home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
- Path: sparky!uunet!seq!session
- From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
- Subject: Re: The Environment
- Message-ID: <1992Nov23.020718.5193@seq.uncwil.edu>
- Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
- References: <1992Nov21.010545.10331@seq.uncwil.edu> <By3uLz.BJy@andy.bgsu.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:07:18 GMT
- Lines: 75
-
- jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
-
- >Uh, not quite. Bush weighed the facts of the issue and had to come up
- >with a position on an issue which was obviously a sore spot. And, the
- >media botched and biased the coverage, and didn't cover all the facts.
-
- Your opinion. I felt the media coverage on Bush's position and comments of
- the Endangered Species Act (which is the underlying issue here) to very
- very complete and never challenged by Bush. He had no qualms about being
- against the renewal of the ESA.
-
- >>If we endanger the ecosystem, the owl suffers.
- >
- >Not necessarily in this case. What IS the owl's ecosystem?
-
- Yes, necessarily. If you endanger an ecosystem, you endanger ALL species
- who make that ecosystem home. A spotted owl's ecosystem? An old growth
- forest.
-
- Your explanation that spotted owls who live in an old growth forest
- which is harvested will simply migrate to a new grouth forest simply
- does not compute. Why is the population so drastically low now?
-
- >>Bush created an environment of hostility towards
- >Did he really, or did it perhaps come from somewhere else?
-
- Yes, he did. By HIS actions and by HIS comments.
-
- >Exactly. Bush lost on his "perceived" attitudes towards
- >certain issues. And who presented those perceived attitudes
- >to us and where did we get the information necessary to
- >attain any personal perception in the matters?
-
- Bush's attitudes were presented quite clearly. You can't get much clearer
- than showing the president speak. He made his intentions well known
- on the debates as well.
-
- >> Cite the study please or zip it up.
-
- >I can't cite it, either, but it was part of what my friend was
- >telling me about last weekend.
-
- Well, until you can cite the study or I hear about it somewhere else,
- I will consider your comments and conclusions based on it a matter
- of heresay and not necessarily facts based on evidence.
-
-
- >The original numbers DID come from some 'enviro-wackos' and when
- >the Gov't looked into it, with the help of the 'enviro-wackos',
- >they weren't looking in the right place FOR the owls...
-
- Some independent biologists (whom you prefer to refer to as enviro-wachkos)
- may have pointed out to the government that there may be a problem, the
- actual study was performed by the government by government workers. In
- fact there was quite a stink about that study. I was so devastating in
- its conclusions that higher ups in the Interior Dept had it quashed for
- several weeks and even tried to have the wording of the study changed.
-
-
- >> And so what if there are 10 times as many spotted owls as the original
- >> census was? That means the current population is 10% of its original
- >> numbers instead of 5%. (Percentages estimated, but you get my point.)
-
- >Math error?
-
- No, percetnage quoted error. IF this report is correct, then that would
- mean the government sponsored and conducted studies in the past were off
- incredibly. Instead of a 5% population, it is really a 50% population.
- Well, I find such a discrepancy hard to believe.
-
- --
- Zack Sessions
- sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
- University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
- "Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
-