Jump to content

Environmental Impact


Guest swangner

Recommended Posts

This thread has been concerned with the actual caches only (if we disregard the personal vendetta; Can't you make your minds up in a regular gunfight? icon_smile.gif ). Is it anyone more than me that thinks that the pollution made by the cars when going to and from the caches probably has a greater impact on the planet than the cahce itself?

I guess we don't walk all the way to all the caches, do we?

 

24148_200.jpg

 

Anders

Link to comment

Why is it that if a Human animal makes a trail or traverses off the beaten path we discuss envirormental impact, however if a deer makes a trail, or say a beaver creates a swamp or lake where there once was none, we call that nature. Did we originate somewhere else? If not then our impact is as EQUALLY part of nature as is the beaver, the deer, the herds of elk, the bison, the gopher (dang gopher holes twisted my ankle in one once), the tree beetle (they destroy entire sections of forest), and many many other critters out there that leave plenty of traces of thier presence. Species have risen, dominated, destroyed and fallen for the entire history of this earth, all without our help. But now here we are and we blame every thing we observe on our activity, every species that is threatened now needs protection from us, every fragile plant system, it's our fault it's fragile. What was it that caused all the species that went extinct in the past to go extinct before we were industrialized? What is it that caused so many varieties of plants to only exist in fossil records? It all happened a long time ago, so it wasn't our activity.

 

If a species can't compete with the activity of another, isn't is the natural process that it would either adapt, relocate, or go the way of the dinasaur?

 

Where are the people keeping the other wildlife out of these sensitive areas? Especially the areas with the sensitive plant life? I mean some of the wildlife doesn't just trample it, they eat it! I am wild life. I am a wild species on this planet. From it's dust I came, to it's dust I shall return. Yes, I should try not to create toxic waste, yes, I should not pave every square inch of it. I should pack my trash out (as well as any other trash I may come across) I should be careful with fire. I should take care to manage my resources, as I would not want irresponsible behavior to result in my own or my decendends demise. But it is not wrong for me to walk off the path, that is not irresponsible, no more so than it is for the deer. I am an explorer, I am curious, I am at home in this world, and while I will try not to destroy it, I refuse to accept the idea that my very presense is any more destructive than that of other animals in the area. You may say "what if millions of others trample the same area" Well millions of others won't, as most people are happy to stay in the habitat we have modified for our own comfort(the cities) and when they do go out, they tend more to stay with the familiar, the well worn paths. But so what if they come in large numbers? The deer move in groups as well, I have followed thier paths. The deer make thier beds, they trample down large areas of vegetation to make for comfortable place to lay. Not every trail you see in the wood was beaten by some human, many were beaten by some other animal, as we are not the only species that prefers to follow a path already blazed by another, thus creating a well worn path.

 

I am a native to this planet, and because I have the ability to travel distances, to adapt to different envirorments, and modify my habitat to suit my needs for survival, this entire world is my habitat. Yes I need to take care of it, and because the entire world is my habitat, that is all more the reason why I should treat it well, as you shouldn't foul your own bed.

Responsibility is one thing, putting everything else above ourselves in value and acting as if we haven't rights to this planet as do the other species is quite another.

 

If we determine that the deer aren't just stupid animals who don't know any better, shall we start requiring them to only use authorized paths as well, and begin behaving more responsibly in the wild? And what of the beavers, if we are able to determine they know full well that damming up a stream to make a lodge and thus flooding a valley creating wetlands where there was none is detrimental to some species of plants and animals, despite the benifit to others including their own, should we start requiring them to do enviromental impact studies and aquiring permits before they build a lodge. I mean, we have no way of knowing if they are aware of this or not, as we don't know how to communicate with them. Sure we think they are just too stupid to know what they are doing effects others, but really, is ignorance a valid excuse? I say jail them pesky critters who take no regard to the enviromental impact their actions have. Sounds silly? Why? Because what they are doing is natural? Well, so is what we do. We act according to our nature, and by nature we are builders, explorers, hunters (find me ONE society that does not hunt appart from groups who have vegetarian lifestyles as a result of religious practice. There is NO "primitive" human society which does not rely upon meat in addition to agriculture. Vegetarianism is a learned behavior, not a natural one, thus hunting and gathering is natural), conqurors and even nurturers. I agree with being responsible as a society, but there must be a balance, and we must quit acting as though we are somehow apart from nature and that our impact is less natural than other species. It is a different impact, and we have the ability to be responsible about it, but it is all the same, natural, as we are natural beings, and this planet is our natural habitat.

