Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:20:36 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Andy,Leader(on&off),
              Kerry and Dave on the Environment or killing things

>>>>I am sure that you do not believe that protection/killing of animals
>>>>is what environmental protection is all about.
>>>I believe that the distinctions that Leader wants to make are artificial.
>> Then you do believe that protecting game is adequate protection of the
>>   environment.? I'm not making a distinction. Habitat protection is
>>   a small PART of the picture. There is a wide world outside the
>>   hunting range, you know.
>Look at Leader's examples.  "Contaminated fish", "air pollution", etc
>are all in the "hunting range".  Moreover, the "environmental
>activist" approach hasn't been as successful as the hunter approach.

Well, one of the examples that even you admit are environmental
victories, like being able to see the LA skyline, are the results
of groups like Nader's raiders and assorted eco-freakos who thought
that air shouldn't hurt when inhaled. Yes, they did it by means of
government - that's DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!!! That is what these
"Advocacy groups" do, and I'm sure a chunk of Ducks Unlimited's
funding goes to some guy in DC whose job is to schmooze with
Legislative Assistants.

And Pam, I think the distinction he's talking about could be said
like this : Killing Things/Caring about the Environment.

Not that he'd portray it that way . . . .

>>>>There are people eating
>>>>contaminated fish, children developing brain tumors and leukemia from
>>>>exposure to toxic waste, increasing numbers of people every day are
>>>>getting sick from the air they breath, large areas of coastal waters
>>>>are being dessimated from oil spills and other contamination,
>>>>forests are dying from acid rain, whole countries are suffering from
>>>>famine because of soil degradation resulting from cutting down TREES,
>>>>solar radiation increases due to holeS in the ozone layer resulting
>>>>in skin cancer becoming as common as pimples,etc. etc. the list goes
>>>>on and on.
>>>Again, Leader distorts the direction and some effects, and assumes
>>>that "environmentalists" have had effects they haven't had.
>>Are you saying that you don't believe thes things(list of environmental
>> problems) are true?
>I'm saying that the direction Leader implied is wrong.

Pam, Andy is saying that the environment is getting better, that
we're starting to figure out the bad stuff and fix it. He's basically
saying that you are going extremist.

Andy, believe it or not, a lot of what she's talking about is real.
The fish in northern Minnesota and Wisconsin, the ones that the
indians and the "racists" are fighting over, have seriously high
levels of mercury in them and I don't think I need to spell out
why mercury isn't a wonderful thing. While "Global Warming" may
be a red herring, there's a hole in the ozone layer over the
northern hemisphere, too.

>>I'm not making this stuff up.
>Then why is it so wrong?

I don't agree that it is, and I do recall that I'm generally
sympathetic to your side, if not on your side, in most arguments.

>> more sources than just your E-Mail. I'm just trying to make the
>> point that there are alot of MAJOR environmental problems that are
>> more important than the availability of animals for sport killing.
>Ooh, a strawman.  I haven't claimed that the availability of
>animals for sport hunting is a solution to environmental problems.
>I've pointed out that making them available has environmental
>effects.

You talk as if the hunter is the best of all environmentalists and
while I accept Ducks Unlimited and other hunter groups as effective
in their fields, they are not the heart and soul of the environmental
movement.

>>>Today's factoid; 80% of the Superfund money goes to lawyers and their
>>>staffs, and that's one of the major successes of environmentalists.
>>I won't dispute your 80% figure. Why are you saying this is a success
>>of environmentalists?
>Because it is pretty much a model implementation of the environmental
>activist approach.  The effects didn't match the supposed intentions,
>so I blame the means.  When advocates of those means don't learn from
>experience, I doubt their intentions/competency.

Well, the incredible amount of money involved in Superfund cases are
a deterant to pollution. While you'd have to get up pretty early in
the morning to get me to approve of lawyers, going up against a
corporate polluter without the threat of a large fine is like fighting
a grizzly bear with a .22 pistol and a Swiss Army knife.

>> What sort of press are you implying that the environmentalists were
>> advocating in this instance?
>What have environmentalists blamed for Love Canal?  The chemical
>company or the govt?

Take a counter-example - Times Beach, MO. The town had no paved
streets, just dirt roads, and they sprayed waste oil on the dirt
roads to keep the dust down, but the waste oil had Dioxin from
Monsanto in them and the EPA evacuated the whole town. I know
that the sprayer and I think Monsanto were yelled at pretty hard
for getting rid of the Dioxin in such a stupid way, but I recall
(I was living in St. Louis at the time, and Times Beach is halfway
between where I lived and Six Flags) that the town "elders" were
taken to task on this one, too.

>-andy

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
It isn't pollution that's harming the environment.  It's the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it.
              --Vice President Dan Quayle

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU