Save the salamander

[Gologit]

Jobs on the other hand are plentiful, and even if they arent available locally you can move to find more, and even if you havent got one its possible to survive. We do have the choice.

And you come by this opinion how? Jobs in my part of the country aren't plentiful, especially in logging. In fact sometimes they're almost nonexistant. Most of the guys I work with own their homes and don't want to live anywhere else. They're second, third and fourth generation loggers with roots that go deep and a genuine connection with their heritage. Some of them still live on the land homesteaded by their forefathers.

You'd have these people move, change jobs, and change their whole lives because of something as ridiculous as an endangered plant or lizard? Weeds and creepy-crawlers are more important than people? I think not.

I've been reading your posts for a long time and I've always considered you a sensible, intelligent, articulate person.
I guess you're still articulate.

 

[extraspecialman]

First off,my friend had already started cuttin,with all the licenses and permits and certificates the state of WV requires.It was over a week after he started cutting that he was shut down.The tract of land he was cutting on was over 50 miles from his home.So figure the cost of moving 5 machines 50 miles each way,with a truck that gets 4-5 loaded miles to the gallon,with diesel at $4.15,figure in labor,machine wear,and fuel for road and landing building.Hes done spent a small fortune for a tract of timber he cant cut.Like I said earlier,I got nuthin against bein enviro friendly.What gets me is that most tree huggin ,animal saving environmentalist are the same left wing idiots that vote for a womans right to choose abortion.So kill an innocent baby,but dont so much as look crossed eyed at a lizard?I think more people would be more sympathetic with the environmentalist if that had their priorities in order.

 

[Haywire Haywood]

I AM SO SCREWED!!! I'm pro-abortion and anti-tree hugger. NOW how do I vote? crap crap crap crap.... you just ruined my whole week. No, wait, I have to go to work tomorrow. My week was already pretty much messed up. Nevermind.

Ian

 

[rms61moparman]

Well the way I see it is

If the Government (a representative REPUBLIC by the way) and the environmentalists are so concerned about the damned salamander then they should buy the mountain at fair market value plus a modest stipend for the bull$#*! they have stirred up and do with it as they please.
Those very people who have caused all the stink in California because they don't want nuclear power, or coal power, or to dam up a stream, and we can't have wind mills breaking up the view, are the ones crying because their sky high energy bills are the result of their desires.
Only a few years ago we were told that the urban sprawl was "destroying" our raptor habitat. Turns out that they are "doing very well thank you" living in cities and doing their part to help control the pigeon population.
Did anyone try transplanting these salamanders or is this just some tree hugger stating their opinion that they can only exist there.
In a LOT of these cases the root of this "crying wolf" is so the Government will supply a "study grant" and dump a fat wad of taxpayer money in the pockets of a few scientists or the universities they work for.
My2

 

[redprospector]

All BS aside. I don't mind doing something to help a truely endangered species, just don't abuse the endangered species act to shut me down, and make all the rules clear before the game begins.

Ok, back to the BS.
When a Mexican Spotted Owl's nest is found there is a little over 600 acres set aside that nothing can be done in to protect the nest. The owl's are so common that their 600+ acre circles are over lapping each other.
In the west we have a little different situation than in the east. Connifer's grow thick & in the "fire season" become a huge tinder box. In order to manage our forest's they need to be "thinned" so a fire might stay on the ground thereby saving that section of forest that the owl, salamander, butterfly, thistle, etc. etc. etc. live in. But we can't thin because there are so many endangered owl's that their protective areas overlap and cover well over 1/3 of the area.
Here it's not a case of if there is a forest fire, it's a case of when. So when there is a fire and due to a lack of thinning & logging the fire crown's, and moonscapes the entire area, how many owl's did we save? What species did we help?
The answer? None, Nada, Zilch.
How many human lives did we anialate?
The answer? Every one of them in that area.

Andy

 

[Gologit]

I AM SO SCREWED!!! I'm pro-abortion and anti-tree hugger. NOW how do I vote? crap crap crap crap.... you just ruined my whole week. No, wait, I have to go to work tomorrow. My week was already pretty much messed up. Nevermind.

Ian

You need a vacation, some Hood River Beer, and a slice of huckleberry pie.

 

[ciscoguy01]

rough

And you come by this opinion how? Jobs in my part of the country aren't plentiful, especially in logging. In fact sometimes they're almost nonexistant. Most of the guys I work with own their homes and don't want to live anywhere else. They're second, third and fourth generation loggers with roots that go deep and a genuine connection with their heritage. Some of them still live on the land homesteaded by their forefathers.

You'd have these people move, change jobs, and change their whole lives because of something as ridiculous as an endangered plant or lizard? Weeds and creepy-crawlers are more important than people? I think not.

I've been reading your posts for a long time and I've always considered you a sensible, intelligent, articulate person.
I guess you're still articulate.

Like I said, this is a rough one. I for one HATE tree-huggers, and activists. They are why my old family sawmill sits there. Permits to cut anything in the APA... Same hand, what your saying is not a real good excuse. If what your saying is justification, I guess the indians ought to be ALOT more pissed than they are. Think about what you just said Bob. Your living where a bunch of indians used to hunt and survive before YOUR Great great great grandparents got there, or however many generations, that was how they lived... You get the point I'm sure... When I was younger I came from 5+ generations of Loggers here, times change and as they do we need to change with them sadly enough. The saddest thing is most of the values go away with them. People are overpopulating, that's the problem. Remember, population control starts in the projects... hehehehehehehehehe

eh?

 

[Haywire Haywood]

You need a vacation, some Hood River Beer, and a slice of huckleberry pie.

I really think it's gonna take more than a week in the PNW to straighten me out. What I want to know is who put that cotton ball in my mouth last night while I slept.

Ian

 

[Hugenpoet]

If the Government (a representative REPUBLIC by the way) and the environmentalists are so concerned about the damned salamander then they should buy the mountain at fair market value plus a modest stipend for the bull$#*! they have stirred up and do with it as they please.
Those very people who have caused all the stink in California because they don't want nuclear power, or coal power, or to dam up a stream, and we can't have wind mills breaking up the view, are the ones crying because their sky high energy bills are the result of their desires.
Only a few years ago we were told that the urban sprawl was "destroying" our raptor habitat. Turns out that they are "doing very well thank you" living in cities and doing their part to help control the pigeon population.
Did anyone try transplanting these salamanders or is this just some tree hugger stating their opinion that they can only exist there.
In a LOT of these cases the root of this "crying wolf" is so the Government will supply a "study grant" and dump a fat wad of taxpayer money in the pockets of a few scientists or the universities they work for.
My2

I'm not sure that having our Government buy up any more private land with taxpayers money (after all the Government is merely a redistributor of wealth, not a creator) would do anything other than make the situation worse.

I for one don't want the entire country "owned" by one form of government or another and have politicians and special interest groups decide how all land can be used. It is bad enough that the various iterations of "conservation commissions" etc can now regulate virtually all private activity.

 

[ciscoguy01]

I'm not sure that having our Government buy up any more private land with taxpayers money (after all the Government is merely a redistributor of wealth, not a creator) would do anything other than make the situation worse.

I for one don't want the entire country "owned" by one form of government or another and have politicians and special interest groups decide how all land can be used. It is bad enough that the various iterations of "conservation commissions" etc can now regulate virtually all private activity.

Eminant Domain means it doesn't matter what you, me or the neighbor thinks about the situation...

Gotta love politicians...

 

[RAYINTOMBALL]

Eminant Domain means it doesn't matter what you, me or the neighbor thinks about the situation...

Gotta love politicians...

Maybe we're somewhere between whoever you vote for does'nt matter much, and the shooting begins.:monkey:

 

[Hugenpoet]

Eminant Domain means it doesn't matter what you, me or the neighbor thinks about the situation...

Gotta love politicians...

I agree that the government's power to take property "for the public good" through various state and federal statutes exists and can be exercised with little opportunity to resist on the part of the property owner. However, Eminent Domain takings require compensation be paid to the landowner with fairly broad judicial review and appellate review options open to an aggrieved party to insure that the compensation is adequate.

What I don't like, and was trying to point out in my prior post, is that the government can use tax money to take private property and then restict the use of that property.

 

[Zodiac45]

People are overpopulating, that's the problem. Remember, population control starts in the projects... hehehehehehehehehe

eh?

Cisco, You must have been watching that movie Idiocracy the other night!

 

[andrethegiant70]

The way I look at it is this. If they are already down to the point that they only live on one mountain, then what great impact is it if they too disappear. It's not like that mountain will cave in if they're not there anymore. I don't get why people freak out when the last of something dies off. It happens and has happened for hundreds of thousands of years. We're just more efficient about helping mother nature make it happen... LOL

Ian

This is certainly something to consider... but think about. Is it really about what will happen to US if one species disappears? Surely, if the last Condors or a single species of salamander or snake goes south it will not have any impact on us.. zip, zero, zilch. There's very little issue here.

There are really TWO issues:

1) First, you have to ask yourself if you believe in INTRINSIC value. Do things have value BEYOND what we can do with them. Are people the ONLY measure of what is good in the world or do other things matter? I think a more selfish and thoughtless person is going to tend to choose in favor of thinking that what he can do with something is the only measure of its value. A less selfish person is going to choose to believe that things have value beyond what he can do with them. Species and biodiversity will be important to this person as will flowers, planets, stars, the arts, someone else's cornfield and everything this person may not use but has decided has value for a hundred other reasons NOT NECESSARILY related to him.

2) Second, a scientist who, by virtue of education and study, understands that EVERYTHING is part of a system. A man who never changes the oil in his car will still be able to drive to the store to get his groceries for a long time.... until the damage is so bad that the system (engine) ceases to function or now functions so badly that he's realized too late that he's put his family in jeapordy. This is a huge mistake. Dirty oil (a dying salamander) doesn't hurt anything, but don't make the mistake of deciding it doesn't MEAN anything.. that's just plain old, lazy, shortsighted, bad logic.

The REAL question, gentlemen, isn't "is this species worth saving" or "what does the damn salamander do anyways," the real question is

"WHO ARE YOU, HAVE YOU INVESTED THE TIME AND EFFORT REQUIRED TO UNDERSTAND YOUR WORLD, AND WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR"

And I was doing so well in the rep department *sigh* ...oh well, I guess we all have to make sacrifices.

 

[wildbio]

And I was doing so well in the rep department *sigh* ...oh well, I guess we all have to make sacrifices.

paraphrasing Aldo Leopold deserves good rep...

Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There, 1948:
"The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.... A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these "resources", but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state.

Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. By land is meant all of the things on, over, or in the earth.... The land is one organism. Its parts, like our own parts, compete with each other and co-operate with each other. The competitions are as much a part of the inner workings as the co-operations. You can regulate them--cautiously--but not abolish them.

The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little we know about it. The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

 

[RAYINTOMBALL]

paraphrasing Aldo Leopold deserves good rep...

Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There, 1948:
"The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.... A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these "resources", but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state.

Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. By land is meant all of the things on, over, or in the earth.... The land is one organism. Its parts, like our own parts, compete with each other and co-operate with each other. The competitions are as much a part of the inner workings as the co-operations. You can regulate them--cautiously--but not abolish them.

The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little we know about it. The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

I apologize this is really deep stuff. I'm sorry but I'm from the shallow end of my gene pool. This thread is really reallyyyyyyy getting deep!

What does everyone think about the Stihl MS361? HUH

 

[RAYINTOMBALL]

Did everyone notice it took till the 76th post for the ms361 to be brought up.
I bet that's a record.

 

[PB]

Keeping with the transcendentalist movement.....

The great post by Wildbio (not sure if Leopold is considered transcendentalist or not) made me think of Emerson. This might give some insight to how some view nature. I know it is long, but well worth the time to read.

Ralph Waldo Emerson on nature:

"To speak truly, few adult persons can see nature. Note Most persons do not see the sun. At least they have a very superficial seeing. The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of the child. The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food. In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows. Nature says, -- he is my creature, and maugre Definition all his impertinent griefs, he shall be glad with me. Not the sun or the summer alone, but every hour and season yields its tribute of delight; for every hour and change corresponds to and authorizes a different state of the mind, Note from breathless noon to grimmest midnight. Nature is a setting that fits equally well a comic or a mourning piece. In good health, the air is a cordial of incredible virtue. Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, Note I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration.I am glad to the brink of fear. Note In the woods too, a man casts off his years, as the snake his slough Definition, and at what period soever of life, is always a child. Note In the woods, is perpetual youth. Within these plantations of God, a decorum and sanctity reign, a perennial festival is dressed, and the guest sees not how he should tire of them in a thousand years. In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life, -- no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes,) Note which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, Note -- my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, -- all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God. Note The name of the nearest friend sounds then foreign and accidental: to be brothers, to be acquaintances, -- master or servant, is then a trifle and a disturbance. I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty.In the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate Note than in streets or villages. In the tranquil landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as beautiful as his own nature."

 

[rms61moparman]

Oh My Word

I obviously am not nearly as educated as a large percentage of the members on here, and until just a minute ago I had never heard of Aldo Leopold but that quote is the most self aggrandizing statement I have ever heard, Aldo Leopold or not. THE OUTSTANDING SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF THE 20th Century? .......My hindmost parts!!!
The Native Americans were poignantly aware of the co existance of nature and the interdependence of each organism upon those around it HUNDREDS of years before the Easterners ever set their feet upon this soil.
I come from a long line of farmers, simple country people who worked the land and HAD to live in harmony with it, or be consumed by it. However I have to wonder how the opinions on here would change if we were still running from T-Rex on a daily basis. I know for a fact that recently the uneducated "bunny huggers" that started feeding a bear that turned up here had a change of heart when it started eating their dogs and breaking into their houses.

 

[andrethegiant70]

I obviously am not nearly as educated as a large percentage of the members on here, and until just a minute ago I had never heard of Aldo Leopold but that quote is the most self aggrandizing statement I have ever heard, Aldo Leopold or not. THE OUTSTANDING SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF THE 20th Century? .......My hindmost parts!!!
The Native Americans were poignantly aware of the co existance of nature and the interdependence of each organism upon those around it HUNDREDS of years before the Easterners ever set their feet upon this soil.
I come from a long line of farmers, simple country people who worked the land and HAD to live in harmony with it, or be consumed by it. However I have to wonder how the opinions on here would change if we were still running from T-Rex on a daily basis. I know for a fact that recently the uneducated "bunny huggers" that started feeding a bear that turned up here had a change of heart when it started eating their dogs and breaking into their houses.

Well, I'm thinking they concluded that it was a bad idea to feed the bears... but beyond that I suspect you're making a point that I've not caught onto. I don't believe it is good logic to think that because the bunny huggers were stupid and fed the bears that we should now feel free to kill bears. Is that what you're getting at?

Oh, a reasonable definition of "bunny huggers" should be added to avoid insulting the present members of the scientific community.