 

There's my rant. Now shoot away, I wrote it all rather hastily and I'm sure it's full of errors, it is more my sentiment than my thought out response, I do believe in good stewardship of this planet, as I believe it was placed into our custody, under our dominion, thus we need to take care of it, but I don't feel that that means making some areas "hands off" or taking a protectionist approach to the enviroment and the issue of endangered speicies. Stewardship and responsible behavior yes, radical "we don't belong here or there" thinking, no.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

Link to comment

There is really no answering your (self described) rant. You seem to be arguing:

 

We are a species. We should breed and overrun the environment just like any other species that finds itself unthreatened by predators. The extinction of other species as the indirect or direct result of our success as a species is a natural phenomena. It has always happened, so it should not concern us...

 

Huge numbers of environmentalists, biologists, and planetologists would *mostly* agree with you. They would change "should" to "can" in the second sentence, and drop the word "not" in the last.

 

The reason for refuge type conservation is simple. You can preserve a large amount of biodiversity by keeping certain 'hot spots' pristine. Maintaining biodiversity serves two purposes, it keeps our "habitat" healthier for *us*, and it makes it a more pleasant place to live.

 

Sierra Madre in California does not fight hill side development to protect native fauna and flora, the city fights development because a healthy, diverse, relativly pristine locale is seen by the majority of residents to be central to the city's long term economic survival. They have only to look to their neighbors (like my own beloved Glendale) to see the long term cost of "adapting" too much of the habitat to our needs.

 

The "pleasant place" factor is also the other side of the impact issue. If it weren't for trail systems, camping restrictions, no collecting restrictions, etc. Some of the natural areas that people most want to visit and enjoy would rapidly lose what makes them so desirable to visit in the first place.

 

We are talking millions of visitors to many national parks each year. If you could climb indiscriminately in the dwellings in Bandolier, the soft sandstone dwellings would disappear in a single season. If there weren't limits on collecting, what would happen to the Petrified Forest NP?

 

In other words, it is simple numbers. 500,000 bears, 300,000,000 people in the same area. We not only outnumber, our individual impact is higher. For example, we maintain a higher standard of living, which is good for us, but the cost per individual is higher.

 

When the system gets less diverse, it tends to run out of control (ex. deer population explosion, etc.) We have to do game management to keep even our 'pristine' areas in some form of environmental balance. Rather than opening hunting season on park visitors, land managers have decided that, for the most part, visitors have the capacity for cognitive reasoning and can be convinced to follow certain rules to minimize the impact of their visit.

 

Though, I bet the hunting would make for big TV ratings... icon_wink.gif

 

-jjf

Link to comment

There is really no answering your (self described) rant. You seem to be arguing:

 

We are a species. We should breed and overrun the environment just like any other species that finds itself unthreatened by predators. The extinction of other species as the indirect or direct result of our success as a species is a natural phenomena. It has always happened, so it should not concern us...

 

Huge numbers of environmentalists, biologists, and planetologists would *mostly* agree with you. They would change "should" to "can" in the second sentence, and drop the word "not" in the last.

 

The reason for refuge type conservation is simple. You can preserve a large amount of biodiversity by keeping certain 'hot spots' pristine. Maintaining biodiversity serves two purposes, it keeps our "habitat" healthier for *us*, and it makes it a more pleasant place to live.

 

Sierra Madre in California does not fight hill side development to protect native fauna and flora, the city fights development because a healthy, diverse, relativly pristine locale is seen by the majority of residents to be central to the city's long term economic survival. They have only to look to their neighbors (like my own beloved Glendale) to see the long term cost of "adapting" too much of the habitat to our needs.

 

The "pleasant place" factor is also the other side of the impact issue. If it weren't for trail systems, camping restrictions, no collecting restrictions, etc. Some of the natural areas that people most want to visit and enjoy would rapidly lose what makes them so desirable to visit in the first place.

 

We are talking millions of visitors to many national parks each year. If you could climb indiscriminately in the dwellings in Bandolier, the soft sandstone dwellings would disappear in a single season. If there weren't limits on collecting, what would happen to the Petrified Forest NP?

 

In other words, it is simple numbers. 500,000 bears, 300,000,000 people in the same area. We not only outnumber, our individual impact is higher. For example, we maintain a higher standard of living, which is good for us, but the cost per individual is higher.

 

When the system gets less diverse, it tends to run out of control (ex. deer population explosion, etc.) We have to do game management to keep even our 'pristine' areas in some form of environmental balance. Rather than opening hunting season on park visitors, land managers have decided that, for the most part, visitors have the capacity for cognitive reasoning and can be convinced to follow certain rules to minimize the impact of their visit.

 

Though, I bet the hunting would make for big TV ratings... icon_wink.gif

 

-jjf

Link to comment

The biggest problem is too many people, but instead of controlling population we restrict access to lands.

 

Look back at the Zero Population idea of the 70's - each person entitled to reproduce one individual - one couple = two kids. Maintain a stable population, eliminate rampant growth to accomodate more people.

 

This is an unpopular idea. Try telling families that three kids is environmentally irresponsible - where will those children live as adults, where will their children live. What jobs will be available. What kind of impact will they have on a declining ecosystem.

 

We ARE part of a naturally functioning ecosystem. I agree pretty much with RadDad and he said it well, we still need to act responsibly.

 

Simple....fewer people means less impact.

 

Ok, ducking and running now....

Link to comment

So far as population growth goes, there is actually a negative growth in the developed world. There aren't enough young folks being born to help the old folks. But when it gets right down to it, the whole population growth issue has already been proven false, as we never did hit those epidemic proportions with the devastating impact foretold back in the 70's. Add to that the fact that the poverty and resource issues are not caused by over population but rather by mismanagement of land and by government corruption. Look at the nations with gross poverty and famine, they all have one major thing in common, lack of industrial developement, lack of education, and serious government corruption as well as civil war. (although India has problems with poverty and famine, but thiers is more due to religious structure, one which has a caste system and in which though there are malnourished people all around, the cows are healthy and fat, actually even the rats are well fed, just not the people.)

 

So far as the response by jfitzpat, I don't advocate destruction or extinction of species. But I do state that unlike the claims of the enviromental left, WE are NOT responsible for all the endangered species out there.

 

Keep in mind I live in the Northwest, where all the radical left wing enviro-wackos move to. We have the E.L.F. here in force a radical group who calls for the "Liberation" of "Mother Earth" and who view human activity as more of a plague on the earth, and seem to be full of self loathing for the human race. (although I'm sure they feel they themselves are worthy of venturing into the woods, and of being here, just not everyone else) They destroy forest service buildings, place pipe bombs in campground restrooms, vandalize forestry equipment, burn down McDonalds resteraunts, and all of this they claim is not terrorism, but rather "ecconomic sabotage" designed to detur corperate groups and public groups from cutting down old growth trees (like anything only 5 or 6 hundred years is old on this planet Europe has buildings older than that that are being demolished), and infiltrating wild lands. They advocate a total hands off approach, point fingers and call names, of course they don't hike to thier protests, they drive, they don't live in grass huts, but homes built with wood, they are the kings of hypocrites, and rationalize anything they do as being ok. Also here in the northwest are anarchists who love to start riots, protest developement and seem to be in bed with the E.L.F. folks. I am an enviromentalist, I love the green land I live in, I love the forest, I don't advocate it's destruction, but I also don't take a radical view that seems to think everything should be preserved, or that we shouldn't go here or there. I see forests as a renewable resource, like everything else, though they take longer to grow, they do grow. I don't believe something is particularly special because it is old either, lots of things are old, the very rocks that are ground into gravel are old, but that doesn't make them special.

