wrote:
On Jul 5, 7:14 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

asadi wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25537068/

forests to subdivisions...

That's just fear mongering.


Well I didn't start this off as an all-environmental-issues thread,
but I sure got that wide of range of flak for it ;-)

But to go that route, this story is actually kinda funny in a sad way
(if you read it all -- BTW go to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070402772.html

not msnbc anymore). When the landowner was logging the enviro's were
all upset, now he stopped that and they're even more upset. Unless
we're gonna go communist in this country, practically speaking we have
to let the landowner do _something_, no? But again, it sounds like
there are all sorts of governmental levels this is still being fought
on, which was my original point anyways, and the fourth estate doesn't
hurt either.


Pay no attention to environmental issues when choosing a candidate


That never was my point, just that chicken littles on either side of
many many issues are rarely correct.


We really need to be more middle-of-the-road on these matters, right Jon ?


Hey, I'd be so populist and "conservative" (as in conservation) on
public land issues that I doubt I'd have much support on either side
of the aisle...

Take care,

Jon.


it's really a "tipping point" issue, isn't it? that, and how an
individual's or corporation's conduct impacts and affects the larger
society and our shared environment. for example, if i own 1000 acres of
woodland and farm land, with 100 timber and tillable acres along a
stream that flows down through other's property and that supports brook
trout or cutthroat trout, what are the governmental or community limits
on farming and clear-cut logging that all others accept as reasonable?
....that the majority would accept as reasonable? ...that a minority of
folks would say is reasonable? ...that i, as the landowner, would accept?

the right to swing one's fist ends where a neighbor's nose begins.

it's frustrating to hear people in my community, including
college-graduates, spout political soundbites that betray their selfish,
narrow-minded interest about energy and environmental issues. most i
know claim to be republican conservatives...jesse helms was their man.
many of these republican farmers don't care about feeding the
population. oddly enough, to a man they care deeply about government
programs that will help them feed their own families. most wouldn't
grow a crop if the government would pay them not to. likewise, they will
grow cotton instead of corn or soybeans, and use a lot of fertilizers
and pesticides in the process, if they can make an extra few grand -
wildlife and waterways be damned. we have done a very poor job of
educating folks with all the relevant data...sadly, i fear most have no
interest in it, or in thinking critically or constructively about it.
one only needs to look at the landscape and society in haiti to
recognize the dangers of political, social, and environmental "tipping
point" missteps.

i'm only now...after 57 years...beginning to understand my own
short-sighted and selfish behaviors. most of us are spoiled, and i fear
we and our children are going to see significant change in our
lifestyles, not for the better. until we as a larger community find a
way to new energy efficiencies and environmental stability, we are in
for a "big bowl of wrong". i'm afraid there are simply "too many rats
in the cage". farm land and forests have been disappearing at alarming
rates for a long time now. perhaps one good from the gas crisis will be
a slowing of this process.

we all need to applaud and encourage individual efforts like snedeker's,
in the hope it becomes a "soundbite" the lemmings will mimic. there is
a developing "green" movement...when there is a dollar to be made (or
saved) from it, it will be unstoppable...and we'll all be better off.

jeff