Endangered Species

[mdionne]

I was curious to know how much, if at all, the hiker community supports projects protecting endangered species.

[Clark Fork]

I was curious to know how much, if at all, the hiker community supports projects protecting endangered species.Generally I have found the hiker community is sandwiched somewhere in the middle between the wild-eyed eco-nazis/eco-puritan crowd and the regretably environmental blase. The whole issue is fraught with the law of unintended consequences. Out here we see the re-introduction of wolves. Within Yellowstone Park, the coyote population is diminished as the wolves drive out the coyotes. Then since the coyotes are gone, the mice come. The owls and hawks thrive somewhat but the mice population grows. Out side the Park, wolves have to be destroyed, whole packs of them, because they eat sheep. On the other hand there are victories in the making, the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the trumpeter swan, victories met with good support from the greater public.

One thing we don't like is those from other parts of the country coming out here and spreading out law suits etc in the name of the Endangered Species Act. I have always advocated that a group of westerners should go east and spread EPA lawsuits in the eastern states demanding an environmental impact statement on all the salt, calcium chloride etc, that is spread all over the highways in the winter months. The EPA should act to halt this awful defiling of nature. You guys back east should be ashamed of yourselves harming so much in the name of safe driving. Last time I checked humans are on the endangered species list.

Regards,

Clark Fork in Western Montana

[rickb]

One thing I've learned because of the Trail is that there are a whole lot more life out in our own woods than I first expected.

If you are interested in this stuff, you might want to do a search on "All Taxa Biodiversity and The Great Smokey National Park".

I'd also highly recommend reading E.O. Wilson's books on the larger subject. He is one of the truely brilliant people out there.

Rick B

[Ridge]

After Vietnam, guns(weapons) are no longer an extension of my person. I respect all life, wild or otherwise. Hiking was and is my escape and solitude from the hell of war and politics. Hiking is my religion, the outdoors is my sanctuary! You can quote me on this.

[Tha Wookie]

I'm for protecting all species, not just endangered ones. But yes, especially endangered or threatened species. But support localized eradication of invasives.

I can't help but think this thread is some kind of lure. Not sure why.

[Blue Jay]

I have always advocated that a group of westerners should go east and spread EPA lawsuits in the eastern states demanding an environmental impact statement on all the salt, calcium chloride etc, that is spread all over the highways in the winter months. The EPA should act to halt this awful defiling of nature.

That would be great if you cowboys could stop the spreading of this poison.
Too bad the EPA only exists now to collect money and do nothing.

[weary]

I was curious to know how much, if at all, the hiker community supports projects protecting endangered species.

Extinction is forever. When we have a choice responsible people will try to keep from contributing to extinction and will work to prevent it where possible. Why? The traditional answer is that some things may have important uses no one has discovered as yet. Personally, I just like the diversity of life, and the natural balance among plants and creatures. It just seems foolishly destructive to deliberately allow a fellow creature on this fragile earth to become extinct.

Perhaps, also, since humans as far as we know are the only creatures with a memory and a sense of both the past and the future, prevention of extinction may be among the peculiar reasons we were allowed to evolve, or perhaps is just a test imposed by a superior being to see if we are worth allowing to survive.

Then, of course, endangered species regulations are a useful tool for preventing damage to other wild things and places. We environmentalists all cheered, for instance, when a rare flower was found to live on the banks of a wild river in Maine that had been slated for dam construction.

Yeah, it was a pretty ugly, nondescript flower. But it prevented the flooding of the most spectacular stretch of white water remaining in the East. Luckily, though endangered wild rivers, like endangered views of wild mountain ridges, still aren't considered worthy of protection, flowers are.

Weary

[Magic City]

Species come and species go, that is the natural order of things. When we try to change nature through artificial regulation, we risk doing more harm than good.

[Blue Jay]

Species come and species go, that is the natural order of things. When we try to change nature through artificial regulation, we risk doing more harm than good.

Anthropologists believe that since the dawn of time, humans have hastened the extinction of many species. We have already vastly effected the natural order of things. To try and keep humans, rats and cockroaches from becoming the only things left, is a worth goal. We have already done more harm than good. Now that soon we will be unleashing frankenanimals and frankenplants, enjoy the creatures we have left as soon it will be over.

[Jaybird]

I was curious to know how much, if at all, the hiker community supports projects protecting endangered species.


where does one start?

from the frogs (that are sprouting extra limbs due to pesticide poisoning) to the mammals (whales come to mind) to us on the upper scale of the list:
(some would argue that one!) HUMANS!



i support many worthy causes that are "enviormentally safe" causes that help our animal friends & our natural surroundings.

If we were to do an HONEST self-examination of our own stewardship...we'd find we are doing a TERRIBLE JOB.

[Bloodroot]

Anthropologists believe that since the dawn of time, humans have hastened the extinction of many species. We have already vastly effected the natural order of things. To try and keep humans, rats and cockroaches from becoming the only things left, is a worth goal. We have already done more harm than good. Now that soon we will be unleashing frankenanimals and frankenplants, enjoy the creatures we have left as soon it will be over.
Good point Blue Jay.

It is apparent how human actions have contributed to a species endangerment. The list goes on and on with the factors that we have played against natural order. Our planet constantly changes naturally causing slight modifications within all species. By our wealth of technology we speed up the process of change, giving a species no time to adjust to new circumstances. As Blue Jay points in a round about way, the time of species genetic replication is near.

[TakeABreak]

Well I am no expert on all of this, but I have been studying environmental policy for the last 18 months which include a lot science type courses. I would that the wolves bringing the coyote population is good as mentioned, it raises the mice population giving room for eagles, hawks and owls to once again re-populate. I would not be surprised that in time you will also seea rise in the fox population and bobcats as well, for they feed a lot on rodents.

By the way i do agree with re-introduction of species, nature in most places is currently out of balance and since we (man) has screwed it up, we need to try and fix it. Not by genetics, but by re-introduction.

By the way Central Michigan University is trying to verify that grey wolves have made their way into the lower pinensula across the winter ice. There have been many spottings of grey wolves but hard scientific evidence. Also, there have been spottings of mountain lions in michigan over the last ten years, I have seen any but every so often there a write up in some local paper about one.

The point made all calcium chloride and sodium we dump on our roads is a true one also, the salinity of the great lakes out to the Atlantic, and I might the Mississippi is all way above what it should be. We are seeing species enter into our waters that could survive a 100 years, because there wasn't any sodium in our waters. We do need to find an alternative and soon, I will say I have read reports where they are experimenting with types of pavement inhopes of finding that will not freeze as easily and there is a move reduce the amount salt pourd onto our roads, true it is not enough fast enough though.

With our current whitehouse administration you will not see any changes for the good with the EPA, our president is anti-environment.

[mdionne]

There is an alternative to salt for freezing roads. It's citrus based and is applied before a storm comes. It melts the snow as it hits the ground. However it's only good for a few inches. But it would greatly reduce the amount of salt used here in the north on roads. Otherwise, I do like having safe road conditions travelling to and from work. Anyway, the reason I posted this was because I wanted to get an idea of what the community thought of these projects. Not too surprisingly, very few brand name outfitters donate money to endangered species projects and donate a very large amount to parks and trails services. I just wanted to see if that same philosophy was reflected in the hiker community. :-?

[Pencil Pusher]

:-? Take a look around and you'll see people aligned with your cause. I don't always agree with some of them, but could name a few rather easily.

Or, if you truly were interested, create a poll.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Population and sprawl.



Otherwise the "Trail community" is basically good for "we're not here for that" or "that's off-topic" when serious Trail issues arise. In general the Trail community is satisfied with self-interested fluff as their average input, or keeping the AT mainly about hiking. Truth is there's very little true "Trail community"...

[minnesotasmith]

Never forget that over 99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. By far the bulk of those occurred before humans evolved. For example, 50% of extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian, over 200 years before humans evolved.

Also, even if many extinctions that humans cause or exacerbate are due to land taken for human use, I have yet to hear of a tree-hugger that has volunteered to never sleep under a roof again the rest of his life, so as to do his part to reduce the demand for land taken to be used as dwellings. Said tree-hugger should also refuse to patronize any business location that involves a permanent building as well, I'd say, presuming sincerity for the first time on the part of an environut.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

But the Trail was created by "environuts"!


I think you have that backwards. It should read " I've never seen those so opposed to conservation and preserving the AT ever stay off the Trail or refuse to venture into a woodland preserved by "environuts"...

[weary]

Never forget that over 99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. By far the bulk of those occurred before humans evolved. For example, 50% of extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian, over 200 years before humans evolved.

Also, even if many extinctions that humans cause or exacerbate are due to land taken for human use, I have yet to hear of a tree-hugger that has volunteered to never sleep under a roof again the rest of his life, so as to do his part to reduce the demand for land taken to be used as dwellings. Said tree-hugger should also refuse to patronize any business location that involves a permanent building as well, I'd say, presuming sincerity for the first time on the part of an environut.

Ah. Minnesota, your logic totally escapes me. Of course, human habitations occasionally impinge on land needed to keep an extinction from happening. But what is your basis for thinking that therefore humans opposed to causing other species to become extinct should "never sleep under a roof again the rest of his life."

Aside from logic, simple facts suggest this is nonsense. Bald eagles were down to a handful of nonbreeding pairs a few decades ago in Maine. Now my town alone has more productive nests than the entire state had in 1970.

All this was accomplished without razing a single home. Rather, humans had merely to refrain from doing those things that had caused the near extinction, and those things that might have slowed restoration. My house, by happenstance is a quarter mile from a productive eagle family. How would I have furthered this restoration of healthy eagle populations by not sleeping in my house?

Weary

[mdionne]

Never forget that over 99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. By far the bulk of those occurred before humans evolved. For example, 50% of extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian, over 200 years before humans evolved.

Also, even if many extinctions that humans cause or exacerbate are due to land taken for human use, I have yet to hear of a tree-hugger that has volunteered to never sleep under a roof again the rest of his life, so as to do his part to reduce the demand for land taken to be used as dwellings. Said tree-hugger should also refuse to patronize any business location that involves a permanent building as well, I'd say, presuming sincerity for the first time on the part of an environut.

You also forget to mention what caused those extinctions. Fire, floods, ice and meteorites. There has been evience of extinction through intraspecific competition and it usually occurs at a faster rate on islands, but never on the levels that humans have caused from private ownership. It has nothing to do with hugging trees, it has to do with sharing land.

[minnesotasmith]

When a human cuts down a tree (or 20 trees) to make room for building a house on that bit of land, that tree is no longer available for squirrels to climb to escape predators (or to nest in or get nuts from), for birds to rest/nest in/eat bugs that live on them, etc. That's undeniable, the way it goes if humans are to survive, and not something I have that big a problem with. Now, I don't support zillion-square-foot houses. Nor do I support uncontrolled population growth, especially of those groups who are least likely to be responsible land stewards (e.g., nonWesterners). Too, if someone wanted to keep the number of households to a minimum given a particular population, then doing something about one of the largest causes of increasing numbers of households (and thus # of wildlife-displacing dwellings) in the U.S. would seem in order. That would mean that a knowledgeable nonhypocritical environmentalist would favor severely reducing the frequency of divorce. However, as most radical envirotypes I've known seem to be in favor of universal at-will no-fault divorce, either or both of hypocrisy or lack of relevant knowledge seems usual among treehuggers.

Another example of this lack of sincerity/informedness among envirotypes:
The current absolute single best practical partial replacement for electricity generation (currently done mostly by burning fossil fuels, especially coal) is nuclear fission plants. Any sincere and adequately informed TH who was seriously concerned about greenhouse gas production would thus be a proponent of keeping current fission plants open and rapidly building many more ASAP. Since virtually all THs are against such policies, I figure they are either ignorant or evil. Ignorance means they don't have enough science background to know this fact about electrical generation options (and thus are not yet entitled to an opinion). Evil would come from figuring that the environuts against nuclear power expansion knowingly favor societal decisions that would make it impossible for many of the people currently alive to continue living; if knowingly favoring mass murder of productive nonthreatening fellow citizens isn't evil, I don't know what could qualify.

Last thought here on extinction of species... Species can be thought of as generally following the same lifecycle as religions. They pop up, hang around a while (usually an average of about 2 m.y. for species, but obviously a much shorter mean for human religions), and whiff. Either way, unless it is YOUR species or religion that is naturally dying off, it's a natural thing, and not something to generally get that agitated about.

[Bloodroot]

Last thought here on extinction of species... Species can be thought of as generally following the same lifecycle as religions. They pop up, hang around a while (usually an average of about 2 m.y. for species, but obviously a much shorter mean for human religions), and whiff. Either way, unless it is YOUR species or religion that is naturally dying off, it's a natural thing, and not something to generally get that agitated about.



Yes you are right, it happens, and species do die......species extinction is a natural part of evolution. The point is that species are dying off much faster than the rate of extinction. That is not a "natural" thing. Why should this agitate anyone? Because our survival depends on this extinction rate to be controlled under a delicate balance. Think about it. Luckily our evolutionary ladder has given us the ability to reason. We must act and not just sit back and say to ourselves, "Hell it happens, species are dying at an alarming rate, nothing I can do about it". I couldn't imagine what would come of the world having that kind of mentality?

[minnesotasmith]

You said: "The point is that species are dying off much faster than the rate of extinction."

Actually, they are the exact same thing, as dental caries and tooth decay are also different names for the same phenomenon. Saying that human activities are "unnatural' in some way implies that we are somehow alien to this planet. I disagree completely. Our species evolved here, and belong here. My building a house is as natural a behavior as a beaver building a dam and lodge, termites building a mound, wasps or birds building nests, and so on. All of these activities will inconvenience other life, so that that particular life can live. Yes, and?

[Bloodroot]

Yes, I said: "The point is that species are dying off much faster than the rate of extinction." They are not the same thing, lets go this route so it can be better understood.......

"Species are dying" <---- Pretty self-explanitory.

"Rate of extinction" <---- Definition of rate (N): 1. The relative speed of progress or change.

So......species die, but species are dying off at a faster relative speed of progress than extinction should occur. Now no one knows exactly what the "current" extinction rate is, but recent calculations have put it several thousands times greater than what it should naturally be. Yes, and?

Sure our species evolved here and they do belong here, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Again as previously stated, our species have been given the ability to reason. This ability has given us the right to manage our planet in some way. Mismanagement of our resources is the key here. Need I go on?

[Lone Wolf]

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY

"There has to be a God; the world could not have become so f***ed up by chance alone."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY

[Bloodroot]

My building a house is as natural a behavior as a beaver building a dam and lodge, termites building a mound, wasps or birds building nests, and so on. All of these activities will inconvenience other life, so that that particular life can live.
Look at it this way. As a human I *****, so does every who is in my species. If I were to go out on the trail and ***** right in the middle of it, it would inconvienance other hikers. This is not natural. By our ability to reason and understand the concept of inconvienance we are able to distinguish the difference between what is right and wrong.

[Bloodroot]

PLEASE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL OF ABBEY

"There has to be a God; the world could not have become so f***ed up by chance alone."

THANKS BE TO ABBEY
Im really gonna have to read up on some Abbey. :D

[Lone Wolf]

Here's some Abbey for ya.
www.abbeyweb.net/quotes.htx

[minnesotasmith]

"recent calculations have put it several thousands times greater than what it should naturally be"

Nah. NWIH is it that much higher due to human activity.

As far as not *****ting on the Trail, goes, agreed. However, some of the envirotypes would prevent me being able to do so anywhere, had they the power. I shouldn't be able to put up a skyscraper in the Grand Canyon, but there should be nothing to prevent me from homesteading a dozen acres of woodlands and building a cabin to live in in a national forest.

Map of government land ownership in the U.S. (which I think should be reduced by 90%+, sold as allodial land to U.S. citizens only): http://www.nwi.org/Maps/GovLands.html

[Bloodroot]

check this out MS, might help a bit http://www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/species2000.html

I couldn't agree more with the rest of your post. Could make for an interesting thread?

[mdionne]

"recent calculations have put it several thousands times greater than what it should naturally be"

Nah. NWIH is it that much higher due to human activity.

As far as not *****ting on the Trail, goes, agreed. However, some of the envirotypes would prevent me being able to do so anywhere, had they the power. I shouldn't be able to put up a skyscraper in the Grand Canyon, but there should be nothing to prevent me from homesteading a dozen acres of woodlands and building a cabin to live in in a national forest.

Map of government land ownership in the U.S. (which I think should be reduced by 90%+, sold as allodial land to U.S. citizens only): http://www.nwi.org/Maps/GovLands.html

Nice map, but let's put it into perspective, you should also be aware that the lands that are protected are so because of growing environmental concerns in the past century. The map would be all white with some if we didn't do that. Otherwise, your posts leave the topic pretty readily. 1) You leave the endangered species topic and go on about greenhouse gases. 2) My house isn't apread out over twelve acres and I don't know anyone who has a house that big. 3) You tend to group environmental issues into a larger tree hugger category and this confuses your argument further. I personally know a racher in texas who has a 130,000 acre ranch. His land used to be a part of the desert ecosystem and has now converted to ranchland over time. Did he work hard to change that land. Nope, he just let his cattle graze it for a couple of decades. Now it's all mesquite. Why? Because cows don't like mesquite. I'd prefer that this guy actually had a twelve acre house. What he has done will take time and labor to restore. Once again, it's not houses or the tree huggers that are the problem, it's private ownership

[mdionne]

SM, if you'd like to see 90% of all gov't owned land turned over to civilians than the AT will become 217 miles. :-?

[mdionne]

SM, if you'd like to see 90% of all gov't owned land turned over to civilians than the AT will become 217 miles. :-?

Oops, sorry, comment is directed to Minnesota Smith from Georgia

[Bloodroot]

SM, if you'd like to see 90% of all gov't owned land turned over to civilians than the AT will become 217 miles. :-?
Great point! I wouldn't like that at all. Would defintely screw my chances for a '05 thru.;)

[minnesotasmith]

OK, first off, I did not mean to imply that I would use all of that land for housing. As I am a big fan of heating with woodburning stoves, not to mention preferring more northerly climes, that would be a hilarious piece of poor judgement to build a home that large for one nuclear family. The cost of materials, labor time, not to mention the issue of providing fuel to heat all that space... No way.

As far as the gov't owning that much land, it often makes normal life nearly impossible for people living there. Imagine living in Nevada, where the gov't owns close to 90% of the land. They determine where you can go and what you can do, subject to change at any time. (Imagine the Baxter SP winter hiking situation times a million, run by a cross between meter maids and bored sociopathic condo association officers, using the ALf/Earth First types as consultants for any new idea, backed by the type of fed cops in charge at Waco, applying to your whole life.) Plus, the whole idea of a small limited gov't (the vision of the Founding Fathers) would find that degree of gov't land control anathema. In Nevada, the gov't only needs to own about 12% more land to have the same land ownership policy as the late unlamented USSR or North Korea. That's not how I want to live; do you?

The original premise of the Homestead Act IMO was very much in line with the vision of the FFs. That is, the gov't was a temporary steward of the land, tasked with delivering it into ownership by productive citizens, at which point its role WRT that land was over. I think that should be done with most gov't land. Yes, there need to be mil bases, the occasional monument/park, courthouses, and such, but millions of acres in state after state?? Nah, let's go back to the pre-1912 Constitutional republic with limited gov't. I happen to believe that I should be able to live my life with no interaction with the gov't excepting if I try to initiate violence or do theft against other citizens, and disputes over contracts I entered into voluntarily. Plausibly living where I could bump into gov't land and its agents everywhere I turn is incompatible with that ideal.

Oh, and the AT would qualify as a monument/nat'l park IMO.

[Bloodroot]

I happen to believe that I should be able to live my life with no interaction with the gov't excepting if I try to initiate violence or do theft against other citizens, and disputes over contracts I entered into voluntarily.
Don't forget about those taxes.:D

[minnesotasmith]

I don't believe the fedgov should have any major peacetime source of income other than tariffs, the way it supported itself in pre-Lincoln days, once about 95% of the land it holds is sold to U.S. citizens (again, as allodial land). No unit of gov't should be able to levy income or property taxes, or professional licensure fees, either. I also have a real problem with government being able take on underwriting obligations of any kind, or being allowed outside of times of legally declared war to issue bonds.

[Rocks 'n Roots]

Sounds like somebody's fooling himself that his "reasonable environmentalist" isn't going to get swept right into the sprawl buzzsaw and taken as a good token figure rather than anything with any real effect. Beware of those so speak in the popular terms like "tree hugger" etc. Those are just signs of a greater underlying contempt. The status quo wants to define things on its own terms. This is nothing other than taking over the defintion of "environmentalist" so it sounds good. The results will be pretty much the same. This includes endangered species that are pushed out with an "oh well" with a response when they find out it doesn't work after the deed is done...

[weary]

....there should be nothing to prevent me from homesteading a dozen acres of woodlands and building a cabin to live in in a national forest. ..... government land ownership in the U.S. (which I think should be reduced by 90%+, sold as allodial land to U.S. citizens only):

Shall we sell the trail corridor to homesteaders before or after you do your thru hike?

Weary

[mdionne]

OK, first off, I did not mean to imply that I would use all of that land for housing. As I am a big fan of heating with woodburning stoves, not to mention preferring more northerly climes, that would be a hilarious piece of poor judgement to build a home that large for one nuclear family. The cost of materials, labor time, not to mention the issue of providing fuel to heat all that space... No way.

