NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/10293

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 8.2 KB | 169 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!cdm
From: [e-mail] (Dale Cook)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 18:52:32 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Environment
Summary:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To:
Distribution: usa
Organization: WINCO
Keywords:
Lines: 153

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A.P.K.) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>>The "spotted owl" issue is perhaps a hallmark of Bush's true environmental
>>colors.  [Bush wanted to gut the ESA]
>
>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.

What you say does nothing to alter my claim that he wanted to put economic
criteria above scientific criteria.  Was he not calling for relaxation of
the ESA?
>
>>If we endanger the ecosystem, the owl suffers.
>
>Not necessarily in this case.  What IS the owl's ecosystem?

The old-growth forests of the Pacific NW.
>
>>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.

Do you agree then with my contention above?  I notice you picked on the
least important part of it: the 5% number.  The industry's own analysts
will tell you point blank there's only another 10 years worth of supply
in that area.
>
>As Paul Harvey would say, here's the rest of the story:  (As told
>to me by my army friend who just drove through this weekend, and
>who lives out in that area and has nothing to do directly with the
>timber industry, although he is a local there.)
>
>Concerning the spotted owl and the old-growth forest.  The 5% figure
>so readily spouted by the (dare we say it) media is NOT the last
>remaining 5% of old-growth forest in the U.S. (some of which is
>already permanently protected.)   The region in question
>was 5% of all of the remaining old-growth forest (5% of the remaining
>100%.)  Where does the spotted owl live?  Primarily in the old-growth

Umm, I don't think so.  The 5% figure is accurate as it relates to this
particular ecosystem (Temperate Doug-fir forest).  Perhaps your friend is
mixing apples and oranges by considering all types of old-growth forest
(e.g., hardwood cove, mountain lodgepole, etc.) as one gigantic "old-growth"
type, which would be a mistake.

>[spotted owls] would move to new-growth forest when harvested, just
>as they'd do if a sudden forest fire wiped out their current local
>habitat.  They'd not become extinct, as was presented to the home

Sorry, but fire is not a significant factor in this type of old-growth
forest (it's much to wet there).  That's how the trees got to be as old
as they did.  In my area (Rocky Mountain) fire is indeed a significant
natural process, exemplified by the Yellowstone fires of a couple of
years ago.  An old forest around here is 200-300 years old.  Compare that
with 1000+ for old trees in the PNW.

>viewing audience.  Much of the original fuss was from a small
>environmentally conservative group of people who'd just as soon
>have everyone roaming the forest for small fragments of fallen
>timber to heat their homes in the winter, until so many people
>roaming the forest starts to hurt the forest, and then the people
>should be expected to freeze to death to save the forest (yes,
>extremists was the way my friend put it).  The issue was picked up

Ah yes, painting anyone who opposes saving the last of these magnificent
forests with the "extremist" brush.  There are plenty of reasonable
people on both sides of the issue.  Don't discredit yourself by pushing
this alarmist hyperbole.

>on the news, carried, went national, and held over Mr. Bush's head.
>("Wathcya gonna do now, Mr. President?  Who's really in charge
>here?")  Bush's decision was based on more facts than was given

No, this was an issue before Bush.  The timber industry knew 20 years
ago where we'd be today.  As large diameter Doug-fir becomes more scarce,
the issue has come to a head.  If your friend is right, the timber industry
would be setting their sights on that other 95%.  This 5% simply would not
be worth the fight.

How much weight, I wonder, was given to the concerns of the small mill
operators in this area?  These are the guys getting squeezed.

>to the general public.  If it had been a simple matter of jobs vs.
>the life of a species of animals, as we were told it was, there
>can be little doubt of the decision he would have made on the
>issue, especially concerning an animal as cool as the spotted owl.
>BTW, my friend is a mild environmental conservative who enjoys
>the out-of-doors, photographs it, and all that.  It's unlikely
>that he'd be pro-parking lot just for the sake of supporting
>a few jobs.

Hey, I'm all for logging.  We need it.  There's *PLENTY* of wood out there.
Just do it responsibly.  That means sustainable practices.  It means
due consideration given to all environmental impacts, such as water
quality.  There is no absolute *need* to cut these old growth trees
anymore - there are superior strength wood composite materials to replace
the structural uses for it.  The principle use for this stuff is vanity
products - appearance.  It's a very high profit material, that the forest
service sells for nickels on the dollar of true value.
>>
>>Or maybe they believed, but thought Bush's failures were worse.
>
>Ah, the "lesser of two evils" argument.  And it IS a valid
>argument when based entirely on facts.  But just because
>they 'thought' Bush's failures were worse doesn't necessarily
>make it so.

Doesn't necessarily make it not so, either.  From my view, the facts of
the matter didn't favor Bush.
>>
>>All one can reasonably expect out of a politician is general policies that
>>create a climate favorable to the issues important to you.  There are far
>>too many specific issues to reasonably expect the federal executive branch
>>to address individually.
>
>Why?  They're going to have to face them on an individual basis
>sooner or later, aren't they?

Do you seriously think that every single issue facing our country is
directly addressed by the White House?  I don't think there's enough
time for them to even look at them all much less formulate an opinion
on them.  My point is that there are broad issues to be addressed, and
bureaucracies are in place or established to manage them.  Only the
highest visibility issues are addressed by the White House.
>
>>environmental issues, and it cost him my vote.  Apparently, he failed in
>>other areas as well, especially in his perceived inattention to domestic
>>economic issues, which cost him votes on those issues.
>
>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?

Hey, for me it wasn't the newspapers or CBS evening news (not that they
have come to the wrong conclusion here).  I've done plenty of reading on
the matter, and have formulated my opinion based on what I believe is
solid scientific evidence.  Where'd you get the data to form your opinion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------