Bush responsible for increase

[1_pointer]

Elkchsr- So, are you saying that if the 'ologist' says that you can do something to the trees within the 1/4mi you stated originally that it is thus not 'hallowed ground'? That's how I'm taking your statements and the law that you quoted. Seems to me that there's a bit more leeway than you insinuated in your earlier post. You tried to make it sound like that any tree used by an eagle for any reason keeps all trees within 1/4mi from being manipulated. I called you on it and you proved yourself wrong. I know that bald eagles can cause restrictions, but I also know that there are mitigation measures in place often for things like nests, roosts, and seasonal habitats for lots of special status species. Oh, and guess what, that wasn't learned in 'collage'.

There's only one reason I'd consider moving to WA and that would be if I could gain dual citizenship in BC. I don't see that happening, so right now I'm planning on staying more to the Intermountain West. Thanks for the tip, though!

 

[ELKCHSR]

Your very welcome Tyler...

Again I will mention the fact some restrictions have probably been lifted in the last few years since I've been there probably due to lawsuits forcing the issue

and I'm not seeing how I've been proven wrong, only justified to yourself what ever it is your trying to prove here

Almost every thing in the environmental arena is up for interpretation, countless studies and countles dollars have been spent to prove some ones case on both sides of the fence and the middle

I've seen a number of injustices take place because some ones interpretation of the rules was made on an emotional bias instead of common sense

I do see that your trying to make a black and white issue out of this with out all the facts and it just can't be done on the side lines

Hence the invitation to move to Washington and witness it for yourself, it wasn't to make your life easier, it wasn't to prove you right or wrong, it was meant to show you that your argument is based on ignorance of the topic, nothing more

Not opening your eyes to the truth rather than blinded by those your trying to impress doesn’t impress any one in the end and puts a bias on the truths you find in your own endevours

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer,

Dont try to use logic with Cheese, its a waste of time. He doesnt have a clue what he's talking about. You dont need to live in Washington to understand simple regulations...including this one.

He lied about the eagle nests and over-exaggerated the "problem".

For the record, Cheese said, "In Washington when the eagles are seen landing in any trees along the rivers, all the trees with in a pretty good distance (I think it's a quarter mile) become hallowed ground and you can't do much of any thing with the property except pay taxes"

Thats an outright lie. For starters, the actual regulations that have been posted are very clear...ROOST TREES and NEST SITES. Just because an eagle happens to land in a tree does not make that tree and every other tree within a 1/4 mile off limits to consumptive uses. That was NEVER the case in Washington or any other state, matter of fact, its not even the intention of the regulation. The regulation is in place to simply protect known nest sites, and ROOST trees of the national bird. Also for the record, just because an eagle lands in a tree DOES NOT make it a "ROOST TREE".

Secondly, even IF a nest site or roost tree was found, it still didnt mean that you COULD NOT cut down trees within a 1/4 mile.

Anyone with 1/2 of a firing brain cell with the comprehension skills of a second grader could see that.

All the rest of the Cheese's last post is just pure bar-stool "science"...known amoung the literate crowd as flagrant lies and half-truths.

 

[JB]

You tried to make it sound like that any tree used by an eagle for any reason keeps all trees within 1/4mi from being manipulated.

It appears "the cheese" may have "manipulated" some "ologists" here.

 

[ELKCHSR]

He lied about the eagle nests and over-exaggerated the "problem".

Butz the Putz...

You’re guiltier than Tyler on this issue...

ASSUMING you know all about all...

It's very easy to sit over a thousand miles away and make assumptions which you have proven you’re very good at

I've been in your neck of the woods, and the PNW, there’s not too many things that are similar in these two environments

None of the rocks, minerals, plants, animals, weather, topography, peoples attitudes are the same, they don't even use much of the same building materials for their houses

Plants don’t grow the same, animals’ habits, politics, thoughts on religion, and geologies for the areas are very much different and on and on

You always tell me to get a clue... You ever try looking in the mirror?

Discredit me all you want, it still doesn't change the truth and as I have been telling you for years...

Don't believe me, go see it with your own lying eyes...

Or you can sit on your white throne dictating answers in your own little stink oblivious to what goes on past the toilet paper of your mansion

 

[1_pointer]

Thanks Elkchsr, that was an eloquent rebuttal that made no sense nor did it clear up any of the points you've tried to make. Well done, sir!

 

[ELKCHSR]

Tyler, if you glance over it, you won't understand...

You also may not get it because you don't have as full a picture of this topic as you would like to think you do...

Let me know what you don't understand and I'll explain it in laymens terms...

The environmentalists in the PNW are far stronger than Utah, Montana and Wyoming combined and get there way more often curtailing the law where they see fit, this is why neither of you guys can understand what they are capable of in this region

New article hot off the press:

New protections proposed for bald eagles
By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer

The Fish and Wildlife Service wants to replace four decades of federal protections for the American bald eagle with new rules against disturbing it.

In a push to remove the nation's symbol from the endangered species list, the wildlife agency is writing new regulations under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to protect the birds and their nesting, breeding and feeding areas from anything likely to cause them harm.

The law, which dates to 1940, says only that bald eagles cannot be disturbed. Since 1967, when the bald eagle was listed as an endangered species, it has benefited from much tougher protections.

The government's new interpretation of the 1940 law, proposed Friday, would allow the birds to be moved in rare cases if their nests or breeding and feeding grounds were in the way of an airport runway or some other development. Killing or injuring them accidentally would not be punishable.

Fish and Wildlife, which is part of the Interior Department, must meet a June 29 court-ordered deadline in deciding whether to remove the bald eagle from the endangered species list.

A federal judge in Minnesota ordered the agency last year to remove the eagle from the list unless the government could prove further delays were necessary. The order came in a lawsuit brought by Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a Minnesota landowner who wants to develop property with an active bald eagle nest.

In 1963, there were just 417 known nesting pairs left in the lower 48 states, mainly because of DDT and other pesticides that weakened the eggshells and reduced the birth rate. Outside Alaska and Canada, where tens of thousands of bald eagles live and their existence has not been in doubt, at least 9,789 known nesting pairs now exist in the wild, officials say.

"The bald eagle has rebounded from the brink of extinction to reach population levels that have not been seen since World War II," H. Dale Hall, the Fish and Wildlife Service's director, said Friday. "Our overriding concern has been to ensure that bald eagles continue to thrive once they no longer need the protection of the Endangered Species Act."

The agency in 1999 proposed delisting the bald eagle but the idea ran into government red tape, including the requirement that each state provide updated counts.

Environmentalists were pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to toughen an earlier proposal, which would kick in only after an eagle died or was hurt or lost its nest, and include protections against things likely to cause harm.

"Now the service doesn't have to wait until it has a dead eagle," said Michael Bean, a lawyer who heads Environmental Defense's wildlife program. "With this improvement, one can look forward to the removal of the bald eagle from the endangered species list without the worry that it will head right back toward endangerment."

 

[1_pointer]

So, now it's about the enviromentalist? I thought we were discussing a statement you made regarding the law, which you posted, in WA. Oh, right, it was up to the 'ologists discretion. Any other possiblities you wanna throw out there?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Snicker snicker...

Keep trying Tyler...

It's always been about the environmentalists and their need to carry things to far, it doesn't matter what job they hold, it's still the same thing...

Sigh... This isn't a black and white issue as you are trying to make it, only time under your belt will help you understand this as long as you keep your eyes open for the truth beyond what you personally want to see or believe...

 

[1_pointer]

No, it's not always about the environmentalist. It's about you making a statement which you proved to be false by posting the WA state law.

It's always been about the environmentalists and their need to carry things to far, it doesn't matter what job they hold, it's still the same thing...

This is a blanket statement that is false. There are 'environmentalists' that don't take things too far, in fact, there are some that are very good at making things better both for wildlands and those who derive a living from them. How do I know that? I've gotten a chance to work with a lot of folks of this ilk over the last few years. BTW, that wasn't done on the fire line mopping up...

Sigh... This isn't a black and white issue as you are trying to make it, only time under your belt will help you understand this as long as you keep your eyes open for the truth beyond what you personally want to see or believe...

Mind telling me what the fetch (again for Moosie) you are trying to get across to me with this statement?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Yep, it's a blanket statement

Does it necessarily mean "all" are responsible?

Don't be silly, why is it you think every statement has to be made to the extreme and not put out as a generality?

Do I need to spell every thing out 100%

!!!NOPE!!!

No one here does, and the more that's explained, the more you’ll read into what’s stated trying to further what ever cause or agenda your pushing for (which is still a mystery)

As for your second comment...
I hope for your sake, one day you can understand it...

It's the same thing I told you a few years ago over a dinner table under friendlier circumstances and the lesson didn’t stick, you’ve obviously become more closed and self centered, letting emotion dictate your answers instead of reason...

 

[1_pointer]

I can understand that it's not a black and white issue, which has been my point all along. When you stated this:

In Washington when the eagles are seen landing in any trees along the rivers, all the trees with in a pretty good distance (I think it's a quarter mile) become hallowed ground and you can't do much of any thing with the property except pay taxes

you're the one who stated it was black and white. The case I've been trying to make, apparently in vain, has been that it isn't. There are mitigation measures that can be put in place to allow activities within the vacinity of eagle nests and roost trees. BTW, nest and roost trees are different than "any trees along the rivers". I have no personal or professional agenda regarding bald eagles. They are adequately protected by the law and in many cases more of a non-issue than other critters.

 

[ELKCHSR]

How is this quote black and white?

You’re right in your statement when looked at purely from a distance, but reality of the region dictates a different conclusion and you have to be around it personally to witness it

Butz the Putz thinks because he's called some one or read an article from some one out of the PNW for example, has the information it takes to answer a question intelligently or accurately

In reality, he can only tell his story third party, more than likely it's tainted with a lot of personal bias and/or bile

Or he can get off his "arse" (since your following Moosies wording I’ll follow suit in keeping with the content of this game) and witness the topic first hand to see who is actually telling the truth or if it's center of both sides of the topic which is more likely the case if he was honestly interested in the truth instead of looking to make an empty argument about some thing he has no desire to fully understand

That’s the difference between us

I prefer to put my nose into the topic any more, and find the truth for myself, only using what others say as a tool to help make a better informed decision

I'm wondering if I should send you a bill for these life’s lessons...

Nawww...

I think your a good guy and need the "pointers" for later decisions in life when it really matters even if you don’t see it at the moment...

 

[BuzzH]

Elkcheese, are you really serious?

I mean come on, YOU telling anyone you're going to bill them for "life lessons".

What a joke.

I'm sure Pointer will find your life lessons handy...if he ever finds a need to dig a ditch, bomb shelter in the woods, or mop a fire. Maybe someday he could even land one of those numerous "good" jobs you've had in the last 15 years. Who knows, maybe he'll be successful enough to mortgage a shack in Anaconda someday...if he takes your "life lessons" to heart.

BTW, I'd guess that Pointer has forgotten more about environmental, natural resources, and wildlife regulations/problems/issues than you've ever attempted to even remotely understand. So you trying to give him advise is ridiculous. He's working on these issues on a daily basis, he's involved in the process...guess what? YOU ARENT and never have and never will.

Its impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you on any kind of natural resource issues because you dont know Jack-diddly about it.

You dont even understand the basics, and thats a fact.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Butz the Putz... You have any thing more substantiate than that???

Sounds more like the rantings of a mad man or a sixth grade bully who just got bested

 

[BuzzH]

Elkcheese,

You've already been proven wrong on your false statements regarding the issue. You were full of crap...as usual.

Its absolutely hilarious to listen to you give anyone advice on "life lessons"!!!

 

[ELKCHSR]

Butz the Putz... You have any thing more substantiate than that???

Sounds more like the rantings of a mad man or a sixth grade bully who just got bested

Hey dude...

You need to back up one step, take a breath and relax, your gonna have a heart attack if you keep with the unneeded tension in your life