Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Lions and elephants on the Great Plains? < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 837
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 05:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Got this from someone on an unrelated mailing list:

"I just saw two stories on the CNN web site. The first one is 'Lion attacks in Tanzania up 300% in 15 years'.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/08/18/tanzania.lions.ap/index.html

The other one is 'Ecologists want to move African wildlife to to great plains'

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/08/17/wild.america.ap/index.html

The wildlife they are talking about relocating to the USA includes the Lions that are attacking people in increasing numbers in Tanzania! Now that is a prime indication of how far out of touch with reality the Eco movement is."
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 4983
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 07:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't think the entire "Eco movement" is responsible for that any more than all Christians are responsible for abortion clinic bombings, Mike. Let's call things as they really are, shall we? I'll do my best if you will....
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 4984
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 07:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Not to mention, the article also says "The idea of transplanting African wildlife to this continent is being greeted with gasps and groans from other scientists and conservationists who recall previous efforts to relocate foreign species halfway around the world, often with disastrous results." So, you're representing the entire eco meovement with a small group who don't even have the support of their peers. Pretty weak argument...
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 839
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 07:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey hey hey, I didn't say that! That was a quote from an acquaintance!

I'm not some pave the earth and destroy nature kinda freak that some of you probably think I am. I love the outdoors, I hike, backpack, and mountain bike (well I used to, I have a three year old and another that's coming any day now, so my outdoor fun days have been drastically reduced!) I USED to belong to the Sierra Club, until I realized they were just wasting millions on who knows what vs. actually doing any good with the donations and membership fees. I'm probably something of a Teddy Roosevelt conservative to some extent.

That being said, these guys want to save lions and elephants by moving them to somewhere they've never been? Are they nuts? The potential killing of humans aside, what about their environment? They never lived in the great plains for a reason! What's next? Are they going to try to transplant palm trees in Alaska?
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 840
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 07:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Denny, I wasn't trying to get anyone wound up or defensive. I just thought it was a wacky story that some would find interesting!
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 4985
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 07:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yep, you didn't say that, sorry for tarring you with the brush...

I AM an eco-nut and I agree, that's totally wacky!!!! Again, sorry for the knee jerk reaction...I owe ya a beer!
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

davidw
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 1238
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 07:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

They never lived in the great plains for a reason!

Actually, approximately 20-15k years ago there were elephant and lion 'type' creatures living in the new world. PaleoIndians took 'em out. We (humans) seem to be good at doing that kinda thing.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 3287
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 08:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Global climate change has played a part as well, David. The earth has been warming for the past 10,000 years or so, with or without us, although we seem to be greatly accelerating the process in the past couple of centuries.

I agree this is a wacky idea that is very unlikely to stand up to the scrutiny of peer review. It all but begs for application of the law of unintended consequences.
 

davidw
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 1239
Registered: 03-2001
Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 08:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

More and more research is indicating, Bill, that climate change played a very insignificant part in the demise of the new world fauna. We're talking a very short period of time in geologic/ecological years, a *very* large population of megafauna, and a relatively small population of humans that came on to the scene and very quickly populated the new world. Paleoindians were presented a subsistance source of mammoth, mastadons, giant ground sloths, bison, and horses. As their numbers dwindled so did the large carnivors, saber tooths, large hyenas & bears, who were direct competitors with humans. Compete with us and you typically lose. As the climate warmed (in a world uninterupted by humans) the natural reaction of the fauna would have been to decrease in size. Bears, bison, and the felines did this and are still present. Megabison, mammoths, mastadons, & ground sloths that were humans primary food source didn't have a chance to go through this change. Thus, they became extinct.

As the focus of my degree was paleoecology & the early peopling of the Americas, this is something I keep up on.
 

Brewtun
Junior Member
Username: Brewtun

Post Number: 88
Registered: 02-2001
Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Maybe John Dean & Michael Moore will get behind it. It'll give the Hollywierd crowd something else to think about.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 844
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 03:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As long as we are on the environment theme - How about alternative energy enviros fighting NIMBY enviros?

