are savaging them, dumping waste, and filling them in to build on.)

I think it's mostly because we now have the technology to build on them. It used to be that we considered it "swamp" and unbuildable. Then we got good at draining and lining in these areas, and suddenly the value of swamps skyrockets, we build, realize the mistake in big rains, then we start calling the swamp a "wetland" in the hope that we'll all appreciate it as a place to hold runoff, rather than a place that needs to be dried and built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

What do you want, an effective organization helping YOU have clean air & water, and a nice healthy planet to live on, or richer Republicans?

-DSK

The only time I've run into them is when they show up at other groups meetings to beg for memberships and donations.  When I look at their website they reference the good work being done by others when they don't actually do shit.

I really do want an effective organization.  The real conservation groups are exactly that.  Those are the ones I support.  Sierra Club are a bunch of self-aggrandizing beggars taking credit for the  work of others. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

I think it's mostly because we now have the technology to build on them. It used to be that we considered it "swamp" and unbuildable. Then we got good at draining and lining in these areas, and suddenly the value of swamps skyrockets, we build, realize the mistake in big rains, then we start calling the swamp a "wetland" in the hope that we'll all appreciate it as a place to hold runoff, rather than a place that needs to be dried and built.

Yeah, but as soon as it's built on every property needs a nice northern lawn so more and more chemicals are dumped into the water.  If we outlawed turf farms we would go a long way to helping with that problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

 

I really do want an effective organization.  The real conservation groups are exactly that. 

Please tell us all who they are?

image.thumb.png.575581bb5412243eb71d7d438e374ab1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 3to1 said:

so comparatively speaking, I'm supposed to be ignorant cause I don't go into the 'woods' like elmer fudd and blow the shit out the residents (not to mention traumatize) like some hobbyist murderer simply because it makes you wet? bitch, your selfless 'good intentions' likely aren't doing much more than squat to tip the scales in any direction regarding any form of species preservation, and I'd probably bet money that if all the facts at hand were on the table, you'd have to eat shit. 

No, not supposed to be ignorant, willfully ignorant.

Putting aside your attempt to shift this to play some little game, I'll give you the latitude and play along. Answer me this, you think people who hunt, people who stock game (or fish), kill, field dress and butcher their food, are somehow lesser than say someone like you who pays the butcher to do these things on your behalf?

And you think I am the one who you suspect would eat shite?

Seems to me that if I stock 20 game birds and am only allowed to take 4, that I have purposefully allowed 16 to "escape". Answer me this my genius friend, when you go to the market to buy a steak or pull into the fast food joint for a burger, of sit at the counter at your favorite diner for some bacon and eggs, how many of those amimals had an 18 in 20 chance of not finding their way to your plate?

Completely laughable you are in you staunch and willful ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It'd be wonderful if there were Republicans interested in conservation. There used to be. - t. roosevelt, hell even Barry Goldwater said we had a right to live in a clean and pollution- free  environment. There aren't any right now. The Republican party has become captured by the extraction industrys and the pollution lobby.

Utter nonsense.

This leftist narrative that the right is somehow out to screw the poor and destroy planet Earth is so far from the truth.

The differences between left and right, in my opinion as an independent. is that they both ideologically have quite similar goals.The differences are in the vehicles to get there. To achieve those goals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

And why do wetlands need to be rescued?

(Hint: It's not because environmentalists, and liberals are savaging them, dumping waste, and filling them in to build on.)

 

6 hours ago, mikewof said:

I think it's mostly because we now have the technology to build on them. It used to be that we considered it "swamp" and unbuildable. Then we got good at draining and lining in these areas, and suddenly the value of swamps skyrockets, we build, realize the mistake in big rains, then we start calling the swamp a "wetland" in the hope that we'll all appreciate it as a place to hold runoff, rather than a place that needs to be dried and built.

 

4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, but as soon as it's built on every property needs a nice northern lawn so more and more chemicals are dumped into the water.  If we outlawed turf farms we would go a long way to helping with that problem.

Interesting trains of thought.

So who is at fault?

When I drive through suburban and urban areas what I see is governments that have allowed such a tight density of population that it all but blots out "the environment". You guys make it sound as if it is the fault or failure of the marketplace, but is it? I submit that that isn't the case at all. It is about governmental desire to generate tax income to support the fallacy of "the government is here to help". That the fault lies not with the desire of entrepreneurs to garner return on investments but the abject greed of governments run amuck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a billionaire lesbian Nigerian princess. It's true, I said I"m one. Just like you are an independent.it's good we've got another fart sniffing independent in here though, there haven't been enough of those.

yup, rampant development is the gubmint's fault. invasive species are natural. up is down, down is up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Utter nonsense.

This leftist narrative that the right is somehow out to screw the poor and destroy planet Earth is so far from the truth.

The differences between left and right, in my opinion as an independent. is that they both ideologically have quite similar goals.The differences are in the vehicles to get there. To achieve those goals. 

The "leftist narrative" is actually a corporate narrative though, it's just there to move product.

Moving product is the only really obtainable goal with left-right politics, it's only thing that anyone has found that can be extracted from the maw that has any value at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

When I drive through suburban and urban areas what I see is governments that have allowed such a tight density of population that it all but blots out "the environment". You guys make it sound as if it is the fault or failure of the marketplace, but is it? I submit that that isn't the case at all. It is about governmental desire to generate tax income to support the fallacy of "the government is here to help". That the fault lies not with the desire of entrepreneurs to garner return on investments but the abject greed of governments run amuck.

The tight density of population is just our natural desire to huddle next to each other, with siding and framing our effective wolf skins. Most of us just like being close enough to others that we don't have to confront our own misery. We like to see our neighbor, and borrow a tool to fix the weed wacker, then wander back to the inside of our skin to sit in front of the hypnobox for another few hours, then pass out.

If we didn't have these population centers, then all of that beautiful nature would be covered with a thin sheen of humanity, every last, forgotten little spot. It's not the gubbermint, that's a "rightist narrative." It's us, and thank goodness for that, because if it wasn't for us huddling up next to each other, we would instead be spread eagle over all of creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

 

 

Interesting trains of thought.

So who is at fault?

When I drive through suburban and urban areas what I see is governments that have allowed such a tight density of population that it all but blots out "the environment". You guys make it sound as if it is the fault or failure of the marketplace, but is it? I submit that that isn't the case at all. It is about governmental desire to generate tax income to support the fallacy of "the government is here to help". That the fault lies not with the desire of entrepreneurs to garner return on investments but the abject greed of governments run amuck.

 

I think you are right in a lot of that.  Particularly in FL where the government and developers seem to work hand in hand for "GROWTH AND PROGRESS".

Well, as soon as you build that development folks seem to want hot and cold running water, swimming pools and that lawn needs a lot too.  So. they suck more water out filter it, stuff it with chemicals and then release it again.

Oh, and those drugs everyone gets prescribed, after metabolizing them you pee the stuff out and it is too hard to clear out at the sewage plant.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/drugs-in-the-water

Here is the story  of our fiasco.

https://www.gulfshorebusiness.com/September-2010/Land-Grab/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Saorsa said:
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

What do you want, an effective organization helping YOU have clean air & water, and a nice healthy planet to live on, or richer Republicans?

 

The only time I've run into them is when they show up at other groups meetings to beg for memberships and donations.  When I look at their website they reference the good work being done by others when they don't actually do shit.

I really do want an effective organization.  The real conservation groups are exactly that.  Those are the ones I support.  Sierra Club are a bunch of self-aggrandizing beggars taking credit for the  work of others. 

 

I've never been fond of lobbying groups. Unfortunately it's the way this country works now. You seem to support this 110%, you said you dislike them because they give money to Democrat politicians and not to Republican ones.

I was a founding member of the Neuse River Foundation which began with a 33-33-33 emphasis on lobbying, monitoring, and volunteer action. Now they're absorbed into a bigger organization and the split is about 50-50. Change with the times. The two biggest environmental threats to the Neuse basin are hog farms (how can you fight against BACON!) and suburban lawns.

The bottom line is that, in our current economic system, a clean environment is of no economic value. Home Depot can't make money selling "Don't Put Fertilizer On Your Lawn." Hog farmers (and about 90% of these are owned by big industrial food corps, not family farmers) can make a heck of a lot more money if they don't have to have effective containment lagoons.

If you hate lobbyists that support causes you like, then perhaps you should think about how to change the system...... maybe even vote for some different candidate(s)

 

1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

 

....     ...     ... That the fault lies not with the desire of entrepreneurs to garner return on investments but the abject greed of governments run amuck.

 

 

??? Where can I buy shares in Big Gov't Inc?

The shortsighted greed of developers is what drives local gov't decisions. If you're trying to say that mayors and county commissioners are acting out of greed, you're too fucking angry-stupid to breath. Put down the Fox News and take a walk, pal.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

48 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

 

 

Interesting trains of thought.

So who is at fault?

When I drive through suburban and urban areas what I see is governments that have allowed such a tight density of population that it all but blots out "the environment". You guys make it sound as if it is the fault or failure of the marketplace, but is it? I submit that that isn't the case at all. It is about governmental desire to generate tax income to support the fallacy of "the government is here to help". That the fault lies not with the desire of entrepreneurs to garner return on investments but the abject greed of governments run amuck.

 

Very interesting ideas.  One misconception though.   Cities are good for the environment, or at least the least bad option for controlling the damage of all our kids.   The carbon footprint per capita goes down dramatically compared to suburban, rural or other low density ecological nightmares.    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/location-location-lifestyle-determines-global-warming-pollution/. Of course not all cities are equal, as the graphic shows.   https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/city-consumption-greenhouse-gases-carbon-c40-spd/.    Rich city folk tend to go on carbon wasteful vacations, so they are far from benign.    

The reality is humanity cannot afford to house ourselves in our little patch of green, drive ourself to work and have amazon drive disposable shit to us so the trash truck can drive by and pick it up again.   Electricity and water costs escalate the further away the neighbor lives.    Nor can we live in the city but have our lakeside escape and yacht for Saturday night.   When we do these things we should feel like self entitled pricks fucking over our progeny.    I’d say more, but I want to drive to the lake and go sailing.   At least the boat is small, it’s carbon footprint has been defrayed over several years,, the marina is 17 minutes away and I am buring the same two gallons of ethanol free I bought in Lorain in June,     I saw that 80 foot yacht clip people were mocking last night and cringed for the selfishness of its future owners.   http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/203121-can-you-trim-the-jib-sheets-in-cocktail-dress/.   

B002C35A-30B2-4225-A7C0-C5E3F38C7CED.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

f you hate lobbyists that support causes you like, then perhaps you should think about how to change the system...... maybe even vote for some different candidate(s)

that would require consistency of proclaimed values with action, and that ain't the way that blinkered bigot works. He hates the Sierra Club because they are "lefties". Most of the fools on this thread hating on the Sierra Club hate on it because it's perceived as "lefty". The "real" conservation groups are "righties" despite most of these "real conservation" groups have a different aim (often maximization of a game species). spare me the bullshit about "never seeing" them, those fools don't see what's in front of their eyes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

I've never been fond of lobbying groups. Unfortunately it's the way this country works now. You seem to support this 110%, you said you dislike them because they give money to Democrat politicians and not to Republican ones.

I was a founding member of the Neuse River Foundation which began with a 33-33-33 emphasis on lobbying, monitoring, and volunteer action. Now they're absorbed into a bigger organization and the split is about 50-50. Change with the times. The two biggest environmental threats to the Neuse basin are hog farms (how can you fight against BACON!) and suburban lawns.

The bottom line is that, in our current economic system, a clean environment is of no economic value. Home Depot can't make money selling "Don't Put Fertilizer On Your Lawn." Hog farmers (and about 90% of these are owned by big industrial food corps, not family farmers) can make a heck of a lot more money if they don't have to have effective containment lagoons.

If you hate lobbyists that support causes you like, then perhaps you should think about how to change the system...... maybe even vote for some different candidate(s)

 

 

??? Where can I buy shares in Big Gov't Inc?

The shortsighted greed of developers is what drives local gov't decisions. If you're trying to say that mayors and county commissioners are acting out of greed, you're too fucking angry-stupid to breath. Put down the Fox News and take a walk, pal.

-DSK

Then why support a group that does little more than raise money for lobbying?  This 'activism' bullshit is just whining.  I support organizations that do something not the organizations geared to make others do do what you want and that's authoritarianism.  If you want lobbying, do it yourself.  A handwritten letter to your congressman is the voice of a citizen.  Some 400K DC lawyer is just a funds transfer device.  Paying someone to do your whining for you is hilarious. 

Change my voting?  To what; the opposite side of a counterfeit coin?  My real interest is in local elections where I can meet and face my representatives and where local action is decided.

I'm guessing your NRF ended up like so many others attracting promises of success if you  just paid the politicians enough and giving in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

...    ...     ...

I'm guessing your NRF ended up like so many others attracting promises of success if you  just paid the politicians enough and giving in.

