Bush looking to bypass Environmental Policy Act
krof htron bum
September 30, 2002
Undermining Environmental Law
n issues large and small, the Bush administration has spent the better
part of two years rolling back Bill Clinton's environmental legacy. It
has abandoned the Kyoto accord on global warming, weakened protections
for wetlands and eased mining laws. Now it appears to be aiming at
even bigger game — the National Environmental Policy Act,
regarded as the Magna Carta of environmental protection and perhaps
the most important of all the environmental statutes signed into law
by Richard Nixon three decades ago.
The act, NEPA for short, is no stranger to controversy. Bureaucrats
blame it for gridlock, commercial interests for blocking progress.
Environmentalists, of course, love it, as well they should.
The act is essentially a sunshine law. It requires all federal
agencies to make a detailed assessment of the consequences of any
project likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and
make that assessment available for comment from the public and other
federal agencies. The law does not mandate particular outcomes. Its
purpose is to keep federal agencies from doing destructive things
— clear-cutting forests, straightening rivers, destroying
wildlife in the name of development — under cover of darkness.
And over the years it has done a world of good.
The Bush administration has been seeking to ignore or limit the reach
of this statute in three main areas. The clearest example is forest
policy. Mr. Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative, now the subject of
intense debate in Congress, would ease NEPA requirements for timber
projects that the federal government deems necessary to prevent fires.
Conservationists believe that many such projects are in fact
camouflage for commercial logging. They are worried, and rightly so,
that suspending NEPA could lead to widespread environmental
degradation for no other purpose than to enrich the timber companies.
Energy policy has been equally troublesome. Though President Bush has
never hidden his desire to open up vast expanses of the public lands
to oil and gas drilling, the White House has always insisted that it
had no intention of end-running NEPA. But in fact it has. In recent
months, at least two projects — a 77,000-well methane project in
Wyoming and Montana, and a seismic testing project near Arches
National Park in Utah — have been challenged (and may ultimately
be significantly revised) because the administration failed to do the
necessary environmental reviews.
The administration has also tried to limit the law's reach offshore.
In a recent court case, involving a Navy plan to test sonar devices
off the Pacific Coast, the Justice Department argued that the Navy was
under no obligation to assess potential harm to marine life. The
Natural Resources Defense Council sued, arguing that not only did the
law apply but that suspending it in this case would open the door to a
range of unregulated and potentially destructive activities, including
ocean dumping and the overfishing of depleted species.
The judge sided with the environmentalists, who, though pleased with
the ruling, regard it as only a temporary respite in the NEPA wars.
Even now, a White House task force is working on ways to "enhance" the
act by streamlining it. That sounds innocent enough, but based on the
administration's behavior so far, some fear that the real intent is
not to streamline the process but to circumvent it, perhaps by
executive order. Congress, which wrote this law 33 years ago, must be
alert to any effort to undermine it.
Brian D. Nelson
news:30b9477a.02101...@posting.google.com...
<Linguini-spined liberal weinie's CINC bashing snipped>
Uh, NEPA is NOT Clinton's legacy.
--
Tight Lines!
Brian D. Nelson
Diamond N Outfitters, Missoula, Montana
www.diamondnoutfitters.com
br...@diamondnoutfitters.com
KennyC
> "krof htron bum" <flyf...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:30b9477a.02101...@posting.google.com...
> <Linguini-spined liberal weinie's CINC bashing snipped>
>
> Uh, NEPA is NOT Clinton's legacy.
Neither is the Kyoto protocol.Clinton just waffled while he was in
office-he did nothing to promote Kyoto.
Jerry
"KennyC" <char...@nex-i.com> wrote in message
news:881bd155.02101...@posting.google.com...
I think we should keep the scumbag adulterer in the past where he belongs
and concentrate on what the current administration is doing to this
environment! Putting environmental issues on a partisan basis is a
mistake. While we argue over partisan issues, Bush is trashing YOUR
environment.
Jerry
Larry Harrell
> <I think we should keep the scumbag adulterer in the past where he belongs
> and concentrate on what the current administration is doing to this
> environment! >
>
> ruined. It's a habit of Bush's. If the massive majority support it, kill it.
Most people do not realize that "Roadless Areas" ALREADY had adequate
protections and that the Clinton act was just whitewash for his
"legacy". As a USFS employee, I've worked around and inside roadless
areas knowing that any activities were specifically banned unless the
local District Ranger approved it. The Clinton act did not ban
logging, mining or other extractive activities. Another issue is that
if a roadless area DID have something worth extracting in the past, it
would have already had roads built into it (despite the terrain
difficulties and all: another issue altogether).
