G'day Kieran, You have made a number of interesting points in your message. I regret that you found it necessary to litter it with cheap shots. I do not think that annoying me or anyone else taking the time to read your thoughts will be productive. It certainly makes it more difficult to take you seriously. >1. RE: We might lose the ESA if we actually use it. > >A. That's a lot like telling someone to keep their mouth shut because our >free speech might get taken away. Every social/political structure has advantage and disadvantages. I detailed concerns about the potential fallout from ESA in the post to which you replied. I don't think voters care enough about endangered species to risk their perceptions of their individual rights. If I'm wrong, then all well and good. If I'm not, then what do you propose to do? Further, I think that you'll find that free speech is far more heavily ingrained into the American psyche than is the ESA. I think your analogy doesn't work. >B. The ESA has already been killed to a large extent by the USFWS which You don't like the current implementation of the ESA because you perceive that it does not support your interpretation of what it should be. Fine. My reading of the ESA is that it allows for economic trade-offs under certain circumstances. What it's *supposed* to be for is anyone's guess. The groups who proposed it, fought for it (and congratulations to them) and now try to use it, certainly put it in place for a reason. But who's to say that that is a necessary reflection of the broader social values? We live in a diverse society of diverse views. Or should the ESA conform to only one agenda? I recognise that I'm being a little pedantic here. Just as a mental exercise, try to step away from this doggedly combative interpretation of these events and structures and ask yourself what you're trying to achieve. My assertion is that the ESA is not going to do what you want it to do. Your experience (if that is frustration and anger I read in your post) bears this up. Further, that strengthening it, shoring it up, whatever, will not help. What it has done is give those who want to stop development for conservation reasons a lever, a tool. It has not made the problems go away because it does not address the problems. Cramming legislation on top of what people have been taught is a natural and necessary part of existence (I'm thinking here of the rights vs. responsibilities trade-off) will not change their minds, it will merely make them angry. I assert that another way needs to be found. I do not know what that way is. Discussion? >2. RE: Mexican spotted owl habitat use. > >A. MSO does not select for edges. ... Thankyou for your summary of this most pertinent-sounding paper. I have searched the library databases on campus here for a copy, but we don't seem to have one. Would you be kind enough to send me a copy? My address is below. >3. RE: The big fire threat > >A. The industry and forest disservice rhetoric is that unmanaged forests >are a severe fire threat because all the messy downed logs and snags and The key point here is: a fire threat to *what*? >stuff. Enviros, therefore, are endangering the good citizenry by preventing >the forest service for reducing fuel loads through loggin. Bullshit. The >largest fire in the Southwest in recent history is the Dude Fire on the >Tonto National Forest- a heavily managed forest. In fact, the forest That is almost completely irrelevant to your point. How big would the fire have been if the forest were managed? How is bigness measured anyway? What is the management practice in Tonto? >absolutely no evidence that catastrophic fires are more closely related to What is a catastrophic fire? >unmanaged forests than managed forests. But then again, the whole debate is >bullshit, well orchestrated by the forest service and industry to obscure Then don't buy into it. I see that first you make your point, and then you claim the whole deal is irrelevant. What are you trying to tell us? >The question ... is really >about whether we are going to let the forest service to cut the few >remaining old growth pines left in the timber base. That's *your* question. I can only guess at your answer. *My* question is: is the ESA going to be the panacea you wish for? And I don't think it is. I think it can detract from your goals, especially if people then move away from individual efforts towards change because suddenly the government is involved and its all going to be all right. >B. Don''t buy the hype that "fire suppression" has caused too many (i.e too >dense) small trees. The scientific literature very clearly indicates that References please. >timber cutting and overgrazing have also been very important contributers. "Have also" does not imply that fire suppression plays no part. Neither does "very important contributors". >If the forest service was really concerned about "forest health" they would >start taking the cows off the forest, otherwise those thickets are just >going to grow back. Where are you referring to? (I'm not being aggressive, just ignorant.) The fires referred to in Jim's letter (to which I presume you are replying, in concert with mine) were in the Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Are you sure that there are timber cutting and cows there? >4. The first rule of oppression is control the parameters of debate and >make sure everyone is arguing about tangential issues. Please explain the context for this statement. (It may be helpful for you to reflect that with the recent focusses in the media on endangered species protection (the spotted owl is a classic case) it cuts both ways.) Andrew. Andrew Robinson, Phone : + 1 612 625 5765 (work) Graduate Student, : + 1 612 644 5512 (home) Dept. of Forest Resources, FAX : + 1 612 625 5212 University of Minnesota, 115 Green Hall "I'll see it 1530 North Cleveland Ave. when I believe it." St Paul, 55108-6112, Mn, USA No statements above may be inferred to have the necessary support of my employer.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0