Whoa......hold up there pardner....before you start jumping down people's throats you might want to do a little research. I know that sometimes certain groups are afraid to let the facts stand in the way of a passionate argument. I think you missed the point that Steve was trying to make (and make quite politely, I might add). The facts are this: USFWS is very unsure about what regulations they can and can not enforce. They are in a very bad position and are going to be sued no matter which way they turn. Steve's point was this(I believe): We are all going to have to learn to compromise in the very near future if anything is going to be accomplished. Both sides are going to have to learn when to pick their battles and when to leave well enough alone. Now that we have that issue resolved....There are a couple of issues in your letter that bothered me. Your characterization of Alabama as tree farm heaven is truly short-sighted and offensive. Again this is an area where you need to do some research. Yes, our state produces a tremendous amount of wood fiber every year, but it is also home to some of the most diverse ecological landscapes known this side of the tropics. Only a small portion of Alabama's forest cover area is in plantations. As a matter of fact, (If my memory serves me right) hardwood forest acreage surpasses that of pine acreage by a good bit. I think you owe several people an apology for your offensive tone and language. Have a Nice Day, John M. Cooper Auburn University School of Forestry On Thu, 1 Dec 1994, David Hodges wrote: > they have always dragged their feet...while they continue to drag their > feet species dissaper, not to mention vital habitat...i'm not sure what > they're teachiing you down there, but...i grew up in that area of the > world and it's tree farm hell...my father was well on his way to being a > third generation logger when they ran out of trees...at least the ones > accessible to the single family sawmill...yes, when my father found out > that his job was to be no more, he found something else to do...the moral > of the story is: the corporate powers that cut the forest in your neck of > the woods are the same ones that fund your school! > sincerely > > > tired of your wimpy bullshit > > > On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, Steve Meyers wrote: > > > I know the reason why the USFWS is dragging their feet. > > > > SEE: Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon > > v. > > Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This case was Decided on July 23, 1993, and then denied on May 2, 1994. > > > > The US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, denied the US Fish and > > Wildlife Service to use its expansive definition of "harm" to include "habitat > > modifications." To "harm" an endangered species is to "take", which is in > > violation of the Endangered Species Act. > > > > If the USFWS pursues its expansive definition of "harm" in other locations > > (i.e. Arizona, NM) they might lose their muscle in requiring the forest > > industry to avoid habitat modifications on private lands. > > > > Ruling on the Sweet Home Case: > > > > The Court of Appeals, per curiam, held that > > regulation defining "harm" to an endangered species to include > > ...habitat modification... did NOT violate the Endangered Species Act. > > > > Next Stop, THE US SUPREME COURT !!! > > > > To the extremist: There are already enough regulations on the books to > > protect most threatened or endangered species. You continue crying that > > "it isn't enough." If things keep going the way they are... We may lose > > the regulations that we have NOW. > > > > Sincerly, > > > > A Practical Environmentalist > > > > > > > > >
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0