more surges in Montana...

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

forests to subdivisions...

That's just fear mongering. Unless you can point to a specific
trout stream that's been destroyed as a direct consequence of
industry cronies being appointed to head the federal agencies
which are supposed to regulate the industry then it just doesn't
matter.

Pay no attention to environmental issues when choosing a candidate
because no matter how retrograde, crooked or downright stupid
their policies on the environment it won't matter much in the long
run.

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

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

forests to subdivisions...

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.

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

"jeff miller" wrote in message
news:4872a7aa$0$4056




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.


jeff
Joe the Elder writes---well at least you support catch and release--[maybe
because many of your
fish are too small to clean]
I have spend a good part of summer reading works of Wallace Stegner [ so far
14 works of fiction and 21 pieces of nonfiction], most of his works are
concerned with the move to the west---people moving for free land and
looking for the BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN without realizing that you cannot
raise crops without water. Much of his work was concerned with the
distribution of water, dams, irrigation and the problems to follow; enjoy
today PERIOD.
You might enjoy Angle of Repose---his best novel, but be prepared it also
spends much print exposing the problems of ageing. Another good read is his
nonfiction piece "Beyond the Hundredth Meridian:John Wesley Powell and the
Second Opening of the West"
Down here in Wilmington our " leaders" are trying to pay a cement
manufacturing plant to come in and pollute one major part of our Cape Fear
River. Don"t understand why PROGRESS is so confusing!

Joe McIntosh wrote:

Joe the Elder writes---well at least you support catch and release--[maybe
because many of your
fish are too small to clean]


indeed...but then, as you know, size doesn't matter...it's the seduction
that counts. g

rachel and i went to harkers for the 4th...standing on the end of the
dock, we watched fireworks across the water over in beaufort and
morehead, and a smaller display on the island. boated and fished on the
5th, caught a few spanish, a blue, two small flounder, and a lizard
fish. mainly walked the inside sandbars looking at sea urchins, a conch
trying to eat a clam, fan shells, and horseshoe crabs. the urchins must
have been molting or reproducing, as they were camouflaging themselves
with small shells and other detritus. one had a part of a red plastic
cup attached to its spines...another sign of manunkind. they weren't
around in october when you and i fished the area. it's interesting
seeing the different sal****er critters and their behaviors at this time
of the year. the drum have been a bit finnicky through the summer, but
i'm finding new spots for our upcoming october effort.

we're leaving on friday for the annual western jaunt...gonna camp two
nights in wyoming before moving up to the montana stomping grounds.
might look for larry around henrys fork too. because of the late runoff,
reckon we'll find some different critters out there too. sorry you've
given it up. we miss you.

jeff

On Jul 7, 5:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

[some good stuff snipped]

I concur.

Jon.

On Jul 7, 4:33*pm, jeff miller wrote:
*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. *

Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken

wrote:
On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

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.


Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken

wrote:

On Jul 7, 4:33 pm, jeff miller wrote:

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.


Agree with the sentiment, just curious if you actually have any data
for the "farm land and forests" disappearing. At least in the United
States I'd be surprised if there was a significant loss of farm land.
I vaguely remember increased North American forests being listed as
a reason for increased global warming.

Just curious if you have any data for your statement.
- Ken

it's a commonly-known and undeniable statistic in nc (my place of
experience and knowledge)...and one i have witnessed in my years in
eastern nc... don't know how it is on the west coast (or are you in the
dakotas?). look at these which i quickly harvested from google...

http://www.edf.org/documents/3565_NCForestry.pdf

http://www.landfortomorrow.org/page193.html ("...The state DENR
estimates that development gobbles up 100,000 acres of working farms,
forests and gamelands every year. In last decade more than one million
acres of natural and rural areas have been developed. Sadly, North
Carolina now leads the country in farm loss.")

http://www.ncwildlifefederation.org/...telandsres.htm
(...WHEREAS, NC lost more than one million acres of forestland from
1990-2002, and continues to lose 100,000 acres of forests annually,
2,000 acres lost each week; ...WHEREAS, Agricultural land statewide
declined by nearly 55.7 thousand acres annually over the most recent
reporting period (1992-1997). Moreover prime cropland declined by an
even greater percentage, losing 33.7 thousand acres annually during the
same period. Farmland loss was greatest in urban or rapidly developing
counties where both Mecklenburg and Wake Counties averaged 21 percent
declines over the past five years, and Forsyth County averaged 10
percent declines. According to the American Farmland Trust, North
Carolina ranks fourth nationally in the loss of farmland; ...")