NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/10096

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 3.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!galileo.physics.arizona.edu!krueger
From: [e-mail] (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Environment
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:23:44 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ
Lines: 46

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A.P.K.) writes:
>>
>>Therefore, I would contend that the media coverage has completely
>>overshadowed any gains he may have made.  Look at the spotted owl
>>coverage, for example, as compared to the example of wetlands that
>>I sited elsewhere.  Good news might make it on the local
>>level, on occassion, but it seldom sees national coverage.
>
>The "spotted owl" issue is perhaps a hallmark of Bush's true environmental
>colors.  Bush wanted to put the economic issues ahead of the scientific
>ones in this case.  Here we have a law that puts science on equal footing
>with politics, and when some economic toes get stepped on, look what
>happens, the politicians scramble to gut the law.  And Bush was leading
>the charge.
>
>What is the "spotted owl" issue?  Contrary to common opinion, it is NOT
>about owls; it's about habitat.  The owl is an "indicator species", meaning
>that the health of its population indicates the health of the underlying
>ecosystem upon which it relies.  We could eradicate the owl with [probably]
>no adverse effects to the ecosystem.  If we endanger the ecosystem, the
>owl suffers.  By spouting nonsensical hyperbole about owls vs. jobs, one
>is misleading people.  Again, Bush was a visible proponent of this nonsense.
>
>No, the true issue is why should an industry (big timber companies) be
>allowed to raze the last 5% of old growth timber to provide 5-10 more
>years of jobs?  And it's a red herring anyway, since only a particular
>type of job will be lost, with a shift in milling operations to younger
>timber resulting.  Bush and anyone else who argues for continued non-
>sustainable clearcutting of old-growth forests do not give a damn about
>the local economies.  What happens when the old-growth is gone?  The big
>timber companies move out, on to greener pastures (pun intended), leaving
>the locals to fend for themselves in retooling mills to handle the smaller
>less profitable logs.  Nope, Bush was catering to big business and at the
>same time resorting to demagoguery with his rhetoric.

Did you hear the report on Rush's show yesterday?  It said that a recent
study found 10 times as many spotted owl's as the enviro-wacos claimed
that there were.

Ted

--
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader
                   [e-mail]