PDA

View Full Version : Guns, freedom & environmentalisum


Meplat
10-04-2009, 8:33 PM
Mods, This in response to another that was started and allowed to go forward here, but if you must, put it where you like.



I can no longer hold my silence. I work for a ‘state entity’ that works to protect California agriculture. If you are well fed thank a farmer, if you like pizza thank me. A BA is no longer what it was thirty or forty years ago. I have had biologists and entomologists working for me that can not put together a coherent sentence.

There is almost no credible original research going on today. Marginally educated people, with a radical environmentalist agenda are being puked out of our universities on a yearly basis. They have been fed the Kool-Aid sense kindergarten. They are out to save the planet, and the first thing they do is look for a job where they can regulate what the rest of the world does. Most are useful idiots.

Take the California condor for example. A biologist or ornithologist over 60 who has a real education will tell you the Condor is a creature of the Pleistocene and is adapted to feed on the mega fauna of that epoch. It is an absolute miracle that it survived to see the introduction of modern man into North America. It cannot dependably make a living on fauna smaller than perhaps mule deer. The introduction of modern man with the wealth, economic base, and value of nature that we have is the only reason the Condor is still in existence. We have no guilt in this matter. The notion that it is our fault and we must change our ways is pure bunk. Here is a link to the Audubon Societies’ Condor page. Note that despite the innuendo, inference, and assumption. There is no mention of ANY bullet EVER being found in the crop, gizzard, stomach, or any other part of the digestive tract of any Condor. This is just a dreamed up hypothesis, again with no real basis in research. Also, please examine the Condor rang map. It is drastically smaller than the lead free zone. Now they want even more. They want the whole state and are looking with greedy eyes on entire regions of the west.

http://ca.audubon.org/newsroom/080806_condor_AOU.php

Now this might be reasonable if there were a chance that there were Condors out there that were not known. But, the fact is that every Condor in the wild is numbered and babysat. Reasonably the prohibited zone should extend no farther than say, twice the flight range of all Known Condors. But reasonableness is not part of the environmentalist agenda. If they think they can successfully release more birds into the wild, go for it, and then extend the prohibited zone. It’s not like a Condor is going to get lead poisoning from a mule deer shot last year.

That is not to say that there is no value in saving this animal. I think it a wonderful thing to preserve a species that would otherwise be lost. But let’s not kid ourselves, it is an artificial salvation. To accomplish it we need the surplus of time energy and resources that a modern capitalist economy provides.

Delta Smelt

I had lunch last week in a small Mexican restaurant, a converted service station. I took my crew to the place because it has good authentic Mexican food, and the community, Mendota, badly needs the business. You see, Mendota has an unemployment Rate of over 40%. Because of the radical environmentalists.

The white wine and brie crowd are loathe to admit that the ‘delta smelt’ is not unique to the San Francisco delta. They can and will successfully interbreed with small smelt from several west coast estuaries. So, what is the reasoning behind shutting down the water that enables the San Joaquin Valley to feed the nation and the world? Economic warfare!

I work for a living, I gotta go to bed.

More later.

RRangel
10-04-2009, 9:59 PM
Much of the environmentalism we're fed today is nonsense. It only takes common sense. Most kids in public grade school should be able to figure it out when introduced to extinct species that are in no way related to man, or maybe they don't tell them about dinosaurs anymore. It's just that the activists have done a great job of indoctrination. Our lying media practically exists today to serve the interests of well connected ultra politically correct elitists. The Van Jones' of the world know they would never get anywhere otherwise.

radioman
10-04-2009, 11:28 PM
the only reason we are not extinct is the fact, that we can manipulate our environment. without fire, we would be long extinct. or getting water to go where we want it to go, we fed our self's. with tools we could manipulate even more and made it possible to move out of the cave, once we found fuel in the ground, mankind took off, and now, we reach for the stars. but if an environmentalism lived in the cave with us, we would not be here today.

yellowfin
10-05-2009, 4:09 AM
The eco freaks have an advantage over us in that they have nothing competing for their money or time. Since I am a hunter, I have to choose between spending my time and money on what I enjoy doing OR using those resources to fight against those trying to take it away from me, whereas they have no such sacrifice to make. $500 to me is a new rifle or bow, or if I grit my teeth very hard a sacrifice to the political domain. I do not like having the necessity of that shoveled upon me- I hate gambling and it seems even more frivolous to me than that. The hippies however have no such encumberance, they have only one choice that brings no conflict to them. They'll all too gladly write a check to buy power, especially if it spites me in the process. They don't have to give up hours in the woods, they just walk right into the school board meeting knowing full well its a rarity that one of us will be there. You and I buy a boat with what they use to buy a school district. Is it any wonder we're behind?

Curtis
10-05-2009, 5:56 AM
Meplat

A very well written post. Thank you.

I see this in every aspect of my industry (building/construction). It amazes me to see how much regulation is forced upon us by government....and more amazing is how few people realize this.

zcrehan
10-05-2009, 6:08 AM
Great post.

gd-bh
10-05-2009, 7:19 AM
yes..the enviro nazi's make the gun grabbers look like rank amateurs. You can look at almost any aspect of our life today, and the junk science foisted upon the public has it's dirty little fingers firmly in all of it. They impact the way we work, the way we play, and the way we live. And so very little of it has even a minute amount of basic scientific fact attached to it that it's really hard to believe that "educated" and worldly elected officials and judges buy into their lies.

Eco nazi's, gun grabbers, safety freaks...they are all cut from the same flawed cloth..They all want to control you and force you to live in their own warped sense of reality. It sure makes anyone with even a couple brain cells hurt if you think about it.

greasemonkey
10-05-2009, 7:55 AM
Delta Smelt

I had lunch last week in a small Mexican restaurant, a converted service station. I took my crew to the place because it has good authentic Mexican food, and the community, Mendota, badly needs the business. You see, Mendota has an unemployment Rate of over 40%. Because of the radical environmentalists.

The white wine and brie crowd are loathe to admit that the ‘delta smelt’ is not unique to the San Francisco delta. They can and will successfully interbreed with small smelt from several west coast estuaries. So, what is the reasoning behind shutting down the water that enables the San Joaquin Valley to feed the nation and the world? Economic warfare!


In the Delta Smelt fiasco, don't forget about the San Joaquin River Recreation circle jerk that's somewhat related. Water will be released from the Friant Dam at record high levels in an effort to keep water flowing through the San Joaquin River, under the guise that MAYBE, the salmon COULD POSSIBLY work their way back into the San Joaquin River. In addition, the San Joaquin will no longer be allowed for ag use (food production), which leaves the 'alternative' of water being pumped out of the Delta and into the central/south valley for growing food.

The problem with that is that it's already become illegal under the Federal ESA to pump water out of the Delta into the ag land waterways. So our two main water supplies have been shut off.

60-95% of our country's fruit, vegetables, nuts and whatever other produce, both fresh and canned, come from the valley here; and A LOT of that land is being plowed under. Entire tree orchards (fruit, citrus and nuts) have been dying and bulldozed over to prevent insects from rapidly spawning in the dead trees; tomatoes, lettuce, carrots, corn and other produce is not being planted. Fresno's unemployment is skyrocketing because of people (like me) in the service industry (I work on crop dusting aircraft) have no work and no money to spend...so all the local venues that I usually frequent also have no money coming in, so they're folding up.

I can't wait until next year when the rest of the country starts whining about food prices going up and substantially more produce starts showing up from Chile, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, China...you guys think we have e-coli problems now with California produce, just you wait, it's gonna be a wild ride!

But back to the water issue: the Farmers 'stealing' water from the Delta has been the scapegoat story of why the Delta smelt are supposedly dying. There has been well documented research of why the eco-system in the Delta is changing and it is a DOCUMENTED, DIRECT RESULT of the Stockton/Sacramento and surrounding cities dumping partially treated sewage and sewage treatment chemicals into the Delta...but that *minor* detail gets overlooked and we are directed to the farmers watering their crops as the culprits in the Delta eco-system changing.

greasemonkey
10-05-2009, 8:05 AM
The San Joaquin River Recreation project is specifically set up to provide a higher volume of water supplied to the Delta so they can dilute the extremely high level of sewage/sewage treatment chemicals so it won't destroy the local eco-system as much.

