Re: Greenies

John Walker (jorwa@ix.netcom.com)
Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:43:48 -0700

>
>> Why is it illegal for someone to collect endangered
>> species, yet the equivalent to a nuclear bomb can be
>> dropped on acres of Sarracenia by a corporation and
>> not an eyelash is batted! ? Where is the Nature
>> Conservancy? where are federal and state government
>> laws that protect these species? I don't get it!
>> Are these corporations above the law?
>
>There's a similar battle going on here in North Carolina. A man
>owns several hundred acres of pine that he wants to log. The govt.
>says "No you may not, that forest harbors red-cockaded woodpecker
>which is an endangered species." The battle lines are drawn as the
>rights of the private citizen versus the duty of the govt. to protect
>endangered species. In the case you mention, the corporation's
>actions may have been illegal but it may prove easier for them to
>ask forgiveness (i.e. pay a fine) that ask permission (i.e. court
>battle with wacko environmentalists == lots of money and bad
>publicity).
>
>In addition, it may have been legal, strangely enough, under the
>Federal Wetlands Protection (ha!) Act. This act, which became law
>during the Bush administration, allows companies to destroy wetlands
>as long as they promise to create as much as (or more than?) they
>destroy. You and I know that this can cover a lot of sins, and a
>study released by the Univ. of North Carolina this year indicates
>that despite this act, NC is still losing wetlands at at vigorous
>rate. Still, money talks. If you promise the politicians of an
>economically depressed area that you can provide money and jobs,
>never mind about this or that study and oh by the way do you mind
>if we pave over this useless swampland here? which do you think will
>win, the money or the swamp? I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it
>is what happens.
>
>As far as the Nature Conservancy goes, their resources are limited.
>They buy as much land as they can but they can't get all of it. That
>goes for EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) too (and Greenpeace, Earth
>First!, etc.). EDF's mission as I understand it (any EDF members
>listening?) is to throw legal hurdles in the path of companies that
>are contemplating environmentally unfriendly action. Perhaps they
>fought on this battle and lost.

**********************************************************************
Phil,

Private property is just that...Private property owned by someone other than
yourself for reasons other than your own. Think of your own property that
your house sits on. I'll bet it is not in pristine condition (how about
that house that sits in the middle of it) and that non native plants and
animals abound. I live the desert and my private property doesn't have a
single cactus, palo verde, desert grass or other native plant. Same goes
for the native wildlife. Scorpions, rattle snakes, rabbits, etc. have been
systematically eradicated. All to make room for human beings and their pet
plants and pet animals.

The paper company is no different. It is converting land somewhere into a
place that is habitable (profitable) for humans. They did only on a larger
scale what most people do on a smaller scale, and that is to convert nature
for human use. What really attracted our attention and got us upset is that
they did it on land that holds plants that we (unfortunately a rather small
minority) hold in high esteem.

One of the answers, is to be the owner of these types of habitat through
whatever green group you like. Make donations of money, time, materials,
(land?).
Nothing bothers me more than to hear people bellyache and complain (about
any subject) when they aren't willing to do a single thing to swing matters
back to their own side. Whatever human kind collectivley decides is
important will survive. Non important things fall by the roadway. I don't
have to like it, I just can see that it's true.

Just remember that very few things are as important as people, and
people need somewhere to live, somewhere to work, somewhere to grow
food, and somewhere to recreate. As long as more and more people
inhabit the earth the same environmental presures are going to be with
us. Moving into space may be the only final answer. And let's not
forget that people are part of nature too. Just as elephants can
destroy the range they feed on before moving on, people sometimes do the
same thing. Perhaps both are natural pieces in the puzzle of nature.
And nature is nowhere near a delicate as some might think. Mount St.
Helen is a good example of a landscape steralized by nature herself.
And life is streaming back into that eco system!

If dinosaurs had gone extinct while people inhabited the earth, we would all
be blaming the humans for causing it. All I'm saying is that nature is
dynamic and not static. Species are always comming and going, it's the way
it's supposed to be. I just hope I'm gone before the CP's are.

p.s. I like your saying: Save the Earth, shoot yourself. Now if we can
just convince everyone to do their part.......

p.p.s. Lets all try to keep politics off of the list as best we can. If I
want to hear Dole (or Clinton ) bashing I'll turn on the T.V.

John Walker,
jorwa@ix.netcom.com