As far as the gov't owning that much land, it often makes normal life nearly impossible for people living there. Imagine living in Nevada, where the gov't owns close to 90% of the land. They determine where you can go and what you can do, subject to change at any time. (Imagine the Baxter SP winter hiking situation times a million, run by a cross between meter maids and bored sociopathic condo association officers, using the ALf/Earth First types as consultants for any new idea, backed by the type of fed cops in charge at Waco, applying to your whole life.) Plus, the whole idea of a small limited gov't (the vision of the Founding Fathers) would find that degree of gov't land control anathema. In Nevada, the gov't only needs to own about 12% more land to have the same land ownership policy as the late unlamented USSR or North Korea. That's not how I want to live; do you?

The original premise of the Homestead Act IMO was very much in line with the vision of the FFs. That is, the gov't was a temporary steward of the land, tasked with delivering it into ownership by productive citizens, at which point its role WRT that land was over. I think that should be done with most gov't land. Yes, there need to be mil bases, the occasional monument/park, courthouses, and such, but millions of acres in state after state?? Nah, let's go back to the pre-1912 Constitutional republic with limited gov't. I happen to believe that I should be able to live my life with no interaction with the gov't excepting if I try to initiate violence or do theft against other citizens, and disputes over contracts I entered into voluntarily. Plausibly living where I could bump into gov't land and its agents everywhere I turn is incompatible with that ideal.

Oh, and the AT would qualify as a monument/nat'l park IMO.

I've been to Nevada several times and I have yet to see homeless people there. When I think of impossible to survive, I think of starving people in both in Africa and on our own streets. Not of people who can't make payments on their new F-150. Even you said earlier that you don't support irresponsible ownership. The gov't has acquired western land because of the irresponsible ownership apparent all over east of the mississippi. Have fun with your 12 acres and a woodstove in the middle of the Nevada desert. If that's what you really want. They let people stay there that have been probed up the anus by aliens, they won't mind anyone who thinks today is like it was in the 1800s. And you can chop as many trees as you can find. Maybe after you hike the AT you'll appreciate the things you have more and not the things you want. ;)

[Bloodroot]

".......we are somehow alien to this planet" Minnesotasmith

".......that have been probed up the anus by aliens" mdionne

I think I'm gonna bail out of this one! :)

On a serious note mdionne has a legitimate point here. Yes MS it would be nice in a way to even think that homesteading was still readily available. The freedom to just go out and find somewhere remote and make it home. If I'm not mistaken the last state to do this was Alaska. Several books out about the guy (Heimo Korth, "The Final Frontiersman") who last accomplished doing this before the cut off period in late 70's. Anyhow, getting off the subject here a bit. The thing here you must understand MS, which mdionne pointed out, is this was OK in period of time when our country was still being established. But now we have moved into a dramatic era in which mismanagement ($greed$) of our natural resources have caused an amazing increase in species extinction/endangerment. As reasoning animals, we have to do out part to control this for our survival, but in a manner in which we can still maintain a good quality of life. It's nothing more than a balancing act.

At this rate, we wont have to worry about falling meteorites, exploding suns, etc. to catastrophically end the world.....The strive for the almighty "$" will do it for us.

[minnesotasmith]

If we just shut down immigration (legal and illegal), our population would not rise, and would even decline slightly, and there would be plenty of room for thoe who wished to rurally homestead. Remember that even in Alaska, a state with an above-average amount of interest in the outdoors among its populace, the majority of residents live in urban settings. The 1965 Immigration Act was a massive disaster for those of us who wanted a decent and moral country now and in the future, right up there with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Social Security Act of 1935, and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.

[Puck]

If we just shut down immigration (legal and illegal), our population would not rise, and would even decline slightly, and there would be plenty of room for thoe who wished to rurally homestead. Remember that even in Alaska, a state with an above-average amount of interest in the outdoors among its populace, the majority of residents live in urban settings. The 1965 Immigration Act was a massive disaster for those of us who wanted a decent and moral country now and in the future, right up there with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Social Security Act of 1935, and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.
Yours is a valid point. However, it is a local solution. Extinction of species has global casues for birds. The neotropic migrants are suffer from habitat loss and exposure to pesticides. These causes are a result of increasing populations and agricultural efforts to feed the population in other areas.

I would love to live alone on 200 acres. But with out warblers and other birds to provide the visuals and a soundtrack it may seem like a hollow victory.

[Bloodroot]

Yours is a valid point. However, it is a local solution. Extinction of species has global casues for birds. The neotropic migrants are suffer from habitat loss and exposure to pesticides. These causes are a result of increasing populations and agricultural efforts to feed the population in other areas.

I would love to live alone on 200 acres. But with out warblers and other birds to provide the visuals and a soundtrack it may seem like a hollow victory.
I think he might be commenting on human population in the US.

You're right MS. Immigration (illegal and legal) is something that has been a problem for a really long time. Although, we are immigrants ourselves. I do understand you point though. This along with many other factors (as you have mentioned some) eliminate any chance for homesteading to occur. It all goes back to my repititous word of "mismanagement"

[minnesotasmith]

I was referring to population within the U.S. Outside our borders, most other places have even bigger problems, for which I feel our country bears no responsibility.

Some examples:

1) Subsaharan Africa is destroying itself with HIV because its populace has very little inclination to give up promiscous sex.

2) The Muslims of the world continue to engage in behavior (terrorism, etc.) that will IMO result in one of the following two possibilities:

a) When one Muslim says in the presence of other Muslims that he is considering carrying out an act of violence against a nonMuslim, those other Muslims immediately kill him on the spot, they are so terrified of the Hades of retribution that would descend upon their heads due to that one clown's actions.

b) Museums commonly have this sort of collection: T-Rex, passenger pigeon, dodo bird, Muslim -- all there for the same reason.