But oops, doing that just shut down the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most major players in the WORLD'S food supply...and coincidentally one of the few loud voices of opposition to Miz Pelosi.

Fresno is in the mid teens for unemployment, while most of the West Side towns are at 40-70% unemployment. 40-70% unemployment. And people were complaining when the national average passed 9%!! It has been said many times that this goes beyond economic warfare and is all out domestic 'T' by the lawmakers.

Meplat
10-07-2009, 10:59 PM
That sir, is one of the most important points in this discussion. It is not Man V. Nature, Man IS nature. If we were not the apex species we would be sitting around waiting for salamanders to save US!



Most problems in this world are directly related to an unfirm grip on reality. I hear all the time that we are not supposed to leave anything but footprints because we don't want to disturb nature. Well, WE ARE NATURE!!!

Meplat
10-07-2009, 11:27 PM
It permeates every aspect of American life today, and all with an IQ above room temperature know it, weather they admit it or not. There is an old saw that says; "Never contribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

However, the front men in the trenches are useful idiots who think they are doing the lords work, so to speak. But the real architects of this crap are dripping with "malice" toward our system, our country, and our freedom.




Meplat

A very well written post. Thank you.

I see this in every aspect of my industry (building/construction). It amazes me to see how much regulation is forced upon us by government....and more amazing is how few people realize this.

Meplat
10-07-2009, 11:41 PM
Just got in from the fall treatment operations. Dog tired.

Thank you so much for those contributions to this thread. Right after I wrote the original post I had to hit the field and clean up over 7,000 acres of BLH habitat. I'm sure you understand my world. From time to time it's 24/7/365 until you get it done. What I didn't have time to say, you did. Thanks.

BTW, (closed circuit) Rob, as well as Roger, are phenomenal pilots. It is an honor to work with them.




The San Joaquin River Recreation project is specifically set up to provide a higher volume of water supplied to the Delta so they can dilute the extremely high level of sewage/sewage treatment chemicals so it won't destroy the local eco-system as much.

But oops, doing that just shut down the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most major players in the WORLD'S food supply...and coincidentally one of the few loud voices of opposition to Miz Pelosi.

Fresno is in the mid teens for unemployment, while most of the West Side towns are at 40-70% unemployment. 40-70% unemployment. And people were complaining when the national average passed 9%!! It has been said many times that this goes beyond economic warfare and is all out domestic 'T' by the lawmakers.

mmartin
10-08-2009, 12:34 AM
... we are directed to the farmers watering their crops as the culprits in the Delta eco-system changing.

earlier this year I had an eco freak tell me I was not entitled to any water that didn't fall on my land, and that by trapping runoff I was robbing the environment / nature of it's water... :TFH:
seriously? I should only be able to use the rain as it falls? and I shouldn't irrigate with water running through my property? or have a well? or a rain barrel? or convert ocean water to fresh?:eek:
tried to get them to ante up and actually *live* that way... but no, they live in an "environmentally friendly appartment."
holier than thou always gets on my nerves.:mad:
can NOT stand the junk science some people believe.:mad::mad::mad:
megan

rolo
10-08-2009, 7:00 AM
tried to get them to ante up and actually *live* that way... but no, they live in an "environmentally friendly appartment."


This is the root of the problem. Every single environmentalist I have had dealings with (quite a few, I spent several years attending various conferences in my spare time to understand current enviro thinking) lives in a fantasy world where if you smell of BO and Patchouli and happen to wander into the wilderness on foot, nature is drawn to you like animals to St. Francis. It's as if they have a Disney-fied vision of reality and cannot accept any trespass. I have yet to meet an anarchist or environmentalist (a LOT of crossover between those two groups) that could survive outside the big cities they loathe or without cutting mommy's (government welfare) purse strings.

I have had dealings with young professors who admittedly failed at living the lifestyle they espouse in the classroom, yet willingly put pen to paper and sign off in support of legislation that would hamper the halt of suburban encroachment onto agricultural lands. These are professors that while growing a "victory garden" fail to recognize that the organic produce that they MUST supplement their diet with at the grocery store or farmers market is increasingly expensive thanks to the policies that they pursue politically. But it's okay, they get cost of living increases thanks to their employer, unlike the students they teach.

The bulk of young people today have no critical thinking skills (which has always been the case, so it goes without saying) but it is compounded by being divorced from the cycle of life. Failing to include wilderness or agricultural experiences as a basic part of education is causing this degradation of common horse sense. I have met young people who have never spent more than three or four hours outside in one stretch, and have no disability other than apathy to blame. Inconceivable even ten years ago.

It seems to me that this is the seed of many greater issues, but a solution isn't at hand to prevent this weed's growth.

YubaRiver
10-08-2009, 8:45 AM
earlier this year I had an eco freak tell me I was not entitled to any water that didn't fall on my land, and that by trapping runoff I was robbing the environment / nature of it's water...

I just moved to Washington State. Here the state owns the rainfall. You
presumably can't even have a rain barrel. This has nothing to do with
environmentalism here, just good ole water rights issues.

yellowfin
10-08-2009, 8:47 AM
The state owns the rainfall? Good grief what kind of ego must that government have?!?! I don't think even Napoleon went that far.

hnoppenberger
10-08-2009, 8:55 AM
i recently learned the condor was an ancient creature upon visiting the san diego zoo and reading the exhibit info.

i drew my own conclusion that matches your above. Why do we need to keep a creature around that is going extienct by its own design?

why do we need to protect an animal like the moutain lion that has no threats in the wild and the population is good?

why are kit foxes protected when there is countless numbers of them in the wild?

all questions that have no answers, because they cant be answered, because of the liberal agenda and the corruption of young minds like you described above.

thank you left wing!
their time will come.

Eargasm
10-08-2009, 12:08 PM
If you are well fed thank a farmer, if you like pizza thank me.

I love pizza. Thank You.


There is no mention of ANY bullet EVER being found in the crop, gizzard, stomach, or any other part of the digestive tract of any Condor.


The problem is more that condors might eat lead shot, or the contaminated blood/meat of animals that have been shot previously, not from eating whole bullets.

greasemonkey
10-08-2009, 12:25 PM
earlier this year I had an eco freak tell me I was not entitled to any water that didn't fall on my land, and that by trapping runoff I was robbing the environment / nature of it's water... tried to get them to ante up and actually *live* that way... but no, they live in an "environmentally friendly appartment."
megan
Did you happen to ask them where their eco-friendly apartment gets its water or electricity? It's from the City's water treatment facility that uses A LOT of electricity and fuel run generator/pump engines, treatment chemicals and concrete/metal/wood structures, flowing through pipelines that were dug/constructed with diesel burning off highway tractors and machines. Their apartment was also constructed by a bunch of gun toting, pickup driving construction workers.:D:D:D

Why do we need to keep a creature around that is going extienct by its own design?

why do we need to protect an animal like the moutain lion that has no threats in the wild and the population is good?

why are kit foxes protected when there is countless numbers of them in the wild?

all questions that have no answers, because they cant be answered, because of the liberal agenda and the corruption of young minds like you described above.

This always entertains me. Suppose evolution is true and we have been evolving for millions of years, weak species have been dying off while stronger species are developing and advancing...why are we suddenly trying to meddle in this progression? Who are we to decide which species are fit to carry on. Is it not selfish to stop our world from advancing in the interest of "keeping" the dying species of animals that we have an interest in? But I have yet to successfully debate that with any self proclaimed 'environmentalist'...the debate always comes back to "diesel trucks (this)", "george bush (that)" and baby seals are dying as a direct result of corporate greed.:confused:

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 12:29 PM
I own a small ranch in Washington State; their water laws and regs (as well as enforcement, from what I've seen) lags behind CA 10-30 years. Have you had legal trouble keeping a rain barrel?


I just moved to Washington State. Here the state owns the rainfall. You
presumably can't even have a rain barrel. This has nothing to do with
environmentalism here, just good ole water rights issues.

greasemonkey
10-08-2009, 12:32 PM
The problem is more that condors might eat lead shot, or the contaminated blood/meat of animals that have been shot previously, not from eating whole bullets.

But how exactly are we supposed to prove this? To my knowledge, no Condor corpse analysis has any measurable trace of lead poisoning.

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 12:41 PM
But how exactly are we supposed to prove this? To my knowledge, no Condor corpse analysis has any measurable trace of lead poisoning.

Another, but uncomfortable, question: even if it were proven to be true, why do we care? Further, do we preserve all species or only those who fulfill a provable ecological purpose?

Eargasm
10-08-2009, 12:52 PM
But how exactly are we supposed to prove this? To my knowledge, no Condor corpse analysis has any measurable trace of lead poisoning.

There's a researcher (can't remember where he's from, I'll try and dig up the study) who takes blood samples from living condors or vultures to look at the progression of lead buildup.

It might take me a while to find it -- the blue angels are practicing outside and I'm easily distracted.

Edit:

Here's one from AZ fish and game, but it's regarding the CA condor. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml
Lead toxicity has been identified as the leading cause of death in condors in the Arizona reintroduction program. Eight confirmed and two suspected condor deaths have been caused by lead poisoning, the most recent occurring in March of 2006. Condors in Arizona are trapped twice a year to have their blood tested for lead. Biologists have seen 211 instances of lead exposure in condors since testing began in 1999. A total of 49 condors have been exposed to lead, most multiple times, with 31 birds requiring treatment (chelation) to reverse dangerously high blood lead levels (data current as of March 2006). Without these treatments more condors might have died.

Although there may be many potential sources of lead, an ongoing scientific study funded by the Arizona Game and Fish Department has determined that lead from spent ammunition is a major source of lead in exposed condors and that lead from the local environment does not appear to be a factor. An additional study has determined that condor lead exposure rates are highest during the fall hunting season in northern Arizona. This study also concludes that during this same time, condors spend the most time foraging on the Kaibab Plateau. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is committed to reducing the amount of lead available to condors by encouraging sportsmen to take lead reduction actions when hunting in condor range.

Condors inadvertently ingest lead from spent ammunition found in animal carcasses and gut piles. Fragments from lead bullets or lead shot have been found within the digestive tracts of condors 16 times in Arizona. Lead bullets can fragment into hundreds of pieces before they exit a target such as a deer or coyote. Since condors are group feeders, and only one or two lead fragments or pellets can cause lead toxicity, one animal carcass or gut pile containing lead fragments or lead shot has the potential to poison several condors.

GuyW
10-08-2009, 12:54 PM
I just moved to Washington State. Here the state owns the rainfall.

...just wait 'til they claim to own the air - and you don't pay your taxes....

.

YubaRiver
10-08-2009, 1:01 PM
I own a small ranch in Washington State; their water laws and regs (as well as enforcement, from what I've seen) lags behind CA 10-30 years. Have you had legal trouble keeping a rain barrel?

Nope, just was told I wouldn't be able to build a cistern.

greasemonkey
10-08-2009, 1:07 PM
...just wait 'til they claim to own the air - and you don't pay your taxes....

.

A couple of dairy and tree farmers here in the Valley were told by the EPA that they owed a certain fee to the State for emissions pollutants. Their reply was that the State owed them just as much money for all the oxygen that their orchards and fields were producing. The businessmen never heard another word about the alleged fees! This is not urban legend, either.

Untamed1972
10-08-2009, 1:14 PM
I can no longer hold my silence. I work for a ‘state entity’ that works to protect California agriculture. If you are well fed thank a farmer, if you like pizza thank me. A BA is no longer what it was thirty or forty years ago. I have had biologists and entomologists working for me that can not put together a coherent sentence.

There is almost no credible original research going on today. Marginally educated people, with a radical environmentalist agenda are being puked out of our universities on a yearly basis. They have been fed the Kool-Aid sense kindergarten. They are out to save the planet, and the first thing they do is look for a job where they can regulate what the rest of the world does. Most are useful idiots.



I can totally vouch for the truth of these statements......I deal with this madness on a daily basis. To me the definition of "environmentalism" is just "extreme unreasonableness and hypocrascy."


One of my favorites is how everyone must go to extreme lengths to keep sediments and erosion from entering the storm drains and watersheds. Every seen a guy with a wet-vac following a guy saw cutting concrete? It's not like concrete cuttings are toxic. So anyway....everyone has to go to these extreme lengths to catch all the sediment. But then what happens? There is no to new sand moving down the river channels to replenish the sands on the local beaches. So then what? Taxpayers hafta spend millions of dollars to truck in sand to dump on the beach. Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this? Sedimentation is just a natural process that occurs on this planet everyday.....when did it suddenly become toxic to the local watersheds?

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 1:23 PM
The Church study has been substantially (if not entirely) undermined by its own unethical methodology; the FBI found out about the pitfalls of lead analysis the hard way, and recently CA Fish & Game Commission recognized the same.


There's a researcher (can't remember where he's from, I'll try and dig up the study) who takes blood samples from living condors or vultures to look at the progression of lead buildup.

It might take me a while to find it -- the blue angels are practicing outside and I'm easily distracted.

Edit:

Here's one from AZ fish and game, but it's regarding the CA condor. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml

Untamed1972
10-08-2009, 1:29 PM
I always wanted an environmentalist to answer me a couple of questions:

1) We know dinosaurs once roamed this planet. Who do we blame for their extinction since man wasn't here yet?

2) We know there have been serveral ice ages (ie global cooling) on this planet and thaws (ie global warming) before man existed, or was very small in number. Who do we blame those on?

joelberg
10-08-2009, 1:33 PM
Just curious, has anyone else ever wanted to try eating Condor?

Eargasm
10-08-2009, 1:36 PM
The Church study has been substantially (if not entirely) undermined by its own unethical methodology; the FBI found out about the pitfalls of lead analysis the hard way, and recently CA Fish & Game Commission recognized the same.

It wasn't the Church study; the one I saw was a guy testing birds in Yellowstone or Jackson Hole.

Untamed1972
10-08-2009, 1:48 PM
Just curious, has anyone else ever wanted to try eating Condor?


I hear they taste like a mixture of spotted owls and bald eagles! LOL

Hunt
10-08-2009, 1:52 PM
So, what is the reasoning behind shutting down the water that enables the San Joaquin Valley to feed the nation and the world? Economic warfare!
"... want the truth, can you handle the truth..." they are doing this so Dianne Feinstein or one of her criminal DEM party criminal oligarchs can get a massive gov't grant to purchase central CA at a firesale prices then get another gov't grant to develop a green economy in the area. there it is sit on the couch and complain or do something about it.

ship12
10-08-2009, 2:03 PM
Why do we need to protect an animal like the moutain lion that has no threats in the wild and the population is good?

Why are kit foxes protected when there is countless numbers of them in the wild?

all questions that have no answers, because they cant be answered, because of the liberal agenda and the corruption of young minds like you described above.

thank you left wing!
their time will come.

Do they need to be protected? I couldn't say, I don't have any evidence for or against. I could tell you why they are are needed. It's to control the population of the animals they feed upon. Animals such as deer, rabbits, and mice. Without enough predators, the population of of the prey will significantly increase. It's not always about the species, it can be about an entire ecosystem.

But I have an unrelated question... who takes biology classes to study this stuff? I don't think any of the Biological Science majors at my school (UCI) wanted to go out in the field and save animals. They wanted to be doctors, dentists, pharmacists, or do lab research, primarily involving bacteria, genetics, and protiens. The cirriculum focused on biochemistry, microbiology. Theres good money for careers in medicine or pharmacology, not so much for ecology.

And on the lead contamination... theres other metals to make the core of a bullet out of. If leads is honestly the issue, they should ban lead. After all, a steel bullets not going to give a condor lead poisoning. And theres tons of other metals and alloys to choose from.

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 2:06 PM
It wasn't the Church study; the one I saw was a guy testing birds in Yellowstone or Jackson Hole.

Since we cannot review and discuss a study which is not currently available, can we discuss my earlier questions?

...even if it were proven to be true, why do we care? Further, do we preserve all species or only those who fulfill a provable ecological purpose?

greasemonkey
10-08-2009, 2:12 PM
"... want the truth, can you handle the truth..." they are doing this so Dianne Feinstein or one of her criminal DEM party criminal oligarchs can get a massive gov't grant to purchase central CA at a firesale prices then get another gov't grant to develop a green economy in the area. there it is sit on the couch and complain or do something about it.

I honestly hadn't thought about it like that but it makes sense. Thinking about how they would implement this 'green economy' makes me chuckle, though. If they had any clue what it takes to keep this Valley's currently fertile soil sustainable, they would have embraced what the food production industry has already accomplished here. We've been getting more and more efficient in technology and practice.

By 'green economy', I wonder if that means they want it to be like the average hippy's home, with a disgustingly overgrown yard that's a breeding haven for pests, varmints and disease.

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 2:15 PM
We're not seriously entertaining the thought that US Gov would somehow procure and take control of the Valley... right?

ship12
10-08-2009, 2:19 PM
I always wanted an environmentalist to answer me a couple of questions:

1) We know dinosaurs once roamed this planet. Who do we blame for their extinction since man wasn't here yet?

2) We know there have been serveral ice ages (ie global cooling) on this planet and thaws (ie global warming) before man existed, or was very small in number. Who do we blame those on?

They'll say no, and no one.

now can I ask a question?

Who makes sure we don't dump millions of pounds of PCBs into rivers and
streams? Or who makes sure that toxic gas into vented into the air?

Just because some (maybe most) of them get carried away, doesn't mean they haven't had a positive impact on society. Like, making sure PG&E isn't puting hexavalent chromium in your drinking water.

greasemonkey
10-08-2009, 3:00 PM
How does an AZ based study affect the entire state of CA? Sure, if you feed Condors lead pellets, they're going to die. But there's nothing credible available that says lead ammunition is, in fact, inhibiting the quality of life or causing the death of Condors IN California. Why should we establish a statewide ban on something we have no conclusive evidence for? Oh, to try to make it prohibitively expensive to exercise the Second Amendment Right.

Another, but uncomfortable, question: even if it were proven to be true, why do we care? Further, do we preserve all species or only those who fulfill a provable ecological purpose?

Do we proactively attempt to preserve all species? No, why try to redirect the evolutionary process that we did not set in motion? By trying to preserve all species, we will certainly overpopulate the planet and halt the evolutionary advancements...has the human race as a whole reached a developmental pinnacle where we have what it takes to keep the Earth in a perfect balance, to prevent another ice age? Can we really prevent an alleged millions of years of change from rolling right on by us regardless of what we do?

I see the environmental issue similar to the lower class. If you continue to give them handouts, most will be content living in poverty without working or contributing, this has been proven over and over with different countries and cultures. If you take away unnecessary handouts, some will die but many will get off their butts and figure out how to provide a good or service that will allow them to live.

I don't think we're doing the world a favor in aggressively harboring the expiring species and trying to coddle them back to life after they've proven to be a species too weak to exist.

That doesn't mean I encourage open season on Condors or the homeless.:)

Eargasm
10-08-2009, 3:08 PM
Since we cannot review and discuss a study which is not currently available, can we discuss my earlier questions?

Sure. And for the record, I'm not saying I care about condors, but for the sake of discussion...


Further, do we preserve all species or only those who fulfill a provable ecological purpose?

All. If it's within reason, why not?

Edit: Maybe we should go to PM, I feel like I'm threadjacking here. Sorry OP.

Meplat
10-08-2009, 8:05 PM
I just read the "Article" on the Arizona Condor lead studies. I could not find a link that pointed to the Actual Study being published anywhere on the net. It is imperative that you have the details of the actual work the conclusions are based on. Otherwise you are just taking someone else’s opinion, and in this day and age they are not usually educated objective opinions. I can give multiple reasons why this is unacceptable.

In 2008 we were prevented from doing our job due to the US Fish & and Wildlife Service (USFWS). We have an agreement with the USFWS and BLM and Cal F&G about treatment operations on public lands. We also have agreed to follow the same treatment guidelines on private lands we treat. When our 3 year conditional use permit was two and a half years from expiring we started the renewal process. The USFWS stalled. They refused to return our phone calls, they did not answer our emails or letters. In the end their scientific panel refused to renew our CUP on grounds that we had addressed with the previous scientific panel and they had found warrantless. You see, these government organizations are subject to constant turnover of personnel. How much Al Gore Kool-aid each panel has in its veins determines how objective it is.

We control a Gemini virus called curly top virus (CTV). It is a plant disease. It attacks tomatoes, melons, and a host of other row crops. The only vector (carrier) of CTV is a foreign insect called the Beet Leaf Hopper (BLH) an insect introduced into the US a century ago from Iran.

We were prevented from controlling the BLH in 2008 by the USFWS. Forty million Dollars worth of tomatoes were devastated in the field before they could be harvested. That’s one hell of a lot of pizza, spaghetti, and catsup.

More importantly, it all trickles down. You and I may order fewer Mervyns’ all meat marvels because they are 24 dollars instead of 19 dollars. However, we will not starve. But, thousands of third world children will go to bed hungry because food prices in general are up. Some will die….. For already discredited junk science?

It’s not about preserving the environment. It’s about destroying a free economy, and they don’t care who dies in the process.

In the 1970s a young biologist was a guest of our project during a treatment operation. He was riding with our project leader when a comment was made. The comment was actually an inside joke stemming from the fact that the project leader, in the opinion of the person making the comment, had waited too long to treat and the BLH were gone from the area. The comment was; “well we didn’t get a lot of hoppers on that piece but we killed a **** load of lizards.”

Now Malathion, in the amounts and conditions under which we use it does not affect lizards in any significant way. But the young biologist took the throw away comment he heard over our radio system to heart, and it has haunted us ever sense.

We were made to prove that we are not harming the “Blunt Nosed Leopard Lizard” (BNLL). The BNLL is listed as an endangered species. The difference between a BNLL and a regular leopard lizard is that a regular leopard lizard has five scales between its eyes and a BNLL has four. No ****, that’s it!! They will interbreed and produce viable offspring! That is the true scientific definition of a species. But, the endangered species act allows species splitting west of the Mississippi but not east of it. Figure that out?

The USFWS commissioned a study and we agreed to pay for it. Due to the fact that it is unlawful to harm an endangered “spices”, western fence lizards were used in the study. It was found that Malathion did not harm western fence lizards, short of drowning them in it.

That was fine for a while, but then we got a new panel from USFWS and they decided that the original study was flawed because it did not use Leopard lizards. Go figure? Forty million later we get yet another panel that lets us treat? WTF!!

More later.

Meplat
10-08-2009, 8:18 PM
Just curious, has anyone else ever wanted to try eating Condor?

It tastes kind of like a cross between spotted owl and bald eagle. Actually I don't care about eating these, but eating at least one tree hugger is on my bucket list.

Meplat
10-08-2009, 8:25 PM
Small potatoes compared to the damage they do.

They'll say no, and no one.

now can I ask a question?

Who makes sure we don't dump millions of pounds of PCBs into rivers and
streams? Or who makes sure that toxic gas into vented into the air?

Just because some (maybe most) of them get carried away, doesn't mean they haven't had a positive impact on society. Like, making sure PG&E isn't puting hexavalent chromium in your drinking water.

7x57
10-08-2009, 8:56 PM
i drew my own conclusion that matches your above. Why do we need to keep a creature around that is going extienct by its own design?

why do we need to protect an animal like the moutain lion that has no threats in the wild and the population is good?


Those are two fundamentally different issues. The condor can't take care of itself, so protecting it is a rational thing to do if a species has some intrinsic worth. We could debate those points, but if you concede for sake of argument that there is some value then some commensurate level of effort is justifiable.

By contrast, protecting big cat is sheer lunacy--they're not in any danger, and with the numbers now out of control the young lions get pushed ever closer to people to try to find unoccupied range. There is simply no other reason than being anti-hunting, and being willing for a few people to get eaten in order to ding hunters. (Though I suppose in the larger scheme of things it is just a bit of selection pressure for human beings who don't think it's a good idea to run trails alone in big cat country.)

But the real architects of this crap are dripping with "malice" toward our system, our country, and our freedom.

Calguns isn't a friendly place to emphasize it, but I once called myself an environmentalist. But there was a point at which I had an epiphany about why as a movement it does certain seemingly irrational things. (As usual, I'm going to make sweeping generalizations on the general subject of worldview.) The reason is that the movement has an implicit theory of original sin, and that theory is that the root cause of the problem is liberty. Why did people screw up the environment (that this is true is axiomatic)? Liberty. They were free to make their own choices, and they always did BAD THINGS.

If that is true, then the solution is always going to involve preventing those evil people from doing those BAD THINGS. The solution must therefore include reducing that terrible freedom of action that includes the freedom to choose badly. So individual freedom of choice is bad. As usual, the seemingly irrational behavior indicated a worldview conflict I wasn't previously aware of.

I think that's what Meplat is saying as well. You can't really deal with people who believe that individual liberty itself is the problem.

7x57

Meplat
10-08-2009, 10:13 PM
I still call myself an environmentalist. I think 99.9999% of all hunters and farmers are environmentalists. We are just not stupid about it. I grew up in a hunting culture. Most of the people I have known well are/were hunters. I never met a sportsman who wanted to kill the last example of anything.

BTW, you are so right about the big cats.


Those are two fundamentally different issues. The condor can't take care of itself, so protecting it is a rational thing to do if a species has some intrinsic worth. We could debate those points, but if you concede for sake of argument that there is some value then some commensurate level of effort is justifiable.

By contrast, protecting big cat is sheer lunacy--they're not in any danger, and with the numbers now out of control the young lions get pushed ever closer to people to try to find unoccupied range. There is simply no other reason that being anti-hunting, and being willing for a few people to get eaten in order to ding hunters. (Though I suppose in the larger scheme of things it is just a bit of selection pressure for human beings who don't think it's a good idea to run trails alone in big cat country.)



Calguns isn't a friendly place to emphasize it, but I once called myself an environmentalist. But there was a point at which I had an epiphany about why as a movement it does certain seemingly irrational things. (As usual, I'm going to make sweeping generalizations on the general subject of worldview.) The reason is that the movement has an implicit theory of original sin, and that theory is that the root cause of the problem is liberty. Why did people screw up the environment (that this is true is axiomatic)? Liberty. They were free to make their own choices, and they always did BAD THINGS.

If that is true, then the solution is always going to involve preventing those evil people from doing those BAD THINGS. The solution must therefore include reducing that terrible freedom of action that includes the freedom to choose badly. So individual freedom of choice is bad. As usual, the seemingly irrational behavior indicated a worldview conflict I wasn't previously aware of.

I think that's what Meplat is saying as well. You can't really deal with people who believe that individual liberty itself is the problem.

7x57

wildhawker
10-08-2009, 10:33 PM
7, my issue with protecting the CA condor is twofold:

1. The social and financial costs of preserving the condors far exceed the value they present to society as otherwise irrelevant living relics.

2. The methodology by which certain species are selected for disproportionate protections and funding is overwhelmingly flawed.

These birds are not evolved to flourish in this world, and to dedicate millions of taxpayer dollars and severely impact thousands of hunters to artificially preserve what would otherwise have been selected out of the ecosystem is arrogant and foolish.

Meplat
10-08-2009, 10:44 PM
Well, those millions are going to support people who could otherwise not produce any valuable product. But are able to avoid welfare because they have what today passes for an "education".



7, my issue with protecting the CA condor is twofold:

1. The social and financial costs of preserving the condors far exceed the value they present to society as otherwise irrelevant living relics.

2. The methodology by which certain species are selected for disproportionate protections and funding is overwhelmingly flawed.

These birds are not evolved to flourish in this world, and to dedicate millions of taxpayer dollars and severely impact thousands of hunters to artificially preserve what would otherwise have been selected out of the ecosystem is arrogant and foolish.

7x57
10-08-2009, 11:02 PM
I still call myself an environmentalist.


I mostly would say "conservationist" now, since that seems to carry a different political connotation. However, I'm tempted to steal from Camille Paglia and try "dissident environmentalist."

I mean, in that crowd dissidents are good, right? :-)


I never met a sportsman who wanted to kill the last example of anything.


Hunters asked for wildlife management precisely to end market hunting and share the game equally. TR is of course well known as a founding father of the environmental movement and the quintessential American sportsman.

But today it connotes a specific mix of politics, some of which has nothing to do with the environment (until you realize that it's aimed at getting the state to reign in that terrible ability to make bad choices). I'm sick of that, and don't intend to be mistaken for being a part of it.

I place more value on the condors than Wildhawker does, and the fact that they are a pleistocene creature makes them more interesting rather than less. I'm basically a conservative on other things besides politics, and I have an instinctive revulsion to losing the information that a species represents. But I take it as my moral duty as a citizen to insist that no necessity is grounds for abandoning private property, limited government, and the rest. So if the condors are to be saved, they must be saved within the system and without surrendering more liberty to the state.

I am also furious about the idea of using the condors as a ruse for political (anti-gun) activity. It's not only morally wrong--it's mortally offensive to scientific ethics. And we're going to see it over and over and over again, because "advocacy science" sells better than the very hard work of real science. The one thing that might be preferable to saving the condors could possibly be to lose them as backlash to the use of condors and science as political pawns in such a clear and visible way that nobody ever dares try it again with any other species.

I guess I'm not really in favor of that, but the manipulation of the issue brings me close.

7x57

kperry
10-08-2009, 11:44 PM
Meplat - Thanks very much for saving the pizza.
And 7x57 - I love 'dissident environmentalist'!!
I'm not properly educated in it, but I grew up in a family of scientists and medical professionals - and it's still a hobby of mine, along with a ton of outdoor hobbies, shooting, sailing, wildlife photography - I've always been a environmentalist - just not a Environmentalist, if you get my drift. It's frightening how much junk science abounds - and is turned into legislation. From a bit of analysis, and 'teh Google' - you'll see that the article quoted by senor Ear further up in thread is using most of the same verbiage as the following link from UCSC - Molecular fingerprinting leads to culprit in condor lead poisoning (http://www.cbse.ucsc.edu/news-article?ID=1582), which pretty clearly states that it's the same flawed Molly Church study, although neither of the articles cite the study as a source... Journalism majors have really been slipping, along with the environmental biologists....
Engaging rant mode a bit - all of these Environ-mental cases who are all for entirely organic farming (with what water, again?) who wish to live in these densely-populated cities (who are, indeed, pumping sewage into the Delta) would likely be starving were it not for modern agriculture, including GM plants - we've been hybridizing and genetically modifying livestock and plants for as long as there's been science.
I'm all for saving the California Condor, and absolutely in favor of maintaining habitats for them - the methodology the Environmentalists are using to do it is fatally flawed, however - and by relying on bad science, we're not addressing the real causes of their demise.

mmartin
10-09-2009, 10:25 AM
But there was a point at which I had an epiphany about why as a movement it does certain seemingly irrational things. (As usual, I'm going to make sweeping generalizations on the general subject of worldview.) The reason is that the movement has an implicit theory of original sin, and that theory is that the root cause of the problem is liberty. Why did people screw up the environment (that this is true is axiomatic)? Liberty. They were free to make their own choices, and they always did BAD THINGS.

If that is true, then the solution is always going to involve preventing those evil people from doing those BAD THINGS. The solution must therefore include reducing that terrible freedom of action that includes the freedom to choose badly. So individual freedom of choice is bad. As usual, the seemingly irrational behavior indicated a worldview conflict I wasn't previously aware of.

I think that's what Meplat is saying as well. You can't really deal with people who believe that individual liberty itself is the problem.

7x57
fair warning: broad generalizing here to make my point understandable...

there is an additional point to go with your (I believe correct) epiphany...
it is that "THOSE people always do bad things. I don't, I KNOW BETTER."

it is this Righter-Than-You attitude that allows them to say... "as long as THOSE people have free choice they will do bad things. I, on the other hand, know better and will prevent them from doing bad things and make them do good things... and I Know What Is Best."

environmentalists powered by righteous indignation and the certainty that they know better than the rest of us (who are evil, or wrong, or sinners and who use our free will to that end)... that's the trouble we've got.

it's not just that they think people will use their free will to sin... it's that they think "THOSE people will use their free will to sin, and I won't, because I'm better than that."

I'm not just tarring the environmentalists with this brush, it's the same problem with politicians, religious leaders, corporate leaders, policy makers, others in positions of power. I think in general, people seek that power because of the belief that they are right and others are wrong... folks with that righteous attitude tend to be motivated to seek those positions.

the problem as I see it isn't environmentalism, or politics, or religion, but the nature of the people who are motivated to seek power over others because of their belief that they know best, and are motivated to seek those venues to exercise that power. the righteous belief that you know better than others... it's a scary thing when coupled with the power to do something about it.

at the heart of it, it's elitist. and it's so omnipresent that I think it may be wired into the way human beings are made.

megan

ps. if you read all that and thought "I know some people like that... they think they're right and want to control what we do... but their opinions are wrong. and I'm right."

let me just finish for you: "... and I know better than they do..."

that would be my point. it's pretty well wired in.

acanales
10-09-2009, 10:46 AM
I love pizza. Thank You.



The problem is more that condors might eat lead shot, or the contaminated blood/meat of animals that have been shot previously, not from eating whole bullets.

With all due respect, you have been misinformed.

On August 6, 2009, NRA presented information into the public record at the California Fish & Game Commission in Woodland, California.

Included in those presentations, where Calguns played a substantial part in getting us the time we needed to make our presentations, was a public document sent to the California Department of Fish & Game by a biologist with the US Fish & Wildlife Service working on the Condor Recovery Program.

Joseph Brandt effectively declared to the DFG that lead shot was not a problem or concern for the program when it comes to condors somehow consuming lost upland game shot with shotgun shot. Even if they somehow did get such carrion, the probability of harm was low when measured against the USFWS's application to put proffered feeding sites in the Carrizo Ranch.


Carrion contamination likewise is more probable, and evident in a number of public documents subjected to the Fish & Game Commission and the DFG, from other sources of environmental lead, copper, zinc, and other heavy metals. This is often related to microtrash consumption, where condors have been well documented to eat garbage off the ground. Condors have been documented to have died from glass and plastic ingestion as well.

Add to that the reproductive problems related to legacy pesticides such as DDE, and it is truly a wonder that they have made it so far. Given their "stocker status", it is totally related to anthropogenic intervention.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

Meplat
10-09-2009, 2:12 PM
I'm all for saving the California Condor, and absolutely in favor of maintaining habitats for them - the methodology the Environmentalists are using to do it is fatally flawed, however - and by relying on bad science, we're not addressing the real causes of their demise.

The only real hope in our modern world for the condor is a zoo. Now how large a zoo is another question. If they want to make it real big and call it a 'habitat', OK, but it will actually be just a big zoo.












i

7x57
10-09-2009, 2:54 PM
The only real hope in our modern world for the condor is a zoo. Now how large a zoo is another question. If they want to make it real big and call it a 'habitat', OK, but it will actually be just a big zoo.


I hate to even bring this up, but there is theoretically another option. The "rewilding" folk want to repopulate N. America with those formerly-native pleistoscene mammals which survived elsewhere, and complete the ecosystem with functional analogs (e.g. introducing African cheetahs to perform the antelope-chasing function of the puma-descended sprinting cats that went extinct, and African lions to replace the N. American lion). If carried far enough, this might provide enough megafauna for the condors to be viable.

On the one hand, such a program would probably expand the government's power to confiscate private property in a way rarely seen. On the other hand, there's a certain attraction in being able to hunt lion and elephant without going to Africa. The greatest part of the attraction would be seeing the outrage of those who insisted on forcing exotic game animals on Western states that don't want them (and might consider armed rebellion over it) without considering that those states are very pro-hunting. I'm already savoring the thought of what Montana wolf-hunting is doing to them.

7x57

Meplat
10-09-2009, 4:20 PM
You have to be ****ting me!:TFH:

Why bring Africa to California? Take condors to Africa and see if they make it there. Sense there are no closely similar vultures there now, I doubt they would.

I gotta have a drink!


I hate to even bring this up, but there is theoretically another option. The "rewilding" folk want to repopulate N. America with those formerly-native pleistoscene mammals which survived elsewhere, and complete the ecosystem with functional analogs (e.g. introducing African cheetahs to perform the antelope-chasing function of the puma-descended sprinting cats that went extinct, and African lions to replace the N. American lion). If carried far enough, this might provide enough megafauna for the condors to be viable.

On the one hand, such a program would probably expand the government's power to confiscate private property in a way rarely seen. On the other hand, there's a certain attraction in being able to hunt lion and elephant without going to Africa. The greatest part of the attraction would be seeing the outrage of those who insisted on forcing exotic game animals on Western states that don't want them (and might consider armed rebellion over it) without considering that those states are very pro-hunting. I'm already savoring the thought of what Montana wolf-hunting is doing to them.

7x57

7x57
10-09-2009, 6:07 PM
You have to be ****ting me!:TFH:


http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/barlow.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Rewilding


Why bring Africa to California?

In theory, it's bringing pleistoscene *North America* back. Africa just supplies functional analogs to the extinct N.A. megafauna.

No idea what they'd use for saber-tooth analogs. Tigers? Just not try?

Aside from the interesting issues it brings up, I'm going to do my usual game of reverse-engineering the worldview. Unfortunately there is another game here besides biology. I'm pretty sure that the gut-level motivation for some is that humans coming across the land bridge may have caused the extinction of the megafauna. It's not an unlikely hypothesis, actually, but if you add in the same kind of guilt that makes people support extreme animal rights, I think you get people whose real motivation is literally rolling back not industrial civilization, not even the European migration to N.A., but the original one.

It's that last part that I wish I was joking about.

7x57

7x57
10-09-2009, 6:10 PM
fair warning: broad generalizing here to make my point understandable...


Welcome to the club. It drives the relativists crazy, but we have fun.


there is an additional point to go with your (I believe correct) epiphany...
it is that "THOSE people always do bad things. I don't, I KNOW BETTER."


I think I agree with everything Megan says here. There is an implicit exception for those who have accepted correct political doctrine. Part of the doctrine is the politics of The Republic: only the philosophers are competent to make decisions.

It might actually be slightly less bad if they could do philosophy in the first place.

7x57

postal
10-09-2009, 6:13 PM
And on the lead contamination... theres other metals to make the core of a bullet out of. If leads is honestly the issue, they should ban lead. After all, a steel bullets not going to give a condor lead poisoning. And theres tons of other metals and alloys to choose from.


I dont know you. I dont know your level of shooting/reloading/ballistics knowledge.

There are actually quite a few very good reasons lead/copper are the primary components of most projectiles. It's the hardness of the material, and it's ability to stay together without deforming/delaminating or otherwise tearing itself apart under very high pressures/temperatures.

Soft metals that wont deform or tear apart are desired. Harder materials wear out a barrel very quickly. For instance steels used in armour peircing wear out the rifling VERY quickly. They even played around with coating steel in teflon to reduce friction in the bore and extend the life of the rifling. Most uninformed people thought teflon helps a bullet go through a bulletproof vest for some reason- silly. Steel and steel core is also a fire hazard which is why most ranges dont allow steel core.

Lead is cheap. Copper used to be cheap- got VERY expensive, and now it's gone down quite a bit in the last 8 months or so- They are both easy to work with for a manufacturer.

There are a few other choices out there suitable but they are
1 expensive material in comparison
2 more difficult to machine and therfore more expensive to manufacture
3 wrong density. Wrong density means the projectile would be much longer or much shorter to have the same bullet weight. Would a longer projectile chamber correctly in a tight match chamber? Clearly the different size would need a different shape than the ammo it replaced. Would this be an improvement or a hinderance? What would the BC of the lead free ammo be compared to the lead ammo it replaces?


With the breakthroughs in plastics technologies in the last 20+ years, it wouldnt surprise me if one day projectiles were commonly molded out of some high tech polymer that could stand up to the temps/pressure, give the hardness necessary to extend barrel life, and just happens to be a near identicle density as well. But... by the time that happens, I'd probably buy a lazer gun instead.

