From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: The Environment
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:07:18 GMT

jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:

>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.

Your opinion. I felt the media coverage on Bush's position and comments of
the Endangered Species Act (which is the underlying issue here) to very
very complete and never challenged by Bush. He had no qualms about being
against the renewal of the ESA.

>>If we endanger the ecosystem, the owl suffers.
> 
>Not necessarily in this case.  What IS the owl's ecosystem?

Yes, necessarily. If you endanger an ecosystem, you endanger ALL species
who make that ecosystem home. A spotted owl's ecosystem? An old growth
forest.

Your explanation that spotted owls who live in an old growth forest
which is harvested will simply migrate to a new grouth forest simply
does not compute. Why is the population so drastically low now?

>>Bush created an environment of hostility towards
>Did he really, or did it perhaps come from somewhere else?

Yes, he did. By HIS actions and by HIS comments.

>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?

Bush's attitudes were presented quite clearly. You can't get much clearer
than showing the president speak. He made his intentions well known
on the debates as well.

>> 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.

Well, until you can cite the study or I hear about it somewhere else,
I will consider your comments and conclusions based on it a matter
of heresay and not necessarily facts based on evidence.


>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...

Some independent biologists (whom you prefer to refer to as enviro-wachkos)
may have pointed out to the government that there may be a problem, the
actual study was performed by the government by government workers. In
fact there was quite a stink about that study. I was so devastating in
its conclusions that higher ups in the Interior Dept had it quashed for
several weeks and even tried to have the wording of the study changed.


>> 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?

No, percetnage quoted error. IF this report is correct, then that would
mean the government sponsored and conducted studies in the past were off
incredibly. Instead of a 5% population, it is really a 50% population.
Well, I find such a discrepancy hard to believe.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10148 talk.abortion:48960