I believe that restrictions DO need to be in place for most roadless
areas but, if a crisis occurs (bark beetles, fire, etc), we should
take each situation as it comes and leaves some options open. 99.9% of
all situations that would propose building roads in them would have no
merit, IMHO. Roadless areas should NOT become wilderness areas but,
should be for what they were created for: Restricting roads because of
terrain and soils problems, unbroken wildlife preserves, scientific
research study areas and for recreational opportunities (as if people
would actually hike into such rugged places <G>).
Did the American public REALLY want NO activities in the roadless
areas, even in the case of wildfire, landslides, insect attacks,
etc???
Larry
Jerry
"Larry Harrell" <lhfot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a90c754.02101...@posting.google.com...
> Did the American public REALLY want NO activities in the roadless
> areas, even in the case of wildfire, landslides, insect attacks,
> etc???
>
> Larry
I do. Let nature take it's course. (But "roadless" doesn't mean NO
activities)
Jerry
scrape at mindspring dot com
wrote:
I know. "Roadless" to a lot of people means "let's only do the things
*I* like to do".
Larry Harrell
Well then, if Congress wants to make it wilderness, then so be it.
It's not likely that anything like that will happen in quite a while.
I just hope that Bush doesn't repeal EVERYTHING and abolish roadless
areas (If he CAN do that). We have plenty of bad roads already.
Mother Nature can certainly "re-balance" everything in ways us humans
won't like. What good is a roadless area if it's toasted with
hydrophobic soil and bug-infested trees? "Thinning" may be impossible
in roadless areas because of the necessity of helicopter logging and
the econimic issues involved. If thinning is needed and the small
trees (10-18" trees) don't pay their way out of the woods, I am
against adding larger trees just for "economics". Like you said, (in
that case), "let nature take its course".
Not so in other areas of the forest, though. Roadless areas deserve
special protections, which were already in place before Clinton (and
remain, for now).
Larry
Vito
>
> .... the Bush administration has spent the better
> part of two years rolling back Bill Clinton's environmental legacy.
Then maybe there is a God after all!
When I think of Clinton's environmental policy I recall him making a big
chunk of Southern Utah off limits to mining - a chunk which happened to
hold one of only two major deposits of a valuable mineral in the world.
Coincidentally, the other is owned by a major *illegal* contributor to
his then-failing second campaign.
Vito
>
> ... Bush is trashing YOUR environment.
>
Unmitigated BS, Jerry. It is people who keep having/fathering more than
two kids each who are trashing the environment - period. Think about it.
Cars were much "dirtier" 50 years ago, but only LA had a problem. Now
it's every major city. I could ride my dirt bike all over the desert and
the damage I did was unmeasurable. I could disappear into the wilderness
for weeks, filling my canteen from creeks and living off the land
without seeing another person. What's the difference between now and
then. Why 2x to 4x as many people sucking up resources and making
pollution, that's what! So, I call out to all environmentalists,
everyone seriously interested in the problem, to put up or shut up! Help
solve this problem! Leave!
Brian D. Nelson
news:3DAC09EE...@crosslink.net...
> Unmitigated BS, Jerry. It is people who keep having/fathering more than
> two kids each who are trashing the environment - period. Think about it.
Oh. I guess since my wife and have 3 children, two of which are identical
twins (yea... like I could control THAT!), we are responsible for the idiots
out there who trash the environment. Get a clue.
Vito
>
> Oh. I guess since my wife and have 3 children, two of which are identical
> twins (yea... like I could control THAT!), we are responsible for the idiots
> out there who trash the environment.
No Brian, you're not responsible for the idiots out there who trash the
environment; you *are* the idiots .... unless the twins are your
youngest. In that case you're forgiven. Accidents happen.
GBinNC
Wow. I bet you'd be hell on somebody who had triplets the first time
around...<g>
Much more important than the number of children a couple have is
whether they are conscientious stewards of the environment and raise
their children to be the same. One irresponsible person can easily do
much more damage in a lifetime than a whole extended family of ardent
environmentalists.
One small example: One has only to look at the incredible amount of
long-term destruction done by just a few cretins riding four-wheelers
illegally in the national forest behind my house. I'd take a houseful
of environmentally sensitive folks over *one* of those idiots any day.
GB in NC
Vito
>
> Wow. I bet you'd be hell on somebody who had triplets the first time
> around...<g>
Naw, anybody can have bad luck. But if they had another set then they
are a major part of the problem.
>
> Much more important than the number of children a couple have is
> whether they are conscientious stewards of the environment and raise
> their children to be the same. One irresponsible person can easily do
> much more damage in a lifetime than a whole extended family of ardent
> environmentalists.
That is simply not true. Go back 50 or 100 years to a time before we had
all these problems. The only difference between then and now is too many
people.
>
> One small example: One has only to look at the incredible amount of
> long-term destruction done by just a few cretins riding four-wheelers..
How many are there? If one or two ride thru the woods per year I doubt
it makes much difference. There are more than one or two? I rest my
case.
Jerry
Wendy Chatley Green
:
:GBinNC wrote:
:>
:> Wow. I bet you'd be hell on somebody who had triplets the first time
:> around...<g>
:
:Naw, anybody can have bad luck. But if they had another set then they
:are a major part of the problem.
Okay--I'll be the noisy one.
Vito--what's your family size and have you had a vasectomy?
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
John Paul Minda
>
> That is simply not true. Go back 50 or 100 years to a time before we had
> all these problems. The only difference between then and now is too many
> people.
>
Too many for what? Too many for you to have your fun in the wilderness?
But apparently there were enough people to clear cut the Eastern forests,
destroy the tall grass prairie, and kill almost all the buffalo...
Things might be better now.
Will Sill
some nonsense from <vi...@crosslink.net> and wrote:
>Vito--what's your family size and have you had a vasectomy?
Good question, but that would keep him from being a p. . . k - just a
more pointless one.
I plonked him long ago.
Will KD3XR
GBinNC
>GBinNC wrote:
>> One small example: One has only to look at the incredible amount of
>> long-term destruction done by just a few cretins riding four-wheelers..
>How many are there? If one or two ride thru the woods per year I doubt
>it makes much difference. There are more than one or two?
I don't know how many, but there are enough to cause major erosion
problems and damage to plants and trees, and (I would imagine) to
scare the shit out of the wildlife as well -- to say nothing of just
generally destroying the peace and quiet of the woods.
They've got a whole network of trails back here, running through
hundreds of acres -- none of where they're supposed to be riding.
>I rest my case.
What case? This has nothing to do with overpopulation, if that's what
you mean. (BTW, I have some concerns about overpopulation too.)
Rather, in this case it has to do with people who have no respect for
nature, other people's property, or the regulations governing
appropriate use of public lands.
GB in NC
Carl A.
"John Paul Minda" <mi...@beckman.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:B9D1EDF5.194A8%mi...@beckman.uiuc.edu...
forests,
> destroy the tall grass prairie, and kill almost all the buffalo...
>
> Things might be better now.
>
You may want to do a bit of research regarding the demise of the
buffalo.
The federal government, in its infinite wisdom, paid buffalo hunters to
do the dirty deed.
Why? The buffalo was essential to the Indians. Kill the buffalo and
the Indian will leave.
Read the history of Dodge City. See day 5 of my 2002-1 journal.
--
Carl A.
http://pages.prodigy.net/chainnj/Journal.htm
David Snedeker
GBinNC wrote in message ...
>One small example: One has only to look at the incredible amount of
>long-term destruction done by just a few cretins riding four-wheelers
>illegally in the national forest behind my house. I'd take a houseful
>of environmentally sensitive folks over *one* of those idiots any day.
Get ready to be hassled by the outfits like the "Blue Ribbon Coalition"
courtesy of money from the mostly foreign trashmobile manufactures. They
monitor these newsgroups and attack any complaints about the damage their
products do to our National Parks and forests. They also go to considerable
lengths to intimidate and smear public officials who try to enforce the
environmental laws, and they funnel considerable campaign support to extreme
right-wing candidates and groups. In fairness, I doubt most folks who
occasionally use these machines are aware of the dark side of this
industry/"sport" or where some of their club "dues" go.
If they trespass onto your land contact LOCAL or STATE law enforcement, as
Forest Service personnel are pretty intimidated in some parts of the
country. Do not confront the trespassers alone as they may be armed.
Dave
MTV
Definitely. The East was clear cut at least three times and New England is
certainly none the worse for it, except for some inroads of more conifers.
And even if we drill in ANWR the oil will be all gone and the "pristine" yukky
tundra will be back to a mosquito swamp in only 50 years.
Never hear environmentalists in fact take any view longer than the here & now.
If it's "for the children" clear cut the West and replant the way it should be
for good forest management.
Marv
--
This mail checked by Norton AV for any virus.
RichT
> >
> > ... Bush is trashing YOUR environment.
> >
>
> Unmitigated BS, Jerry. It is people who keep having/fathering more than
> two kids each who are trashing the environment - period. Think about it.
Dam, I must be one hellava good environmentalist - one precious daughter and
none to go - Thank goodness for the snipage act pushed by women's lib - Al
Gore would be proud!
Fishin Fool
says...
>
> GBinNC wrote in message ...
> >One small example: One has only to look at the incredible amount of
> >long-term destruction done by just a few cretins riding four-wheelers
> >illegally in the national forest behind my house. I'd take a houseful
> >of environmentally sensitive folks over *one* of those idiots any day.
>
>
> Get ready to be hassled by the outfits like the "Blue Ribbon Coalition"
> courtesy of money from the mostly foreign trashmobile manufactures. They
> monitor these newsgroups and attack any complaints about the damage their
> products do to our National Parks and forests.
It doesn't stop there. They've even hired little creatures to infiltrate
your computer. They'll post silly conspiracy theories just to make you
look like a loonie. See what they just did to Dave.
fnf
No Spam
| > all these problems. The only difference between then and now is too many
| > people.
| >
|
| Too many for what? Too many for you to have your fun in the wilderness?
|
| But apparently there were enough people to clear cut the Eastern forests,
| destroy the tall grass prairie, and kill almost all the buffalo...
Buffalo kill off was not due to the number of people but government policy
to starve the indians
David Snedeker
Fishin Fool wrote in message ...
>your computer. They'll post silly conspiracy theories just to make you
>look like a loonie. See what they just did to Dave.
What conspiracy are you takling about? The Coalition is not a conspiracy. It
operates with impunity. And if you were more interested in having an actual
informed opinion, one way or the other, you would know that. Instead you do
whackjob impressions.
Dave
David Snedeker
MTV wrote in message <3DAC9660...@houston.rr.com>...
>Never hear environmentalists in fact take any view longer than the here &
now.
>If it's "for the children" clear cut the West and replant the way it should
be
>for good forest management.
>
>Marv
>
Let me see Marv, Ill bet such nonsense as the above would make you what in
Texas? . . . the Texan equivalent of a National Merit finalist?
Dave
GBinNC
>For many, hiking in the forest is not a viable option, sometimes for
>physical reasons but also because of time constraints and other
>genuine impediments. Closing the land to vehicles is basically
>reserving use of those parcels for only those who are both physically
>fit and have the time and inclination to hike.
I would be utterly thrilled if the only folks running motorized
vehicles in the national forest were physically disabled and were
doing so in lieu of hiking and not for the purpose of acting like
fools and running roughshod over nature for their own pleasure.
GB in NC
GBinNC
>That's an elitist POV, GB, deciding who is and who is not entitled to
>use the land for their own enjoyment, and how it is to be used.
Um, I didn't decide that. The feds did. I just support their decision,
partly because I've seen the damage motorized vehicles can cause in
the forest.
>As for acting like fools, some would say that going off to live on a
>mountain top, far removed from neighbors and society in general is
>foolish, not to say even Kazynski-ish.
LOL. If you could see this place you'd know why we like living here.
Besides, we spend a lot of time with friends and family -- both up
here and at their homes. In fact, we travel to visit folks almost
every week, and our lifestyle is hardly what you could call "foolish."
(But you may continue to delude yourself if it makes you feel somehow
superior.)
>I realize you are not
>particularly inclined towards sporting activities but perhaps if you
>once experienced the pleasure of four-wheeling, you might not be so
>critical.
First, unlike most NASCAR fans, I don't consider operating any kind of
motorized machinery a "sport." (But we've been through that here
before, and we didn't settle it then either.)
Second, although I don't own a four-wheeler, I've ridden them numerous
times -- but never on public roads or in the national forest. They're
great fun, no doubt about it -- even more so than motorcycles, which I
*have* owned and ridden back in my more foolish days.
GB in NC
krof htron bum
> your computer. They'll post silly conspiracy theories just to make you
> look like a loonie. See what they just did to Dave.
Everything he said is true.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition is supposed
to be by the people, for the people.
Yet I see no sign that they oppose the
double taxation forest fee demo program.
I find this quite odd since most BRC memebers
are active users of the public lands.
I sent emails, and phoned many members of the
Blue Ribbon Coalition yet they can't seem to
give me a solid answer on wether they oppose
or favor the Forest Fee program.
Interesting. But I did find this on their
website:
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=69
It's a "small business" alert. Funny. I
thought the BRC was about keeping trails open.
And here is another thing I found. The
BRC is sending out an "alert" because 14
peercent of California (according to them) is
protected wilderness, and a new wilderness bill
would add 2.5 million acres.
http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/index.cfm?mr=97
My question is why are they so concerned?
It's only 14 percent of the land base. I
could see their case if the total was approaching
50 percent, or even 40 percent. But yet, it's only
a very small percent. Why is the BRC trying to
refuse wilderness protection for some of our best
areas? I mean the rest of the state is open to
motorized use and is roaded and trailed. I
think at the end of all this you have to ask
yourself who benefits. And you will see who
does concerning the corrupt BRC and their scam.
Continuing tosearch their site, I came across
a link for minig? Hmmm..
I thought the BRC was for reacreational access?
What is a mining link doing on their site?
http://www.sharetrails.org/links.htm
(look under "M")
Also, I found a link to the Wilderness Act
Reform Coalition(WARC)on their website:
http://www.wildernessreform.com/
The first thing you are greeted to on the WARC
webpage is this quote:
" Finally we are going to do something about
the Wilderness Act".
It appears this group supports building new r
oads into congressionaly designtaed wilderness
for logging and mining! Talk about extreme.
Thats right, the propose building new roads
for mining and logging into the Bob MArshal
Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe area
Wilderness, and other national treasures.
While they appear to be a access/recreation
group, it seems their ultiamte cause is revealed
towards the end of their explanation.
"The Coalition supports the creation of committees
composed of locally-based federal and state
resource managers, local governments, local economic
interests and local citizens which will initiate a
process to override the basic non-management
directive of the Wilderness Act on a case-by-case basis. "
Wai a second here folks.....doesn't this sound
like Bush's "Charter Forests"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A27700-2002Feb5.html
Bush Admin. Wants 'Charter Forests'
More from WARC:
"Developing a mechanism to permit active
resource management in wilderness areas to
achieve a wide range of public benefits
and to respond to local needs"
Bush supports Forest Fees
http://www.everyweek.com/Archives/News.
asp?no=2317
So far here we have some very interesting
findings. We have "recreation" groups severly
concerned with resource extraction. We have
the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a group which is
born on recreation access by its members, not
opposing a forest fee demo program. We have
the Bush administration echoing these same
things. The question is, who benefits? Where
does the money trail lead? The answer is
pretty simple. It leads right to the ORV
industry, the logging inddustry, the mining
industry, and yes, even Walt Disney Corporation.
Thats right.
Who supports the Forest Fee Demo program?
ARC is the American Recreation Coalition.
They are a large group of corporations.
Arc has currently been caught bragging about
how theycreated the Fee Demo program:
These corporations arent "evil" or "bad".
But when put together, and in favor of charging
money to US taxpayers to use their public
lands, they become a clear enemy to our public
lands and our use of them.
Bush's domestic issues advisor,
Terry Anderson is sitting back and smiling:
The Bush administration, along with Terry
L Anderson are planning to turn our national
parks over to corporate control.
GEORGE BUSH'S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISOR: "
AUCTION OFF ALL
FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS"
Terry L. Anderson, environmental advisor to
George W. Bush Jr., has
proposed to auction off all 600 million acres of
federal public lands in
the
U.S. over the next 20-40 years. This not only
incudes every National
Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM District,
it also includes
every National Park and Monument. Under his
proposal, non-profit
environmental groups could bid on the free
market against the likes of
Exxon to obtain the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, or against
Weyerhouser to obtain Yellowstone National
Park, or against Phelps Dodge
to obtain Grand Canyon National Park. Any
bets on how the bidding will
go?
Anderson is closely associated with several
conservative think tanks
pushing for the privatization and/or
commercialization of public lands.
He is the director of the Political Economy
Research Center, a senior
fellow at the Hoover Institution. PERC's
website links to the Thoreau
Institute which has proposed, among other
nonsense, to privatize
ownership of endangered species. Anderson's
proposal was published by
the CATO institute and can be viewed at
<http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html>
Anderson freely admits that his corporate
take-over agenda would be
wildly unpopular with the American public.""
If you go to the link you can see it is published
in whole at the Cato Institute website, a right
wing study corp.
So what we have here is the Bush administration,
the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Wilderness Act
Reform Coalition, Walt Disney, and many other
corporations trying to wrestle control of the
public lands to private enterprises for private
profit. In essence, they want to "Disney-fi"
our public lands. This is a bad thing for
every single user of public lands from a tree
hugger to a snowmobiler to a horseback rider
to a hunter or a fisherman.
It is time to see through the fronts, the
lies and the myths. We need to keep a careful
eye out so our easily accesible public lands
arent gone forever.
Trebor
> What's the difference between now and
>then. Why 2x to 4x as many people sucking up resources and making
>pollution, that's what!
You're completely full of it. The problem isn't that too many people
create too much polution. We know how to clean up the pollution - we
have the technology. The problem is that people like you and bush
don't want to force corporations to obey the law and clean up their
act just like everyone else. Instead, he wants to put pollution
controls on a strictly voluntary basis, so that they can decide
whether or not they will pollute. There are now two legal systems - a
voluntary system that applies to wealthy corporations, and a compusory
system for everyone else. If a corporation decides to pollute the air
and poison the water and kill the trees and cause the premature death
of untold thousands of people - that's their choice. If I decide to
poison the water or the air, or kill the trees or cause the prematurwe
death of a human being, I am arrested and tried and thrown into
prison. That's the difference.
Vito
>
> Okay--I'll be the noisy one.
>
> Vito--what's your family size and have you had a vasectomy?
Is this a proposition? :o)
Seriously, my two now-grown daughters by previous wives were hair trap
accidents (You know, where she says she's 'taking care of it' then
announces "we'll have to get married").
I tried very hard to get a vasectomy before I'd fathered any kids but in
those days (late 50's) MD's wouldn't perform them until one had several
offspring. Remember, up until the SCotUS ruled it an unconstitutional
invasion of privacy, birth control was a federal felony. Condoms were
labled "For prevention of disease only" and under the Comstock Act your
MD could get 20 years for telling you how to avoid pregnancy. Not many
did, but the threat was there.
I've had only two partners in the past 30 years. Both are sterile so
there seems to be no point in getting a vasectomy now. I would
certainly do so if that situation changed, but that's hardly likely.
We can't blame folks who had big families before all our environmental
troubles became apparent - before we learned what happened to Easter
Island. OTOH, I get more than a tad miffed at people who demand I drive
an underpowered econobox and go without things I like just to preserve
the environment for their 12 kids.
Vito
>
> MTV wrote
>
> Let me see Marv, Ill bet such nonsense as the above would make you what in
> Texas? . . . the Texan equivalent of a National Merit finalist?
Nowhere is the truth of Marv's statement more apparent than on the
flanks of Mt St Helens. Areas that belong to, or are leased to loggers
now support healthy stands of trees; forests which in turn are home to
wildlife. OTOH, areas where nature rules remain barren wasteland. And
BTW, did you hear about the moose problem in Maine? Seems there are so
many of them that large numbers are being hit by cars, often killing the
occupants. The culprit? Loggers! The forests make so much moose food
while regrowing ....
But such obvious facts are "nonsence" to folks like David. His mind's
made up.
Jerry
> Nowhere is the truth of Marv's statement more apparent than on the
> flanks of Mt St Helens. Areas that belong to, or are leased to loggers
> now support healthy stands of trees; forests which in turn are home to
> wildlife. OTOH, areas where nature rules remain barren wasteland. And
> BTW, did you hear about the moose problem in Maine? Seems there are so
> many of them that large numbers are being hit by cars, often killing the
> occupants. The culprit? Loggers! The forests make so much moose food
> while regrowing ....
Where you gettin your information? Nature ruling barren wasteland?
Jerry
Jerry
"Greg Pavlov" <gregp...@XXfastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3db159fe...@news.dfci.harvard.edu...> >Beyond that, it's an endorsement of Federal dictates, support of
> >governmental regulation, and yielding to those who believe snail
> >darters have precedence over humans.
>
>
> There are 4 million miles of streets and roads in the US. Ever
> see any snail darters on them ? There are apx. 125 million
> housing units in this country. Ever see any snail darters in
> *them* ? There are apx. 50,000 chain fast food outlets in this
> country. Any snail darters get in the way of those ? What
> "precedence" do snail darters have over humans ?
I think Greg is intimidated by all those snail darters on the
.0000000000000000000000000000002% of the land.
Jerry
>
> --------------------------------------
> Remove "XX" from address
Jerry
"Trebor" <tre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ve2qqu434s00esavj...@4ax.com...
Just another day under the Bush administration.
Jerry
>
Vito
>
> Where you gettin your information? Nature ruling barren wasteland?
>
Why off the TV of course ... :o)
A Discovery Channel bit on Mt St Helens included a Helo flyover of the
area. The sharp contrast between areas run by timber companies and
public lands was obvious. The bit of news on car-moose accidents in
Maine was more recent.
Wendy Chatley Green
:Wendy Chatley Green wrote:
:>
:> Okay--I'll be the noisy one.
:>
:> Vito--what's your family size and have you had a vasectomy?
:
<snipped of long defense with mentions of two grown daughters and a
few hints that Vito is in his mid-sixties and not very good at
picking life partners).
:
:I've had only two partners in the past 30 years. Both are sterile so
:there seems to be no point in getting a vasectomy now. I would
:certainly do so if that situation changed, but that's hardly likely.
IOW, you don't walk the walk. Fine example you are.
:
:We can't blame folks who had big families before all our environmental
:troubles became apparent - before we learned what happened to Easter
:Island. OTOH, I get more than a tad miffed at people who demand I drive
:an underpowered econobox and go without things I like just to preserve
:the environment for their 12 kids.
You know lots of families with twelve kids or is this
hyperbole? What's better--one large family with kids taught to
respect the environment and live frugally or six small families who
don't give a damn where their kids ride their twelve ATVs?
GBinNC
<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
>For some inexplicable reasons, Vito <vi...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>:I've had only two partners in the past 30 years. Both are sterile so
>:there seems to be no point in getting a vasectomy now. I would
>:certainly do so if that situation changed, but that's hardly likely.
> IOW, you don't walk the walk. Fine example you are.
Hey, hey. Hold on a minute there.
The man is in at least middle age and having sex with only one woman
-- presumably his wife -- who is sterile. And you're gonna ride his
ass because he didn't have a vasectomy, too? (He's already said he'd
do that if his situation changed.)
Don't you think maybe you were a bit harsh?
(BTW, your mention of his not being able to "pick" wives was uncalled
for. You have no idea of his life situation or what happened to end
his first two marriages.)
GB in NC
Wendy Chatley Green
:On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:28:46 -0400, Wendy Chatley Green
:<res0...@verizon.net> wrote:
:
:>For some inexplicable reasons, Vito <vi...@crosslink.net> wrote:
:>:I've had only two partners in the past 30 years. Both are sterile so
:>:there seems to be no point in getting a vasectomy now. I would
:>:certainly do so if that situation changed, but that's hardly likely.
:
:> IOW, you don't walk the walk. Fine example you are.
:
:Hey, hey. Hold on a minute there.
:
:The man is in at least middle age and having sex with only one woman
:-- presumably his wife -- who is sterile. And you're gonna ride his
:ass because he didn't have a vasectomy, too? (He's already said he'd
:do that if his situation changed.)
He stated that his two daughters were the results of sex with
women who "forgot" to take their pills in order to get pregnant by
him. You're right--I don't know how those "relationships" ended, but
I do know that he could have been more selective before bedding these
two women.
:Don't you think maybe you were a bit harsh?
:
Perhaps.
:(BTW, your mention of his not being able to "pick" wives was uncalled
:for. You have no idea of his life situation or what happened to end
:his first two marriages.)
See above.
:
Vito
>
> :> Vito--what's your family size and have you had a vasectomy?
> :
> <snipped of long defense with mentions of two grown daughters and a
> few hints that Vito is in his mid-sixties and not very good at
> picking life partners).
Dick Tracy!
> :
> :I've had only two partners in the past 30 years. Both are sterile...
>
> IOW, you don't walk the walk. Fine example you are.
What ever are you bitching about? I said that people who had more than
two kids (the nearest whole number needed to replace ourselves) are
causing environmental problems via population growth. I limited myself
to two kids and only fathered them because their mothers were dishonest.
That's completely consistent with my thesis, so what walk don't I walk?
Moreover, if everybody followed that example, population would slowly
shrink and our environmental problems gradually disappear. So?? Oh,
sorry, I didn't catch where you're coming from; why you're so hung up on
vasectomies - the lesbian left that believes all men must be
symbolically castrated, perhaps??
> ... What's better--one large family with kids taught to
> respect the environment and live frugally or six small families who
> don't give a damn where their kids ride their twelve ATVs?
>
What makes you think people irresponsible enough to have large families
are likely to teach their brats responsibility; or that people
responsible enough to limit the size of their families would, ipso
facto, let their kids run wild? Jeeze, that sounds like something my ex
would come up with.
Fishin Fool
says...
Oh I'd like to have an opinion, but that's just what *THEY* want.
They are skilled well paid consultants just waiting, lurking, ready to pounce
on an unsuspecting usenet person with an opinion. I prefer to not have
opinions, because as we all know, Ideology Sucks.
fnf
David Snedeker
can...@mcleodusa.net wrote in message
<8vmpquc9hk1e26l1h...@4ax.com>...
I realize you are not
>particularly inclined towards sporting activities but perhaps if you
>once experienced the pleasure of four-wheeling, you might not be so
>critical.
Canoli
Thats a real funny one. "Sporting activities?" Most motortrash would do far
better paying for a gym membership and getting off their fat asses than
blobbing it up on their tin and plastic pieces of shit.
From my observations most motortrash have about 25 to 50 pounds on your
average fisher, rower, hiker or bike rider. And as far as fitness, pound for
pound, motoblobs out of their coveralls seem to have the muscle
tone of jellyfish compared to most real sportsmen and women.
Dave
Wendy Chatley Green
<snip>
:What makes you think people irresponsible enough to have large families
:are likely to teach their brats responsibility; or that people
:responsible enough to limit the size of their families would, ipso
:facto, let their kids run wild? Jeeze, that sounds like something my ex
:would come up with.
So you believe the following?
Large families = stupidity in all areas
Small families = intelligence in all areas
What about small families in which every member owns an ATV and drives
it anywhere they want regardless of regulations (oh--that's right.
Such people don't exist in you universe.)
Wolfgang
"David Snedeker" <sned...@bainbridge.net> wrote in message
news:uqreha1...@corp.supernews.com...
> Canoli
> Thats a real funny one. "Sporting activities?" Most motortrash would do
far
> better paying for a gym membership and getting off their fat asses than
> blobbing it up on their tin and plastic pieces of shit.
>
> From my observations most motortrash have about 25 to 50 pounds on your
> average fisher, rower, hiker or bike rider. And as far as fitness, pound
for
> pound, motoblobs out of their coveralls seem to have the muscle
> tone of jellyfish compared to most real sportsmen and women.
Still, ya gotta admire a guy who uses a morphological affinity as the basis
for choosing his internet handle. :)
Wolfgang
Vito
> He stated that his two daughters were the results of sex with
> women who "forgot" to take their pills in order to get pregnant by
> him. You're right--I don't know how those "relationships" ended, but
> I do know that he could have been more selective before bedding these
> two women.
You must be very young. The pill didn't exist (birth control was a
legally unmentionable subject, remember) and the only future most young
women could envision was getting pregnent, getting married, and living
happily ever after. If they weren't happy, it was the man's fault and
they raped him financially - never mind they'd entrapped the poor
sucker. What were the odds of getting caught? A California study circa
1960 found 83% (IIRC) of brides pregnent at the alter! So, while I
fervently agree I should have been far less trusting, I did fall into a
very common trap. So did 83% of my peers.
Face it, women of the period were mostly rats, but what has that to do
with overpopulation today?
Vito
>
> So you believe the following?
>
> Large families = stupidity in all areas
>
> Small families = intelligence in all areas
You're sounding more like my ex every round. I said nothing about
intellegence or stupidity. I said that large families cause excess
population which overburdens the environment - period.
>
> What about small families in which every member owns an ATV and drives
> it anywhere they want regardless of regulations ...
If the population had been kept at the level it was when I was a kid, it
wouldn't have made a measureable difference. I used to chase
jackrabbits. Knocked hell out of the soil and plants. But when I came
back a few months later, that was all healed cuz nobody had been there
since. I can't do that any more. Nobody can. Cuz now there'd be 100s of
people doing it just like they're tearing up GB's woods. Same land. Same
plants. Same ecology. Only difference is too many people.
David Snedeker
Wolfgang wrote in message ...
>
>Still, ya gotta admire a guy who uses a morphological affinity as the basis
>for choosing his internet handle. :)
>
Fat-Free "Cheese" Slice (Ugh)
(The "Artist" formerly known as "Dave")
Wendy Chatley Green
:You must be very young. The pill didn't exist (birth control was a
:legally unmentionable subject, remember)
If I'm very young (and I'm not), I can't remember.
:and the only future most young
:women could envision was getting pregnent, getting married, and living
:happily ever after. If they weren't happy, it was the man's fault and
:they raped him financially - never mind they'd entrapped the poor
:sucker. What were the odds of getting caught?
:A California study circa
:1960 found 83% (IIRC) of brides pregnent at the alter! So, while I
:fervently agree I should have been far less trusting, I did fall into a
:very common trap. So did 83% of my peers.
Cite? 'IIRC' isn't much of an argument. I'll settle for where
you remember seeing the report: print/on-line/TV news.
:
:Face it, women of the period were mostly rats, but what has that to do
:with overpopulation today?
It tells me a lot about your world view and your thought
processes.
Unless your partners of the past thirty years were men or were
much younger than you, they must of been "women of that period" in the
1950s. What made them stop being rats?
Jerry
The recovery at Mt. St. Helens is going rather well. The latest program I
saw on the subject had nothing but good news, concerning the
recovery------being acomplished by Mother Nature. And of course, more moose
on the roads, more accidents.
Jerry
Vito
>
> :1960 found 83% (IIRC) of brides pregnent at the alter! ...
>
> Cite? ... I'll settle for where
> you remember seeing the report: print/on-line/TV news.
In Time or Newsweek or perhaps Scientific American articles of the
period about German Measles causing deformed babies. The PRK had long
required blood tests to get a marriage license. Some proposed requiring
measles vaccinations. However, the shot caused the same deformities if
given pregnant women. So they had the blood testers look for pregnancy
as well as VD. They came up with the 80-some% figure and the vaccination
proposal was quickly dropped.
> :
> :Face it, women of the period were mostly rats....
>
> It tells me a lot about your world view and your thought processes.
Your assumptions are most likely gross oversimplifications.
>
> Unless your partners of the past thirty years were men or were
> much younger than you, they must of been "women of that period" in the
> 1950s. What made them stop being rats?
>
There have always been women who sought equality in rights and
opportunities and in responsibilities. There was also a time of valid
partnerships when house keeping was a full time profession. However,
that role has been automated out of existance: nobody bakes or cans or
even washes dishes anymore. Sadly, there are still young women who can
envision no better future than trapping a man and becoming a parasite.
Happily, the percentage of them in our society has been shrinking since
the mid 60s. My current wife of over 20 years is 10 years my junior and
has a very different view of what a woman's roll should be than women my
age held.
What made them stop being rats? IMHO better opportunities. My second
wife had wanted to pursue a doctorate and career in a traditionally male
field. She wasn't allowed to, so she set the hair trap, caught me, and
made us both miserable. Today, she wouldn't need to rat out.
This is getting too big and way too OT.