Forget the condor- leave em in a zoo- better off than in the wild anyway.

RRangel
10-09-2009, 8:51 PM
I'd like to see a study on the effect of a growing mountain population as it pertains to the fur bearing mammal population in the condor habitat. The fur bearing mammals of the species and size that condors need to prosper. I could be wrong, but would it not be common sense to reason that there is a correlation?

advocatusdiaboli
10-10-2009, 7:44 AM
[QUOTEearlier this year I had an eco freak tell me I was not entitled to any water that didn't fall on my land, and that by trapping runoff I was robbing the environment / nature of it's water...[/QUOTE]

I am not siding with over-zealous environmentalism, but you guys need to read up on common law formed over the centuries including our founders--particularly riparian rights--you are woefully ignorant of it based on what I seeing. Water is a commons.

Also, remember Salmon rely on the Delta Smelt for a major portion of their diet in their early years in the Delta water system. Goodbye Delta Smelt, good bye Salmon--that industry suffers. truth is we never should have tried to farm a desert.

wildhawker
10-10-2009, 8:55 AM
The biologists I've talked to maintain that the smelt are an indicator species.

Hunt
10-10-2009, 10:23 AM
We're not seriously entertaining the thought that US Gov would somehow procure and take control of the Valley... right?

I am saying exactly this, the DEMS have a plan to sell central CA to an approved entity. I don't know the mechanics of the deal but it certianly would be in their character, maybe some of Feinsteins friends want to own a PV solar generating plant well she certianly stopped the one in the Mohave desert. With a little Chicago style armtwisting and more policy to destroy the local economy Gore, Feinstein and PGE get their gov't granted PV solar plant.

wildhawker
10-10-2009, 11:12 AM
This thread has jumped the shark. http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/jump_the_shark.png

mmartin
10-10-2009, 3:45 PM
earlier this year I had an eco freak tell me I was not entitled to any water that didn't fall on my land, and that by trapping runoff I was robbing the environment / nature of it's water...

I am not siding with over-zealous environmentalism, but you guys need to read up on common law formed over the centuries including our founders--particularly riparian rights--you are woefully ignorant of it based on what I seeing. Water is a commons.

Also, remember Salmon rely on the Delta Smelt for a major portion of their diet in their early years in the Delta water system. Goodbye Delta Smelt, good bye Salmon--that industry suffers. truth is we never should have tried to farm a desert.

that was me...
don't claim to be a lawyer of any sort, so I don't know much about riparian rights... however, I do know that any law that says I can't have a RAIN BARREL is wrong. even if it's law.
JMHO
megan

Eargasm
10-10-2009, 8:01 PM
With all due respect, you have been misinformed.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

Anthony-- thanks for keeping this civil. I appreciate you giving your opinions and not resorting to name-calling.

However, the information you've provided shows no conclusive evidence, what we've got are two biologists with different data providing opposing viewpoints. I personally wouldn't take the NRAs presentation as fact, after all, they're a lobby; their sole purpose is to persuade people to see things their way.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Meplat
10-10-2009, 9:04 PM
The last ice age played it's self out. That is the reason for the demise of the mega fauna. If they want a return of the Pleistocene they should quit fighting 'climate change'.



http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/barlow.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Rewilding



In theory, it's bringing pleistoscene *North America* back. Africa just supplies functional analogs to the extinct N.A. megafauna.

No idea what they'd use for saber-tooth analogs. Tigers? Just not try?

Aside from the interesting issues it brings up, I'm going to do my usual game of reverse-engineering the worldview. Unfortunately there is another game here besides biology. I'm pretty sure that the gut-level motivation for some is that humans coming across the land bridge may have caused the extinction of the megafauna. It's not an unlikely hypothesis, actually, but if you add in the same kind of guilt that makes people support extreme animal rights, I think you get people whose real motivation is literally rolling back not industrial civilization, not even the European migration to N.A., but the original one.

It's that last part that I wish I was joking about.

7x57

Meplat
10-10-2009, 9:21 PM
There has not been a salmon fishery in the San Joaquin drainage for almost 100 years. Do you realize how stupid you sound?

If you want to turn the clock back to before modern agriculture, I'm down with that. But, I will survive and you will not. Millions will die, and with any luck I will have the opportunity to eat you in the process.:43:


[QUOTEearlier this year I had an eco freak tell me I was not entitled to any water that didn't fall on my land, and that by trapping runoff I was robbing the environment / nature of it's water...

I am not siding with over-zealous environmentalism, but you guys need to read up on common law formed over the centuries including our founders--particularly riparian rights--you are woefully ignorant of it based on what I seeing. Water is a commons.

Also, remember Salmon rely on the Delta Smelt for a major portion of their diet in their early years in the Delta water system. Goodbye Delta Smelt, good bye Salmon--that industry suffers. truth is we never should have tried to farm a desert.[/QUOTE]

Meplat
10-10-2009, 9:50 PM
Everything is an 'indicator spices' when you make your living monitoring indicator spices.:rolleyes:


The biologists I've talked to maintain that the smelt are an indicator species.

wildhawker
10-10-2009, 9:59 PM
Not that I tend to disagree with you in principle, but the dismissive attitude towards scientists who have (personally) proven themselves to be reasonable. (pro-2A, pro-hunting etc.) makes it difficult to take you seriously.

The truth is often somewhere in the middle.

Meplat
10-10-2009, 10:14 PM
Not that I tend to disagree with you in principle, but the dismissive attitude towards scientists who have (personally) proven themselves to be reasonable. (pro-2A, pro-hunting etc.) makes it difficult to take you seriously.

The truth is often somewhere in the middle.

I know a load of biologists that would differ. You did not specify who you were
talking about. Your comment was general. My comment was general. So it should be just as hard to take you seriously.

In this matter, it matters not if they are pro 2A, it matters if they are pro truth. Make no mistake, if we lose our free economy we will lose our guns.

7x57
10-11-2009, 7:41 AM
I'd like to see a study on the effect of a growing mountain population as it pertains to the fur bearing mammal population in the condor habitat. The fur bearing mammals of the species and size that condors need to prosper. I could be wrong, but would it not be common sense to reason that there is a correlation?

I don't think the mountain population is growing or shrinking, except by a few centimeters each year as the plates move. :D

But this is a rather creative idea on how to fight disruptively: force them to choose between protecting big cat and condors. :thumbsup: I don't know if it's workable, but I like the angle.

This illustrates something rarely talked about: that animal rights and environmentalism are mutually exclusive, and the huge overlap of supporters constitutes an inherent corruption of environmentalism. I figured this out a long time ago when animal-rights groups fought to prevent the wild pigs that were destroying so many endemic Hawaiian plants. The pigs were an invasive alien species with no place in the native ecology, but that didn't matter.

7x57, home sick instead of hunting :(

YubaRiver
10-11-2009, 11:01 AM
I don't think the mountain population is growing or shrinking, except by a few centimeters each year as the plates move. :D

But this is a rather creative idea on how to fight disruptively: force them to choose between protecting big cat and condors. :thumbsup: I don't know if it's workable, but I like the angle.

This illustrates something rarely talked about: that animal rights and environmentalism are mutually exclusive, and the huge overlap of supporters constitutes an inherent corruption of environmentalism. I figured this out a long time ago when animal-rights groups fought to prevent the wild pigs that were destroying so many endemic Hawaiian plants. The pigs were an invasive alien species with no place in the native ecology, but that didn't matter.

7x57, home sick instead of hunting :(

They have chosen the lions over the CA bighorn before and there are only
a few bighorn left.

7x57
10-11-2009, 11:10 AM
They have chosen the lions over the CA bighorn before and there are only
a few bighorn left.

The point is to follow Alinsky's advice and force them to live by their own rules.

It would be interesting to try a little O'Keefe-ing and see what they say when they don't know it's for public consumption.

7x57

GuyW
10-11-2009, 2:01 PM
Water is a commons.


Not in CA - first in time, first in right.

Not so much in the entire west, either.
.

greasemonkey
10-11-2009, 4:29 PM
why are some extreme environmentalists so adamant that humans have so grossly overpopulated the earth but they won't lead by example and off themselves to save the planet?

RRangel
10-11-2009, 5:57 PM
I don't think the mountain population is growing or shrinking, except by a few centimeters each year as the plates move. :D

But this is a rather creative idea on how to fight disruptively: force them to choose between protecting big cat and condors. :thumbsup: I don't know if it's workable, but I like the angle.

This illustrates something rarely talked about: that animal rights and environmentalism are mutually exclusive, and the huge overlap of supporters constitutes an inherent corruption of environmentalism. I figured this out a long time ago when animal-rights groups fought to prevent the wild pigs that were destroying so many endemic Hawaiian plants. The pigs were an invasive alien species with no place in the native ecology, but that didn't matter.

7x57, home sick instead of hunting :(

Yes, it should have read "I'd like to see a study on the effect of a growing mountain lion population as it pertains to the fur bearing mammal population in the condor habitat." Somehow my dyslexic mind left out the word lion, but you get it. Too many late at night postings. Of course I really don't know that the mountain lion population is growing. It would certainly be neat to see a pertinent population study.

acanales
10-11-2009, 10:02 PM
Anthony-- thanks for keeping this civil. I appreciate you giving your opinions and not resorting to name-calling.

However, the information you've provided shows no conclusive evidence, what we've got are two biologists with different data providing opposing viewpoints. I personally wouldn't take the NRAs presentation as fact, after all, they're a lobby; their sole purpose is to persuade people to see things their way.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

With all due respect, your argument is a false one.

4 legal binders full of evidence were provided to the California Fish & Game Commission as part of the comment process regarding the lead shot ban. We would be talking about me trying to paste 80 or a hundred megabytes of documentation into this Calguns frame to try to "present" the data to meet your standards. You would be better off doing a PRAR to the Fish & Game Commission and asking for copies of the binders, reports, and presentations we submitted to the public record. If you can do it under an educational waiver, it should not cost you much more than postage on a few CD roms.

After staff and Commissioner review of that material, they decided that what was presented to them was sufficient to garner a 4-1 vote against the lead shot ban. Commissioner Rogers himself, who would have voted for a regulatory centerfire ban had not AB 821 been signed, admitted in the Woodland hearings in June and August that he was no longer so sure as to the accuracy of the science originally presented to him in 2007. If you do not believe me, look at the videos of those hearings. Or ask Mr. Wiese, who was there with us on August 6.

Mr. Brandt effectively certified to Mr. Stafford of the DFG, in regards to an application to put proffered food sites into regulated area, that lead shot was not a threat to an ESA listed species. If lead shot was a threat, he violated the ESA and CEQA. His exposure legally is real unless, of course, it's not a threat.

Dr. Eric Randich presented very succinctly to the Commission why the Church paper was fundamentally flawed and could not support the conclusions that lead ammunition is the primary source of mortality for condors.

Dr. Don Saba presented how key information was deleted from the Church study so as to support the hypothesis that lead ammunition has a narrow and traceable isotopic compositional ratio between Pb 206 and Pb 207. In addition, he presented emails between certain Church authors where they openly discuss the removal of data from their considerations. These deletions are serious, and troubling.

I personally presented information held from public view, many documents for for many years, where a real and recurring threat to condor recovery is the absorption of DDE from marine carrion. Joe Burnett of Ventana Wildlife admitted earlier this year in a public document that DDE will keep Ventana from achieving recovery in the Central Coast flock. This is also a problem dating back to the 1970's, one that the DFG staff was fully cognizant of.

Also, by calling the NRA's credibility into question, when for years we have been trying to get recalcitrant Condor partners to "cough up" the raw data so that the public can verify their conclusions, you know not what you speak of. I personally have spent over 6 years on this project, reading tens of thousands of pages of public documents. I can tell you right now that there is more from where that came from when it is needed.

The kinds of documents we speak of include necropsies, emails, reports ,and internal critiques of reports. We are not going in with just opinions of biased stakeholders, we are going in with science and documentation that shows the errors of the various Program Partners. No brag, just fact.

In effect, when you question NRA's representations in this matter, you are partly questioning mine. Using your own methods, I could just as easily demand that you present your evidence to the contrary, since it was the NRA and it's partners such as CRPA and Calguns that won that debate that day.

For example, what do you know about microtrash ingestion? Or copper and zinc toxicity in condors? How about West Nile effects? Inbreeding and recessive factors related to consanguinity? I would be interested to see what you have that could persuade.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

LG1980
10-11-2009, 10:18 PM
Most science is politicized today, which leads to this: it can't be called science if there are politics involved.
Your topic reminds me of the former Presidio in SF. There's a bird sanctuary there, right on the beach. It was put in by the city after the Army left. It's an eyesore, and bird poo everywhere. Can I bulldoze over it, if I say that I need sanctuary from the crap?

Meplat
10-11-2009, 10:20 PM
I DID NOT SAY THATNot in CA - first in time, first in right.

Not so much in the entire west, either.
.

Meplat
10-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Wow!


With all due respect, your argument is a false one.

4 legal binders full of evidence were provided to the California Fish & Game Commission as part of the comment process regarding the lead shot ban. We would be talking about me trying to paste 80 or a hundred megabytes of documentation into this Calguns frame to try to "present" the data to meet your standards. You would be better off doing a PRAR to the Fish & Game Commission and asking for copies of the binders, reports, and presentations we submitted to the public record. If you can do it under an educational waiver, it should not cost you much more than postage on a few CD roms.

After staff and Commissioner review of that material, they decided that what was presented to them was sufficient to garner a 4-1 vote against the lead shot ban. Commissioner Rogers himself, who would have voted for a regulatory centerfire ban had not AB 821 been signed, admitted in the Woodland hearings in June and August that he was no longer so sure as to the accuracy of the science originally presented to him in 2007. If you do not believe me, look at the videos of those hearings. Or ask Mr. Wiese, who was there with us on August 6.

Mr. Brandt effectively certified to Mr. Stafford of the DFG, in regards to an application to put proffered food sites into regulated area, that lead shot was not a threat to an ESA listed species. If lead shot was a threat, he violated the ESA and CEQA. His exposure legally is real unless, of course, it's not a threat.

Dr. Eric Randich presented very succinctly to the Commission why the Church paper was fundamentally flawed and could not support the conclusions that lead ammunition is the primary source of mortality for condors.

Dr. Don Saba presented how key information was deleted from the Church study so as to support the hypothesis that lead ammunition has a narrow and traceable isotopic compositional ratio between Pb 206 and Pb 207. In addition, he presented emails between certain Church authors where they openly discuss the removal of data from their considerations. These deletions are serious, and troubling.

I personally presented information held from public view, many documents for for many years, where a real and recurring threat to condor recovery is the absorption of DDE from marine carrion. Joe Burnett of Ventana Wildlife admitted earlier this year in a public document that DDE will keep Ventana from achieving recovery in the Central Coast flock. This is also a problem dating back to the 1970's, one that the DFG staff was fully cognizant of.

Also, by calling the NRA's credibility into question, when for years we have been trying to get recalcitrant Condor partners to "cough up" the raw data so that the public can verify their conclusions, you know not what you speak of. I personally have spent over 6 years on this project, reading tens of thousands of pages of public documents. I can tell you right now that there is more from where that came from when it is needed.

The kinds of documents we speak of include necropsies, emails, reports ,and internal critiques of reports. We are not going in with just opinions of biased stakeholders, we are going in with science and documentation that shows the errors of the various Program Partners. No brag, just fact.

In effect, when you question NRA's representations in this matter, you are partly questioning mine. Using your own methods, I could just as easily demand that you present your evidence to the contrary, since it was the NRA and it's partners such as CRPA and Calguns that won that debate that day.

For example, what do you know about microtrash ingestion? Or copper and zinc toxicity in condors? How about West Nile effects? Inbreeding and recessive factors related to consanguinity? I would be interested to see what you have that could persuade.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

7x57
10-11-2009, 11:30 PM
Wow!

:eek:

:owned:

7x57

wildhawker
10-12-2009, 12:46 AM
From someone who was fortunate enough to watch it firsthand and discuss the issue with the scientists at lunch following, the Church study is terminally flawed.