 

I'm looking for a healthy balance, one that recognizes that we are a part of this earth and that our activities are natural as well. Sure we should be responsible about them, but look around you, the folks that label themselves "green" they aren't talking about healthy balances, they are talking about radical restructuring and have a very unhealthy view of humanity.

 

I have no problem with national monumounts, so long as the land already belonged to the government, or was donated to the government or the government bought it, but sweeping land grabs in the name of the envirorment, I don't like. I don't like the government telling me if I can cut down a tree on my own property, if the tree is so important to the government, they can buy my property from me for fair market value, and then protect that tree. If the Sierra Club, E.L.F. or any other enviro group wants to protect an area, then they need to pool thier resources, and buy up the land then put covenants and restrictions on the deed that prevent any use they don't wish to happen, they should not legislate away the rights of other property owners, if they don't like the fact that we have the right to own property, then they should move to a nation that doesn't allow such things, or should try and get the constitution changed, but they shouldn't turn someones life savings into an empty pit that can't be used for what they bought it for anymore, be it harvesting the trees, building thier dream home, or whatever.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

Link to comment

Jake, I doubt that is it.....as my finds are all from the last few weeks, mostly this past weekend. Telling someone to "piss off" isn't going to win you any fans, even if you are right as rain.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by laraley:

The biggest problem is too many people, but instead of controlling population we restrict access to lands.

 

Look back at the Zero Population idea of the 70's - each person entitled to reproduce one individual - one couple = two kids. Maintain a stable population, eliminate rampant growth to accomodate more people.

 


 

It's not too many kids being born.. it's not enough old folk dying. Come on "greatest generation" come on "boomers". It's time to cull the herd. Take up smoking. (this whole anti-smoking campaign is really hurting the environment) Sit around watch TV and die of heart disease. You've had your time. You're takeing up MY resources. Save the planet and die already.

 

george

Link to comment

I did not intend to imply that you advocate the extinction of species. I was primarily trying to point out that your point of view did not appear to be very divergent from most mainstream biologists, planetologists, and environmentalists.

 

We can preverse large numbers of species, both plant and animal, but preserving a relatively small number of so-called 'hot spots' in a pristine state. This seems like a pretty cost effective, useful thing to do. Unfortunately, some people consider it a matter of principal to put a Starbucks or a MacDonalds on every square inch of the planet... Other, equally whacky people, want us to revert to caves and groom for lice...

 

I also wanted to point out that National Parks and National Forests have to worry about impact because of sheer numbers of visitors. Yes, animals make trails, but lack the sheer numbers to make the same sort of impact.

 

Concerning whackos in the Northwest, I'd agree that ecoterrorists are counter productive. But, I also think that some NW states are going to have to come to grips with the reality that their economies cannot be largely based on subsidized use of public land.

 

Since the northwest holds some of the largest tracts of relatively pristine areas under government ownership, there is going to be increasing pressure for the NFS and BLM to stop granting grazing and forestry leases at huge losses.

 

Washington and Oregon both recognized this trend a long time ago. Both have used the 'pristine' environment as selling points to lure higher tech industries to the region.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

quote:

Concerning whackos in the Northwest, I'd agree that ecoterrorists are counter productive. But, I also think that some NW states are going to have to come to grips with the reality that their economies cannot be largely based on subsidized use of public land.

 

Since the northwest holds some of the largest tracts of relatively pristine areas under government ownership, there is going to be increasing pressure for the NFS and BLM to stop granting grazing and forestry leases at huge losses.

 

Washington and Oregon both recognized this trend a long time ago. Both have used the 'pristine' environment as selling points to lure higher tech industries to the region.

 

-jjf


 

The logging industry has almost been completely destroyed by Federal land grabs, envirormental regulations and pressure to halt selective logging sales by these left wing nuts.

 

Our state (Oregon) has a tremendous amount of land that is either State or Federal owned (more federal than state) Much of it was essentially grabbed from private owners years ago. So far as issuing leases at a huge loss, I don't see how issuing a lease for use, be it logging or grazing, could be a loss compared to not making any money at all on the land, either way it takes resources to maintain and so on, at lease the land lease program brings some money in to compensate for all the money going out. We send firefighters in to wild lands to put out fires started by lightning, at huge cost to the taxpayers. We have rangers patroling the land, crews maintaining service roads (most built originally by logging companies at the expense of the logging company) endless federal studies on this or that at tremendous cost to fulfill some enviromentalists agenda, all at taxpayer costs. Meanwhile as we have all this land sitting unproductive, we the citizens of Oregon struggle with one of the highest tax burdons in the U.S. and budget shortfalls, all to keep enviromentalists happy. If the Feds are going to grab up so much land, and place so many burdons on it, they should at least compensate the state. Of course we have so many left wing transplants up here now that they outnumber the long time residents and are forcing thier will upon us at the polls, thus complicating the issue and adding to the layers of burocracy, protectionism and business killing tax structures.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

Link to comment

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you on some of your last comments.

 

First, the bulk of the logging roads in Oregon were built and funded by the NFS. The NFS has built and maintains about 400,000 miles of forest roads now, with plans for another 580,000 miles in the next 50 years. The second largest provider of forest roads is the state, which received federal subsidies for most of them. Even private logging companies recieved tax incentives for about 1/3 of the roads they built.

 

Second, all of Oregon was government land just a few generations ago - largely via a dubious treaty revokation. Large tracts entered private hands three ways, large grants to logging companies, many individual platted claims, and large grants to railroad companies. Several hundred thousand acres were reclaimed from railroad companies in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but the overall trend has remained public-to-private.

 

Third, by subsidy, I mean exactly that. We use our Federal tax dollars to bolster sub-market land utilization. It is very popular for us western state folks to complain about the idiots in Washington robbing us blind. But, it is somewhat hypocritical. Per resident, we are some of the largest hogs at the Federal trough. As of last year, Washington was the only NW state that gave more to the Federal Government than it received.

 

If your state tax burden is too high, take that up with your neighbors. Your federal taxes are the same rate as mine, and both of us (California and Oregon) have gotten more than our fair share back for the last 100 years.

 

-jjf

Link to comment

Well then let me throw a couple ideas out about this off shoot topic. Right now, the USFS timber sales are in deficit spending for one reason. Not because of the road issue. Not because of the Canadian wood selling here subsidized by the Canadian Government. Right now, the USFS is just the largest landscape contractor out there. With no timber to sale that has any value, the timber sales they are selling are just forest cleanup. Your tax dollars will have to go into these sales because they will not bring enough dollars back to

pay for themselves. Just think of the USFS right now as the local landscaper having to come in an clean up an overgrown park. Would you expect your landscaper to have to make his income from what he could sell your lawn clippings for? No, you have to pay him to do the work. That is why the trail fees should be over $100.00 per person per season. Or more. Much more. How much do you or did you pay to go to a movie lately? Are not your National Forest worth at least that much per person per trip? Look at how your property tax bill has went up over the last 20 years. Timber dollars used to cover the school cost. Now, with out those dollars and the influx of Tech jobs - which have went into the tank since 911 and we the blue collar worker now have to bankroll them - and losing a lot of the forest and farm related jobs, everone's taxe's have had to go up just to cover the school's we had. Throw in all the new people and the need for the new schools and that money has to come from somewhere.

Enough rant. Suck it up and realize we are all part of the problem and therefore we all have to be part of the solution.

Link to comment

GeorgeandMary, that is freakin' hilarious!

 

This reminds me of the rock art thread. There are concerns about protecting fragile signs of ancient humans. I don't doubt that if the human race survives another few thousand years, some environmental archeo-preservationist windbag will complain about people touching or impacting a fossilized geocache that their present day counterparts complained about having been placed. icon_biggrin.gif

 

The only thing I hate more than going to sleep is waking up.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...