A Mighty Wind
Jonah Goldberg
August 19, 2005

"The law, in its majestic equality" wrote Anatole France, "forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

But apparently not environmentalism. On that score there's one rule for the rich and one rule for the rest.

Witness the current fight in Cape Cod over an effort to build wind farms just offshore. It features sanctimonious environmentalists, super-rich property owners, and super-rich, property-owning, sanctimonious environmentalists feeding on each other like big hungry sharks in a small tank.

The basic situation is that some environmentalists and a company called Cape Wind want to build 130 windmills way out in the ocean to help offset energy costs in the region - and to satisfy all those demands that we find substitutes for evil fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, other environmentalists and conservationists are eager to stop the wind farm from being built, largely because it will mar the view from their extravagant coastal homes. Leading this charge is Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose famous compound would have a nice view of the turbines. (To be fair, though most people say the turbines would be hard to see except on very clear days, and even then they'd be tiny blips on the horizon.)

But Ted wants no such thing spoiling cocktail hour on the veranda. So he drafted his famously green nephew Robert to join the fight - even though Robert is a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which strongly backs the project.

Obviously, the reason this is so much fun is that the stakes are so small for everybody except a handful of people who deserve to lose. Personally, I couldn't really care one way or the other. I think the aesthetic arguments have some merit, but I also think wind power has more potential than most of its critics claim. The windmills would ultimately provide about 75 percent of the energy used by Cape Cod and the surrounding Islands, including Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard - in a clean, renewable form that, unlike older technologies, wouldn't kill birds in an avian frappe. Seventy-five percent of the area's power needs may be a rounding error when discussing America's total energy consumption, but that's a lot for any specific community.

But why get distracted by the merits of the issue when the real fun is to take a Nestea Plunge into the swirling waters of limousine liberalism.

A very quick search of the LexisNexis news database reveals that Sen. Kennedy has called for more "sacrifice" from the wealthy roughly 8 kabillion-jamillion-gazillion times during George W. Bush's presidency (and forget about during Ronald Reagan's!). He's excoriated Bush's tax cuts, the war, health care policies, and just about everything else for not demanding the rich share more in the "national sacrifice."

Well, here's their chance. This is not some symbolic hybrid car you park next to your Hummer. Recall Arianna Huffington's passionate campaign against SUVs? She made great sacrifices to rid the world of those guzzlers as she flew around the country in a private jet.

Well, here is something concrete the rich and famous can sacrifice for the little guy and for the environment: their views.

And, let's be honest, it's not a huge sacrifice. If Teddy really thinks his fat - or, if you prefer, "phat" - crib on the beach will be ruined by the prospect of having to look at some windmills five to 13 miles offshore, he can swap pads with me.

The opponents of the project have made every ludicrous claim in the book, proving that environmentalists will even lie to other environmentalists. The windmills will kill whales, cause oil spills, ruin fishing, etc. None of these things are true, and the honest opponents know it. This is simply Nimby ("not in my backyard") politics pure and simple.

When a reporter for The New York Times Magazine called Walter Cronkite, a windmill opponent, and asked him about the proposal, the retired newsman bristled at the suggestion that this was all about selfishness. But, he had to confess, that's exactly what it is.

"The problem really is Nimbyism," he conceded by telephone, "and it bothers me a great deal that I find myself in this position. I'm all for these (windmills), but there must be areas that are far less valuable than this place is." The reporter prodded, and he said maybe the California desert would work. Isn't that a bit far away to supply Cape Cod? Well, he added, "Inland New England would substitute just as well." In fact, any place but here would do just fine.

Is seemed to dawn on Cronkite that such honesty wasn't serving his cause or himself, he interrupted his train of thought and implored the reporter, "Be kind to an old man."

I'm all for kindness to old men, but let's not hear fossilizing liberals like him, Kennedy and Huffington talk about the need for the wealthy to make sacrifices anymore. And they better not get caught with one of those "Think globally, act locally" bumper stickers on their SUVs, either.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050819.shtml
 

Joseph Listan
Advanced Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 786
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 06:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh my God. That is the best post in many moons here, including my own.

Damm, it won't let me give you SIX stars, Mike.

(Message edited by poonstab on August 19, 2005)

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: