From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: The Environment
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:41:59 GMT

Obviously, this didn't get posted properly last week, when I'd
first thought I'd posted it, so here it is now.
 
cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
 
>In article <BxovxI.LHD@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>>
>>Therefore, I would contend that the media coverage has completely
>>overshadowed any gains he may have made.  Look at the spotted owl
>>coverage, for example, as compared to the example of wetlands that
>>I sited elsewhere.  Good news might make it on the local
>>level, on occassion, but it seldom sees national coverage.
>
>The "spotted owl" issue is perhaps a hallmark of Bush's true environmental
>colors.  Bush wanted to put the economic issues ahead of the scientific
>ones in this case.  Here we have a law that puts science on equal footing
>with politics, and when some economic toes get stepped on, look what
>happens, the politicians scramble to gut the law.  And Bush was leading
>the charge.
 
Uh, not quite.  Bush weighed the facts of the issue and had to come up
with a position on an issue which was obviously a sore spot.  And, the
media botched and biased the coverage, and didn't cover all the facts.
 
>
>What is the "spotted owl" issue?  Contrary to common opinion, it is NOT
>about owls; it's about habitat.  The owl is an "indicator species", meaning
>that the health of its population indicates the health of the underlying
>ecosystem upon which it relies.  We could eradicate the owl with [probably]
>no adverse effects to the ecosystem.
 
Yes.
 
>If we endanger the ecosystem, the owl suffers.
 
Not necessarily in this case.  What IS the owl's ecosystem?
 
>By spouting nonsensical hyperbole about owls vs. jobs, one
>is misleading people.  Again, Bush was a visible proponent of this nonsense.
>
>No, the true issue is why should an industry (big timber companies) be
>allowed to raze the last 5% of old growth timber to provide 5-10 more
>years of jobs?  And it's a red herring anyway, since only a particular
>type of job will be lost, with a shift in milling operations to younger
>timber resulting.  Bush and anyone else who argues for continued non-
>sustainable clearcutting of old-growth forests do not give a damn about
>the local economies.  What happens when the old-growth is gone?  The big
>timber companies move out, on to greener pastures (pun intended), leaving
>the locals to fend for themselves in retooling mills to handle the smaller
>less profitable logs.  Nope, Bush was catering to big business and at the
>same time resorting to demagoguery with his rhetoric.
 
As Paul Harvey would say, here's the rest of the story:  (As told
to me by my army friend who just drove through this weekend, and
who lives out in that area and has nothing to do directly with the
timber industry, although he is a local there.)
 
Concerning the spotted owl and the old-growth forest.  The 5% figure
so readily spouted by the (dare we say it) media is NOT the last
remaining 5% of old-growth forest in the U.S. (some of which is
already permanently protected.)   The region in question
was 5% of all of the remaining old-growth forest (5% of the remaining
100%.)  Where does the spotted owl live?  Primarily in the old-growth
forest, not strictly in the old-growth forest, although yes, primarily
in the area in question.  However, the spotted owl also lives in
areas of new-growth forest.  Of the owls living in old-growth, most
of them would move to new-growth forest when harvested, just
as they'd do if a sudden forest fire wiped out their current local
habitat.  They'd not become extinct, as was presented to the home
viewing audience.  Much of the original fuss was from a small
environmentally conservative group of people who'd just as soon
have everyone roaming the forest for small fragments of fallen
timber to heat their homes in the winter, until so many people
roaming the forest starts to hurt the forest, and then the people
should be expected to freeze to death to save the forest (yes,
extremists was the way my friend put it).  The issue was picked up
on the news, carried, went national, and held over Mr. Bush's head.
("Wathcya gonna do now, Mr. President?  Who's really in charge
here?")  Bush's decision was based on more facts than was given
to the general public.  If it had been a simple matter of jobs vs.
the life of a species of animals, as we were told it was, there
can be little doubt of the decision he would have made on the
issue, especially concerning an animal as cool as the spotted owl.
BTW, my friend is a mild environmental conservative who enjoys
the out-of-doors, photographs it, and all that.  It's unlikely
that he'd be pro-parking lot just for the sake of supporting
a few jobs.
 
>>I wouldn't call it a lie as much as I'd call it politics.  Politicians
>
>Call it what you like.  If it quacks like a duck...
 
> [ ... stuff ...]  Then again, perhaps
>>politicking and lying are synonymous...
 
From the Lexicon Webster Dictionary, Encyclopedic Edition:
 
politic: prudent and sagacious; cunning; artful; sagacious in
         adapting means to an end; etc...
 
politician: one skilled in politics; one involved in politics for
         personal gain; etc...
 
{Thought you'd like that.  :-)  }
 
>> [ again ... stuff ... ]  Although
>>people accused Perot of not saying anything, that was one of the things
>>I DID happen to like about him ... everything he DID say was of the "I
>>will do this" variety.  In Bush's case, the voters had his public
>
>Anyone who makes promises about what they *will* do beyond stating that
>they will *try* to do this is a fool, as are those who believe it.
>
 
That's what was different and favourable.  Perot didn't promise
the world, directly or indirectly.  He was accused of not saying
anything.  Why?  Because he'd say no more than that which he was
confident he could succeed at.  (Whether he could or couldn't have
succeeded, and whether people believed he could or couldn't, doesn't
make them fools.  Optimists, maybe...)  He said he'd get in there,
get his hands dirty, and give it his best shot.  He said nothing
on issues that he didn't have the facts on until he found out
what the facts were.  He didn't dance around issues.  What I liked
about him was his no-nonsense attitude toward what he felt he
could accomplish, and that he stuck with that agenda.  (And my dad
liked his haircut.)  And there were things I liked about Bush.  And
yes, there were even things I liked about Clinton.
 
>>record blasted at them daily, and it stuck.  However, in the case of
>
>As it should have.
 
Only when it's true.
 
>
>>Clinton, who also had public record of doing the same stuff, it
>>wasn't heralded at them daily by the news media (in general) and when
>>it was brought up, people simply refused to believe it in many
>>cases (i.e. like when he promised Arkansas, just two years ago, that
>>he wouldn't run for president if re-elected to the governor's position,
>>or WAS that a blatent lie to his people?)  Then again, perhaps
>>politicking and lying are synonymous...
>
>Or maybe they believed, but thought Bush's failures were worse.
 
Ah, the "lesser of two evils" argument.  And it IS a valid
argument when based entirely on facts.  But just because
they 'thought' Bush's failures were worse doesn't necessarily
make it so.
 
>
>All one can reasonably expect out of a politician is general policies that
>create a climate favorable to the issues important to you.  There are far
>too many specific issues to reasonably expect the federal executive branch
>to address individually.
 
Why?  They're going to have to face them on an individual basis
sooner or later, aren't they?
 
>Bush created an environment of hostility towards
 
Did he really, or did it perhaps come from somewhere else?
 
>environmental issues, and it cost him my vote.  Apparently, he failed in
>other areas as well, especially in his perceived inattention to domestic
>economic issues, which cost him votes on those issues.
 
Exactly.  Bush lost on his "perceived" attitudes towards
certain issues.  And who presented those perceived attitudes
to us and where did we get the information necessary to
attain any personal perception in the matters?
 

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> 
>>Did you hear the report on Rush's show yesterday?  It said that a recent 
>>study found 10 times as many spotted owl's as the enviro-wacos claimed 
>>that there were.
> 
> Cite the study please or zip it up.

I can't cite it, either, but it was part of what my friend was
telling me about last weekend.

> 
> Now, he may have been citing a new study I am unfamiliar with but I would
> prefer to research it myself rather than taking Rush's word for it, if you
> don't mind.

An attitude I can appreciate...

> 
> And it wasn't numbers from any "enviro-wacos" which put the Spotted Owl
> on the Endangered List. The numbers came from a GOVERNMENT sponsored
> study which was PERFORMED by government biologists. Rush just like to
> say "enviro-wacos" every chance he gets.

The original numbers DID come from some 'enviro-wackos' and when
the Gov't looked into it, with the help of the 'enviro-wackos',
they weren't looking in the right place FOR the owls...

> 
> And so what if there are 10 times as many spotted owls as the original
> census was? That means the current population is 10% of its original
> numbers instead of 5%. (Percentages estimated, but you get my point.)

Math error?
               100%  ->  100 units (in this case, owls)
                 5%  ->    5 units (alleged remaining owls of original 100)
                 5 units * 10 times as many  -> 50 units
                 50 units = 50% of 100 units or of original 100%

Unless I REALLY don't belong as a CS major (something I
do question on occassion), I think my math is correct.

Jim