3) Russia's population is declining by over a million a year, and China can be expected to eat the eastern fraction of their country raw within a generation.

4) SE Asia -- HIV and China's ruthless expansion.

5) Europe -- most of it will be majority Muslim within 12 - 40 years. This is as much due to socialism and feminism making the native-born populace unable/unwilling to have children as their stupidity in allowing in millions of unassimilable fast-breeding people who hate their guts.

6) Japan -- women refusing to marry and have children, again due to feminism.

7) Korea -- the North is starving and its people are likely to be used heedless of casualties to invade the South, including with nuclear weapons. The South is in la-la land WRT realistically assessing the intentions of the North, and will get stomped by the North if there is no help from the outside.

8) Everyone -- Hubbert Peak is likely here now; when it hits hard, there will be no way to keep even half the people in the world alive. Increasingly, antibiotics don't work. BSE may turn out to be another Black Plague, just with multiple-decades latency period. Plus, eventually someone will let bioengineered smallpox loose. Too, imagine a cross between HIV (or Ebola) and something mosquito-borne...

[mdionne]

Minnesota Smith,

Dude, get a grip on yourself. This post was about endangered species not how much you hate immigrants, feminists, muslims, chinese, koreans and africans. You left topic about ten threads or so ago and now your in la la land.

[minnesotasmith]

I have noted (quite accurately) that increasing population decreases the availability and increases the price of rural land, which would be needed to establish any additional hiking trails in the future. I also noted that the U.S. is not the only country with major problems in how it operates, and gave some foreign examples for which I briefly explained the causes. This act of explaining reasons for pessimism about the future of certain other countries does not mean that I hate the people of those countries; rather, it means that I am probably better informed about those countries than most other people.

For example, I certainly do not hate the Japanese; I lived in their country for some years, and was extremely favorably impressed with multiple aspects of their culture. However, if they continue to choose to not replace their dead by having children, they are as doomed as a snowball dropped into the sun.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with Muslims in general, as long as they A) don't live in the U.S., and B) don't try to kill Westerners. If the nations of Western Europe wish to allow their countries to be overrun by millions of unassimilable faster-reproducing people unshakeably opposed to their laws, customs, and culture, while not even reproducing at replacement rates, their doom as the nations we know is only a matter of time, but it is their choice to make. (I do hope we accept large numbers of longtime native citizens from those countries as refugees if and when the time comes that the original native-born citizens staying there is as impossible as it is for whites in Rhodesia, and is rapidly becoming in South Africa.) Check out the books "Death of the West" by P. Buchanan or "Eurabia" if you wish to learn something substantive (e.g., non-PC) about this subject.

Out of curiousity, mdionne, please tell us what intellectual credentials you possess, such that we might have reason to take your opinions seriously?

[Lilred]

Check out the books "Death of the West" by P. Buchanan or "Eurabia" if you wish to learn something substantive (e.g., non-PC) about this subject.


LOLOLOL Pat Buchanon???/ LOLOL Now there's a reliable source......NOT LOLOLOLOL

[Magic City]

It's rare to find sensible posts on such an insensible topic as this, Minnesota Smith; so yours are appreciated. Fully realized, the plan is not to acquire wild places for people to enjoy, but to use every possible resource - including endangered species - to put aside at least half of the land on this continent, as places where people are not permitted.

In the end, it's not about the habitat, or the animals which live there. It's about power. It's about destroying the middle class in this country, not for reasons of the environment, but to put the power securely in the hands of the few, while the rest of us are shuttleld off to human habitat areas.

[MOWGLI]

For example, I certainly do not hate the Japanese; I lived in their country for some years, and was extremely favorably impressed with multiple aspects of their culture. However, if they continue to choose to not replace their dead by having children, they are as doomed as a snowball dropped into the sun.



That is a fairly amusing comment - especially when you consider that you advocated that people sterilize themselves before the Y2K "catastrophe". :D

http://web.archive.org/web/20010221113528/www.y2ksafeminnesota.com/relationships.htm

Nice "intellectual credentials" ya got there Bucko!

[Lilred]

That is a fairly amusing comment - especially when you consider that you advocated that people sterilize themselves before the Y2K "catastrophe". :D

http://web.archive.org/web/20010221113528/www.y2ksafeminnesota.com/relationships.htm

Nice "intellectual credentials" ya got there Bucko!

Wow That website sure does show what a doomsday sayer Minnesota is. Good grief, this guy really needs to get a grip on reality.

[minnesotasmith]

I wrote five years ago that in a time of great and continuing disorder (which Y2K might have ended up being), where A) having additional children (that would have to be cared for) might endanger those family members already existing, B) contraceptives might be unavailable, and C) the safety of women from rape might not be guaranteed, that logically the best family solution in this situation might be for women who did not intend to have additional children to undergo voluntary sterilization. I still think that would make sense under those premises. If you think that my reasoning given those premises is flawed, you are free to explain why. (Note that any further ad hom speech on your part will be taken as evidence you have no adequate explanation to give, and as a logical forfeit on your part.)

Buchanan's book is quite rigorously researched. When you have read it in its entirety, and found equally or greater reputable sources that specifically contradict the conclusions in it, feel free to post on the subject. Until then, I would say that you are not entitled to an opinion on its content that mental adults should take seriously.

[Lilred]

Buchanan's book is quite rigorously researched. When you have read it in its entirety, and found equally or greater reputable sources that specifically contradict the conclusions in it, feel free to post on the subject. Until then, I would say that you are not entitled to an opinion on its content that mental adults should take seriously.


You can 'say' anything you want. This is a public board and I'll give my opinion about topics whenever I please, regardless of whay YOU think I am entitled too. What a pompous, arrogant thing to say to someone. I'm not 'entitled' to my opinion???? Wow, what a piece of work you are.

[Lilred]

Buchanan's book is quite rigorously researched. When you have read it in its entirety, and found equally or greater reputable sources that specifically contradict the conclusions in it, feel free to post on the subject. Until then, I would say that you are not entitled to an opinion on its content that mental adults should take seriously.


And furthermore, I was not giving my opinion about its content, rather about its author, whom we all know to be an extreme, right wing fundamentalist whacko.

[weary]

It's rare to find sensible posts on such an insensible topic as this, Minnesota Smith; so yours are appreciated. Fully realized, the plan is not to acquire wild places for people to enjoy, but to use every possible resource - including endangered species - to put aside at least half of the land on this continent, as places where people are not permitted.
In the end, it's not about the habitat, or the animals which live there. It's about power. It's about destroying the middle class in this country, not for reasons of the environment, but to put the power securely in the hands of the few, while the rest of us are shuttleld off to human habitat areas.
Time for a reality check. Magic City name a few significant lands that have been preserved in recent years where the public is excluded. Hundreds of thousands of acres have been preserved by the state and private conservation groups through easements and fee purchases in Maine in the past few years. As far as I know the public has access to all of them. Most of the deeds guarantee public access.

For that matter, what "plan" are you referring to? When was the plan drafted "to set aside at least half the land ... where people are not permitted?" And by whom? And what is the evidence that such a plan exists?

Thousands of people are donating thousands of hours and a great deal of money to protect public access. This blather about secret plans makes their chore harder and works against the public access you claim to want.

Weary

[mdionne]

I have noted (quite accurately) that increasing population decreases the availability and increases the price of rural land, which would be needed to establish any additional hiking trails in the future. I also noted that the U.S. is not the only country with major problems in how it operates, and gave some foreign examples for which I briefly explained the causes. This act of explaining reasons for pessimism about the future of certain other countries does not mean that I hate the people of those countries; rather, it means that I am probably better informed about those countries than most other people.

For example, I certainly do not hate the Japanese; I lived in their country for some years, and was extremely favorably impressed with multiple aspects of their culture. However, if they continue to choose to not replace their dead by having children, they are as doomed as a snowball dropped into the sun.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with Muslims in general, as long as they A) don't live in the U.S., and B) don't try to kill Westerners. If the nations of Western Europe wish to allow their countries to be overrun by millions of unassimilable faster-reproducing people unshakeably opposed to their laws, customs, and culture, while not even reproducing at replacement rates, their doom as the nations we know is only a matter of time, but it is their choice to make. (I do hope we accept large numbers of longtime native citizens from those countries as refugees if and when the time comes that the original native-born citizens staying there is as impossible as it is for whites in Rhodesia, and is rapidly becoming in South Africa.) Check out the books "Death of the West" by P. Buchanan or "Eurabia" if you wish to learn something substantive (e.g., non-PC) about this subject.

Out of curiousity, mdionne, please tell us what intellectual credentials you possess, such that we might have reason to take your opinions seriously?

This really is getting comical. As far as my intellectual credentials go, I passed my 4th grade reading comprehension class a long time ago. You, on the other hand, have yet to prove the comprehension part of reading. I never said you hated japanese people. The rest is apparent. My question is do muslims, feminists, koreans, chinese and africans get to stay if they already live here or is this a white (and japanese) male only dream world you'd like to live in? Are you allowed to shoot the last deer alive in this dream world or is everybody so uneducated that they would not know it was the last deer? Your arguments are contradicting as well. Stop immigration because they are taking all our (oops, the natives) land and fertilize the white women because there's not enough people here. "Welcome to Minnesota Smithland, Turn Around Now and Leave Your White Women." The weird thing is that you've really thought this out!

[minnesotasmith]

Oh, you can express your opinion all you want. However, without reason (from personalbackground or internal logic of your words) to take it seriously, it's likely to be treated about as a proponent of the stork hypothesis WRT where babies come from would be at a scholarly conference of obstetricians.

Weary, the Muslims have proven themselves IMO to be traitors as a group, unwilling to speak out against or act against the terrorists in their midst in nonsmall numbers. IMO, if anyone indicates they are Muslims, they should be permanently expelled from U.S. soil as soon as so identified, and never allowed here if that information is known about them before entry.

The feminists should not be jailed or expelled, but neither should they be listened to. If normal standards of scholarship and general limits on behavior were insisted upon with them, they would quickly be marginalized as vicious fruitcakes with nothing of value to say, much as Holocaust deniers are now. Certainly, affirmative action for women, hate crime legislation, Women's Studies departments in colleges, women in billets in the military other than clerical/medical areas, no-fault divorce, greater respect for women who chose (usually meaningless) careers instead of being fulltime mothers, etc. should all be ended yesterday.

Here is an example of how wonderful it is to have feminists in America today; see what one of the more famous of them thinks, and judge for yourself.

http://www.ai.mit.edu/~shivers/rants/scum.html

Don't forget, too, that feminism is in large measure responsible (along with globalization and immigration) for the large average drop in wages in the U.S. in real terms since 1973. This is due to its believers pushing women to either abandon their young children to an uncertain fate in mass daycare (or not have any children at all) and enter the work world. It's a simple matter of Economics 101, supply and demand. As the supply of workers goes up, the relative demand (and thus the price, or wages) paid goes down. If your pay s*cks, you can partially blame N.O.W. for it in part, along with them encouraging creating lots of the poorly- raised kids that have become welfare/tax human mosquitos and violent criminals.

Weary, as far as the various minority groups in the U.S. go, one fact (as repeatedly shown in the historical record over and over in Thomas Chittum's book "Civil War Two") stands out over and over. That is that a nation is usually not stable in the long run with less than 80% in its largest ethnic group. The fate seen in Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Rwanda, Sudan, etc., almost always eventually follows. If I wanted to live in one of those countries (or Columbia or Mexico), I would move there. I want America to stay America, and not one of those.

I would do the following WRT that issue:

1) Militarize the U.S.-Mexican border, with unmarked minefields and shoot-on-sight orders given to the troops there.

2) Expel anyone who has been an illegal alien at any time since 1965, and their offspring.

3) Offer a large cash (tax-free) bounty paid for informing INS about the location of either an illegal alien or a business knowingly employing them.

4) Shut down businesses in #3, jailing the managers and owners for at least 5 years, and confiscating what they had made by employing illegals.

5) Drop caught Hispanic illegals 400 yards off the coast of the southern tip of South America, after taking their picture, fingerprints, and DNA, and warning them that if they are caught in the U.S. again, they are subject to being used for hard labor with no pay for the rest of their life.

6) Send non-Hispanic illegals to different, maximally undesirable regions compared with where they came from. Send Somalis to Columbia, Chinese or Filipinos to Somalia, etc.

7) Amend the Constitutional clause that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to children born here, excluding those who have even one parent who is an illegal alien.

8) End all non-white European legal immigration, excepting a few proven (Ph.D.-level) geniuses in science or engineering, especially if north Asian; say, allow about 5,000 such a year.

9) Allow unlimited immigration of healthy whites.

10) Raise the personal exemption on income tax to a level indexed to its original value, say, at least $8000.00 per child.

11) End welfare, such as AFDC, SSDI, Section 8 housing vouchers, WIC, food stamps, etc.

12) End race-based affirmative action and government jurisdiction over the racial/ethnic makeup of the workforce of any company.

13) Repeal laws against private individuals or companies renting or selling property from limiting renting/sale by race. A landlord should have as much right to refuse to rent to people not his race as a worker currently has the right not to accept a job at a place he would be the only one of his race.

14) Repeal the clauses of NAFTA that allow easy entrance by Mexicans into the U.S.

15) Start billing the Mexican government for the costs (medical, criminal, various social services, etc.) incurred by their nationals here in the U.S. If they refuse to pay, inform them that we will confiscate a province bordering the U.S. as compensation, expelling 100% of the current residents there. Repeat until costs have been recovered, or until all Mexicans have been expelled south of Mexico.

16) Criminalize "La Raza", Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam", and Jesse Jackson's P.U.S.H. group under the RICO Act.

17) End immigration by marrying a U.S. citizen, if the alien is nonwhite.

I can think of some others, but those would be a good start.

[weary]

Well, Minnesota, you have convinced me that your rantings are no longer amusing.

But since you seem to be fond of the constitution, which clauses do you think would justify your prescription for a "better" (different?) America.

Weary

[mdionne]

I'm pretty sure this thread along with the other posts I have read of yours prove that you are, to say the least, a little out there. The fact you can't keep your references straight and that you vere so far of the subject show the possibility of a mental lapse as well. I regret not putting this thread into the "Specific Qs & As" forum. It would have allowed far less ranting from a mind that has no perspective. Remember that all studies are looked at with perspective that relates to time, place, environment and several other factors. The studies you post lack one, more or all of the above. Could it be that since you were wrong about Y2K, you might be wrong in many other radical positions you adhere to? It bothers me to think that after more than 40 years your life has bought you to your current perception of life. I can't keep posting back and forth with you or I'll have to start charging for a psychiatry fee.

[Lilred]

Weary is right, Minnesotasmith's rantings are not amusing at all. It's people like him that make me angry as hell. Tell me Minnesota, is your head shaved and has that white robe and dunce cap come back from the cleaners yet?? YOu are one sick human being.

[minnesotasmith]

"But since you seem to be fond of the constitution, which clauses do you think would justify your prescription for a "better" (different?) America.[?]"

The Constitutional mandate for the Federal government to provide for the common defense. If preventing invasion by millions who intend our destruction isn't national defense, nothing could qualify as such.

[weary]

[i]The Constitutional mandate for the Federal government to provide for the common defense. If preventing invasion by millions who intend our destruction isn't national defense, nothing could qualify as such.

Well, your reasoning would be a bit farfetched, even if your facts were correct. There are obviously a few who come to this country who intend our destruction -- but millions? If so, they strike me as grossly incompetent. A million competent invaders could do incredible harm in a free country.

Tell us MinnesotaSmith, what is your evidence that "millions" of immigrants and other visitors to this nation "INTEND" our destruction. I would have thought that most come just to live a better life than they can find at home -- or perhaps as tourists -- and a few just looking for new challenges, like hiking the Appalachian Trail.

Weary

[Blue Jay]

Weary, the Muslims have proven themselves IMO to be traitors as a group, unwilling to speak out against or act against the terrorists in their midst in nonsmall numbers. IMO, if anyone indicates they are Muslims, they should be permanently expelled from U.S. soil as soon as so identified, and never allowed here if that information is known about them before entry.

I would do the following WRT that issue: Allow unlimited immigration of healthy whites.

Hiel Minnesotahitler, we would be much better off if you were permanently expelled from U. S. soil.

[Tha Wookie]

I think we all know who Minnessota voted for...