Today on Blogcritics
Home » Spotted Owl phase 2

Spotted Owl phase 2

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Ever hear of the Western Spotted Owl? Well this is a common owl that environmentalists claimed was “endangered” and could only live in the “old growth” forests of the Pacific North West. So they sued the federal government and every timber company around. The eco legal terrorists won in court; so the timber companies went to the second and then third generation forests, and lo and behold there were Spotted Owls there too.

A logical person would come to conclude that the environmentalists were mistaken, that the Spotted Owls didn’t just live in the old growth forests. Well, what did the environmentalists do? They sued again, this time they said these other areas were vital nesting grounds for the Spotted Owl. Turns out that the Spotted Owl is not endangered, and it lives all over the place out there. The Spotted Owls were simply under-counted by government biologists.

    What is the end result of this?

  1. Timber prices have dramatically increased in recent years, despite the fact that there is substantially more trees now than 120 years ago.
  2. America has lost thousands of timber-related jobs to other countries
  3. Thousands of land owners have had their investments wiped out without just compensation as required by the constitution

Environmentalists just don’t seem to understand that:

“Tree’s grow back every year.”

Many have heard about the Spotted Owl fiasco and figured it was ancient history, that we know better now.Wrong! In a recent case for example:

NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL; THE
ECOLOGY CENTER, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an No. 04-35375
agency of the U.S. Department of
D.C. No. Agriculture;-Appellees.

A group of environmentalists are suing the National Forest Service because they claim the Forest Service contracted a Timber Management company to cut 655 acres on a section of 755 acres of trees; out of a total area of 975,088 acres of trees. This group claims cutting less than .01% of this federally owned land will endanger the common Elk. They say that the common Elk need 35% of every acre to be hiding areas (wooded) for survival. There are virtually millions of Elk in the Rocky Mountain states. Like the Spotted Owl claims, this is just another fraud dressed up in green clothes. The real reasons are

  1. They (the green crowd) just moved there recently or bought a vacation ranch there.
  2. They don’t want anybody else moving there, especially middle class people.
  3. Despite being old money, they are violently anti-capitalism, if doesn’t benefit them.

If you think I am wrong about this then why are all the environmentalists always from upper-middle to upper-class white families? When was the last time you saw Rev. Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson complain about saving the Blue-spotted Salamanders? When was the last time you saw a Mexican landscaper protesting about saving the Whippoorwill?

I love nature and just being in the great outdoors, but we must put risk analysis into proper perspective and proportion.


Pub:NB

Powered by

About John Bill

  • rbp0554

    >>Environmentalists just don’t seem to understand that:

    “Tree’s grow back every year.”< <

    Maybe in your world.

    >>If you think I am wrong about this then why are all the environmentalists always from upper-middle to upper-class white families?<<

    This may be true if we accept your narrow definition of “environmentalist.

    – RBP

  • http://miriamsideas.blogspot.com miriam

    Note to environmentalists: Please repeat until you get the message:
    Trees are a renewable resource.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Trees…grow.

    And they have these things called “seeds” that, when planted, tend to create more trees.

    And no one is supporting clear-cutting here, are they?

    There is a difference between an environmentalist, like me, and a wacko anti-capitalist loon.

  • rbp0554

    >>Note to environmentalists: Please repeat until you get the message:
    Trees are a renewable resource.< <

    A) That does not mean that they are being harvested in a sustainable fashion.

    B) Old growth forest and hardwood deciduous forest in general are not "renewable" because stands that consist of these tree types take close to 50 yrs to mature.

    >>Trees…grow.

    And they have these things called “seeds” that, when planted, tend to create more trees.<<

    RJ’s command of biology is staggering.

    – RBP