I'm guessing that you want rich Republicans more than you want air you can breathe and water you can drink.... or sail or fish or swim in........

As for the Neuse River Foundation, you can look it up. Of course it's just another bunch of gay leftist SJW tide-pod eaters to you, so much more important to leap to judgement with no facts.

Enjoy your swim

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since everybody complains about NFPs political agendas, and the things they do ‘wrong’, has anybody had experience with an organization like this?   https://acreslandtrust.org/?post_type=template&p=9163   All they do is preserve and manage land for wilderness, photography and hiking.     Management is hiking trails, parking spaces, litter control, deconstruction of unneeded structures and selected targeting of invasive species.   Properties have been used by local universities for biodiversity studies and convenient training grounds.   

i have not seen it’s like anywhere else, and support them even though I am no longer near any of their properties.   They buy some land to protect it from low density housing and get more as donations through estate planning.    They consider watersheds, green corridors and land adjacent to state protected land as especially valuable, as well as old growth forest, fens, and other ecological hot spots.   It’s a good companion to development, since it maintains land that’s expensive to develop as a tax deductible flood plane.   Several preserves contain ruins from farms of the last century, when they proved unprofitable due to terrain or flooding.   Since state parks generally haven’t grown since the 1960s, they represent new conservation in the areas they are active.   

This seems like a model that could work elsewhere, as long as there isn’t a development boom to crowd it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

I've never been fond of lobbying groups. Unfortunately it's the way this country works now. You seem to support this 110%, you said you dislike them because they give money to Democrat politicians and not to Republican ones.

I was a founding member of the Neuse River Foundation which began with a 33-33-33 emphasis on lobbying, monitoring, and volunteer action. Now they're absorbed into a bigger organization and the split is about 50-50. Change with the times. The two biggest environmental threats to the Neuse basin are hog farms (how can you fight against BACON!) and suburban lawns.

The bottom line is that, in our current economic system, a clean environment is of no economic value. Home Depot can't make money selling "Don't Put Fertilizer On Your Lawn." Hog farmers (and about 90% of these are owned by big industrial food corps, not family farmers) can make a heck of a lot more money if they don't have to have effective containment lagoons.

If you hate lobbyists that support causes you like, then perhaps you should think about how to change the system...... maybe even vote for some different candidate(s)

 

 

??? Where can I buy shares in Big Gov't Inc?

The shortsighted greed of developers is what drives local gov't decisions. If you're trying to say that mayors and county commissioners are acting out of greed, you're too fucking angry-stupid to breath. Put down the Fox News and take a walk, pal.

-DSK

Well first off I don't watch Fox News. I do watch Maria Bartiromo"s Mornings with Maria before heading off to work as I can't stand "news channels". Of course that is on FBN. At night tend to watch OAN and BBC America for news.

As for your assertion that I am angry and stupid, not really although big gov does piss me off as it is very self serving. Politicians, all of them, are out for power. They gain that power and control through taxation and spending. Eroding the size of building lots they increase revenue and thus control with subsequent spending. If this is something you do not understand, I feel pity for you and would strongly suggest you are very much a part or party to the root of the problems we face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lark said:

 

Very interesting ideas.  One misconception though.   Cities are good for the environment, or at least the least bad option for controlling the damage of all our kids.   The carbon footprint per capita goes down dramatically compared to suburban, rural or other low density ecological nightmares.    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/location-location-lifestyle-determines-global-warming-pollution/. Of course not all cities are equal, as the graphic shows.   https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/city-consumption-greenhouse-gases-carbon-c40-spd/.    Rich city folk tend to go on carbon wasteful vacations, so they are far from benign.    

The reality is humanity cannot afford to house ourselves in our little patch of green, drive ourself to work and have amazon drive disposable shit to us so the trash truck can drive by and pick it up again.   Electricity and water costs escalate the further away the neighbor lives.    Nor can we live in the city but have our lakeside escape and yacht for Saturday night.   When we do these things we should feel like self entitled pricks fucking over our progeny.    I’d say more, but I want to drive to the lake and go sailing.   At least the boat is small, it’s carbon footprint has been defrayed over several years,, the marina is 17 minutes away and I am buring the same two gallons of ethanol free I bought in Lorain in June,     I saw that 80 foot yacht clip people were mocking last night and cringed for the selfishness of its future owners.   http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/203121-can-you-trim-the-jib-sheets-in-cocktail-dress/.   

B002C35A-30B2-4225-A7C0-C5E3F38C7CED.png

Most curious. So 10,000 cars driving at highway speeds for 1 hour produce more CO2 that 10,000 cars driving in say LA or NYC at 5 MPH? I find that distorted. 

High pollution concentration = good,

Low pollution widely dispersed = bad.

Thank you, I must be terribly confused, but with your help I should be coming around soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

No, not supposed to be ignorant, willfully ignorant.

Putting aside your attempt to shift this to play some little game, I'll give you the latitude and play along. Answer me this, you think people who hunt, people who stock game (or fish), kill, field dress and butcher their food, are somehow lesser than say someone like you who pays the butcher to do these things on your behalf?

And you think I am the one who you suspect would eat shite?

Seems to me that if I stock 20 game birds and am only allowed to take 4, that I have purposefully allowed 16 to "escape". Answer me this my genius friend, when you go to the market to buy a steak or pull into the fast food joint for a burger, of sit at the counter at your favorite diner for some bacon and eggs, how many of those amimals had an 18 in 20 chance of not finding their way to your plate?

Completely laughable you are in you staunch and willful ignorance.

no game playing here, 'independant'. only meat I ever eat is one or two average size packs of turkey sandwich slices about once a week, and I don't have a problem with someone responsibly and 'humanely' shooting their own food and dragging it back to their bunker so they can get cancer of the asshole if it keeps them away from the supermarket butcher and the fast-food meat grinder.

you think your form of what essentially boils down to animal cruelty is better than society's? you just like to kill shit because it relaxes you like a round of golf, and you rationalize with the best of 'em, so stfu..

3 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Most curious. So 10,000 cars driving at highway speeds for 1 hour produce more CO2 that 10,000 cars driving in say LA or NYC at 5 MPH? I find that distorted. 

High pollution concentration = good,

Low pollution widely dispersed = bad.

Thank you, I must be terribly confused, but with your help I should be coming around soon.

 

godforsaken automobile plague = bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2018 at 7:50 AM, mikewof said:

I didn't get the bottom part of that photo, maybe because it was kind of small on my phone, was the significance a dry creek bed? Was it that there was fresh growth from the ashes?

I have a friend who is a devout Christian, an avid hunter, has more guns than most of us and he supports wildlife conservation in a deep and meaningful way, in other words, with cold cash.

And somehow, my tree-hugging lefty self deeply admires this man, because the reality of nature of the back country, of the high country, of the forests, is that the trees and the predators and the prey don't know anything about politics. They tend to either find a healthy balance, or they collapse.

When people derive a quality of life from a healthy environment, they tend to take a vested interest in the health of that environment.

I agree, and I wrote as much to the Denver Post when they canned Scott Willoughby, the last hook and bullet reporter. Willoughby produced great hunting and fishing pieces, but he was also the most thorough conservation/environmental reporter at the Post. His work on displaced deer and elk herds and sage grouse habitat was excellent. And it's conservation where most thoughtful people can put aside their differences on social issues and recognize the value of preserving nature and the community effort that preservation requires.

The Endangered Species Act has had two lasting impacts that we should protect.

One, man made and deployed chemicals that are deadly to non-targeted species are generally harmful to humans. It's not just canaries that can warn of looming health disasters.

Two, generally the most significant threats to species are threats to their habitats. And protecting habitats and wilderness protects people. Wilderness experiences are the richest times in many peoples lives. Why would we trade away that wealth any more than absolutely necessary?

Hopefully we're in a time of transition between the ideology of taming nature and putting vast landscapes and natural resources to work, and the reality that we now need to conserve what's left, reclaim what we can, and save our sanity by preserving true wilderness experiences.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2018 at 2:26 PM, 3to1 said:

I suspect this is bordering on bs, if not deep in it. the same crap was claimed about a year ago by these ridiculous cock suckers who 'trophy hunt' in Africa, for example. in reality, their 'contributions' amounted to approximately five percent of the total (annual?) conservation budget.

I've never seen or heard of an environmentalist hiking into a snow covered landscape with bags of carrots to feed the deer stuck in "snow yards". I know plenty of hunters who have. I have never seen an environmentalist buying up acreage so he can plant feed crops, but I know plenty of hunters who take 1 or 2 deer a year while feeding herds of them during the winter via these feed crops.

I've never heard of anyone other then hunters and fishermen paying money to the state to support species sustainability. Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever do more for specific species success then any non hunter groups.   

So please tell me about how hunters and fishermen don't do anything. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites