ID F&G reform initiative starts anew

[Ithaca 37]

Elkchser, "with out ever either knowing the full picture of what they strive for (They run strictly off emotion) or where money actually comes from (They have no idea of where a base economy gets it's money to keep things going)".

Complete BS! You'd be surprised how many of those people started out at the bottom of the economic totem pole doing hard manual labor.

 

[1_pointer]

Elkchsr- Why if someone is well off or not having to make a livning from the land they didn't/don't work hard to get there? How many Dr., Lawyers, or others of post-graduate training/education do you know that didn't have to bust their ass to get there? My contention, is that they are SMARTER than the other half for the basic reason they were able to see an opportunity at a profession that allows them to enjoy the things in life THEY like. If you like running cattle, cutting trees, or whatever go to it, but if that doesn't give you what someone else has who took a different direction don't bitch.

We have to use our resources that is a given, but at this time America is presented with a first in the history of civilization. We have the luxury, the science, and resources to be able to both preserve/conserve resources will providing most anything we can need/want. Science may have been too efficient. 70 yrs ago it took about 4 our of every 5 adults to produce the food to feed our nation. That number is now down to 1 out of over 200! This has caused a couple of things. 1) Many more are out of touch with where our food comes from. 2) Many more are available to provide other goods and services. As far as natural resources go, the whims of society will direct how they are used, but the ecological understanding of managing them will not.

 

[Ithaca 37]

1 pointer, "they are SMARTER than the other half". Maybe just more ambitious and harder working. I know some real smart college educated bums!

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Me? I'll drink both sides beer, and for what it is worth, the Green side does buy better beer. More micro-brews, less Budweiser.... "
LOL Elkgunner,good post.
I have to admit I have friends on both side's and those that are right down the middle.
As for who buy's the better drink's

You got me on that one,you can have the beer though, I'll stick to the Starbucks Latte's,not much doubt on who buy's the better drink's

 

[Oak]

MD4M: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'll stick to the Starbucks Latte's <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(GASP!!) MD, you might just fit right in downtown Seattle after all!!

Elkchsr, don't change. You're funny as hell sometimes!

Oak

 

[1_pointer]

Ithaca- Check out the qualifier for the end of that sentence. I didn't say they were smarter, intellectually, but for the fact that picked/found a profession that allows them to enjoy their pursuits. But, your right the ambition and work has to be there. I need to find mine again.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Elkchsr,
Your comments were interesting, but unfortunately, they may not matter. Let me explain. When I said the one side is motivated by profit, and the other side is motivated by a sense of "doing good", I meant on many Resource User vs. Enviro cases, the Resource User is in the fight, with an eye to the Profit/Loss statement. When the economics no longer justify the battle, most Resource Users just fold up the tent, and go home. The people who believe they are "doing good", are not bound by that constraint.

You may not like the positions, and you may not like the individuals in the Green movements. YOu may think they are bad people, lazy people, etc.., but the fact is, they have been very smart to move these battles to venue that has been very effective, the 9th Circuit Court. Attacks on their actions, their person, their values, etc.. are effective in some venues, but in the court room, these attacks are not effective.

Some examples, IMO, the Bear Baiting Initiative failed in Idaho, thankfully, because the supporters picked the wrong forum to fight the battle. They picked the Idaho ballot box, and they lost. The pro-hunting side was effective attacking the organizers, and the motivations of the organizers, and convincing the electorate of the evils of this Initiative.

Right now, the Green side has picked two forums for these issues. The New York Times and the 9th Circuit Courts. Both of these venues have been very successful. The NY Times is able to keep providing the East Coast with tales of destruction of the West, and as a result, US Congress and constituents keep working to protect the West, independent of any "on the ground knowledge". Then, after these efforts by Congress to pass laws, the Green side has been incredibly shrewd in using the 9th Circuit to get action.

All the disdain in the world for the Green side is useless in court. They argue the law, and the facts, and that makes it tough to fight.

The other example I can give on the Profit failing as the motivator is this. The last time the Cattleman's Association decided to agree on a joint plan on fighting for the rights of Welfare Ranchers they had a Request for Proposal process, where they had all these law firms do "dog and pony" shows, and propose how they would be the best law firm, for the money. The association then picked, based on many criteria, the firm that they thought would be the best value, with the most positive impact to Profit. These law firms were all motivated by Profit, they are nothing more than hired guns. The other side does not have a profit motive, and they are all motivated by the sense of "doing good".

Who do you think is more dangerous, the mercenary/hired gun, or the zealot/true believer? The zealot/true believer is always in these fights to the end, the hired gun leaves when the economics no longer make sense.

Now I will climb down from my Ivory Tower...

 

[1_pointer]

Elkgunner- Good post. You were able to put down clearly something I've had dancing in my head for some time. Your post clearly shows, what I think, is a change in our societies perception of natural resources. Thanks!

I want to say that the 'doing good' you wrote about is a precieved good and not necessarily for the purported good of the land.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Complete BS! You'd be surprised how many of those people started out at the bottom of the economic totem pole doing hard manual labor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No!!! This is not BS, I would not be surprised at that, but you didn't get what I was saying about where the base economy actually comes from, and it isn't from those that just work hard, it is from a countries natural resources. If the country has no or little natural resources, it is generally a very poor country. Natural resources is the key to a nations wealth, no matter if some think that touching this revenue builder is raping and plundering or not. This is the simple truth of the matter and if there is a debate on it, I will have to be shown where I am wrong on this or not. Or it is just lip service.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Elkchsr- Why if someone is well off or not having to make a livning from the land they didn't/don't work hard to get there? How many Dr., Lawyers, or others of post-graduate training/education do you know that didn't have to bust their ass to get there? My contention, is that they are SMARTER than the other half for the basic reason they were able to see an opportunity at a profession that allows them to enjoy the things in life THEY like. If you like running cattle, cutting trees, or whatever go to it, but if that doesn't give you what someone else has who took a different direction don't bitch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While this is true that these individuals have become financially wealthy, they have done "Nothing" to "Create" wealth. It has come from the backs and hard work of others. If you follow the money trail back to where it originates with any thing, it will come back to those that actually create it from our raw materials. Other wise they are just moving money around or hoarding it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Elkchsr, don't change. You're funny as hell sometimes! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can laugh all you want, but the truth is the truth and any little jibes like this neither hurt nor changes what I know....
Do not be condescending with me...It will make you look foolish...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You may not like the positions, and you may not like the individuals in the Green movements. YOu may think they are bad people, lazy people, etc.., but the fact is, they have been very smart to move these battles to venue that has been very effective, the 9th Circuit Court. Attacks on their actions, their person, their values, etc.. are effective in some venues, but in the court room, these attacks are not effective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While this may be very true, the truth is, they still produce nothing to help this country even a little bit. Maybe on the "Looks good front" and the touchy feely front, but in the end, they do nothing for the economic good or stability of who we all are. Whether any of you like it or not, with out these natural resources used, we would not be where we are right now, and the non use only hurts us as a nation. I am not saying to abuse these resources as I know for a fact some of you would like to think and jump on, just that you can't lock them up and save them. Especially the renewable ones...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The other example I can give on the Profit failing as the motivator is this. The last time the Cattleman's Association decided to agree on a joint plan on fighting for the rights of Welfare Ranchers they had a Request for Proposal process, where they had all these law firms do "dog and pony" shows, and propose how they would be the best law firm, for the money. The association then picked, based on many criteria, the firm that they thought would be the best value, with the most positive impact to Profit. These law firms were all motivated by Profit, they are nothing more than hired guns. The other side does not have a profit motive, and they are all motivated by the sense of "doing good".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again I state, it does not matter whether these people "Think" they are doing right, the fact is, they would not have a job in the first place if there were not raw products in abundance in this country to create wealth. I again will state, look at any poor third world nation on the planet and this will become glaringly obvious. I didn't make any of these rules and it is not just some thought that randomly hit me. It is the way it is and no amount of talking will change the way it is and any one that is willing to see it can, the rest just bury their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't so...

 

[Ithaca 37]

Elkgunner, you're exactly right.

I always think it's interesting that the people here who disdain the green side claim they want the poaching and ATV laws enforced, but they go crazy when Jon Marvel brings lawsuits to enforce the environmental laws!

Elkchser, it takes other people to think up ways to use those resources you're talking about, produce the products and , even, apply for the patents to protect the markets. I get the feeling you don't think a patent lawyer who helps an inventor thru the process of bringing a new product to market (that is manufactured from raw materials) is contributing anything to the GNP. I could give you zillions of examples, but that's a real basic one.

Elkchser, "Natural resources is the key to a nations wealth," Iraq, has more oil than almost any other country and those people are dirt poor. All the natural resources in the world won't do any good if you don't have a system to take advantage of them and develop industries around them. Conserving them and using them wisely can insure they'll provide long term benefits. National Forests in Idaho have been exploited so much (instead of cut at a sustainable level) that the logging industry is about gone.

But, back to the first point: Elkgunner is right--the US environmentalists will win (mostly because they're smart and they're right) and there's nothing the resource abuseres can do about it. For now, at least, and probably forevermore.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ithica,

I don't know if the Green side will win, But, in my humble opinion, I believe the Green side IS beginning to win, as they have defined the rules for the engagements, and have used their ability to define the rules, to their advantage.

And a lot of my post was not who is right or wrong, but who is the smartest, righ now. I think there may be things the resource users could do, to be smarter, but I have never seen a more hardheaded group of people.

This group is truly a "good old boy" group. I have sat with many cattleman's groups, attended many cattle sales, and always been amazed at how little listening ever happens. Maybe it is a "respect for elders" type of issue, but they don't seem to want to engage in discussions of alternative ways to "skin a cat".

 

[BuzzH]

Elkchsr said, "While this may be very true, the truth is, they still produce nothing to help this country even a little bit. Maybe on the "Looks good front" and the touchy feely front, but in the end, they do nothing for the economic good or stability of who we all are."

I disagree with that statement, and heres an example of why. By preserving/conserving key habitat, the "greenies" have kept many species off the endangered species list. Its impossible to argue that once a species is listed there is countless dollars spent to rebuild populations, secure habitat, study things, etc. Now, I admit right out I'm no economist, but if the "greenies" can enhance or protect habitat BEFORE species are listed, thats a huge savings to the taxpayer. While it may not "produce" a product, it sure as hell does save lots of tax $$$.

Without studying and understanding ecosystems how can we ensure continued quality of our renewable resources? We can't sustain renewable resources use without understanding what affects we're having. And I dont consider the "greenies" who spend their entire careers studying such things "non-producers". Many times things just dont magically "come back" after being extracted, whether they are renewable or not.

Also, Elkchsr, I have to argue about your statement of countries with lots of raw materials being wealthy...if that were true, I'd think Russia's economy and people would be incredibly wealthy, yet that sure isnt the way it is. Also, what about central and south American countries that have lots of oil, timber, etc. and the average citizen lives in poverty?

In contrast, take a look at Japan, they import all, or most, of their raw materials and they are an industrial super-power. The average citizen there is way better off than the average Russian, central American, or South American, despite their lack of raw materials.

What makes a country work is the whole package and the ability to deal with what you do/dont have and make adjustments.

I think the reason the U.S. is so successful is because of the balance of industry and materials and the regulated use and understanding of resources. But, thats just what I think.

 

[Lostagain]

If you guys are too dense and can't figure it out, then there's no sense in you reading my post.

You were warned. The renewable resources of of country used in a responsible and sustainable way ARE our wealth. Money and other renewable resources are NOT collectibles to be put on a shelf, but are to be USED, recycled again and again. Not wasted or locked up and/or hoarded by a few.

 

[Troy Jones]

GARBAGE... Look up capitalism in the dictionary. Buzz, I find ag producers considerably more valuable to society than what a couple around here have to contribute to it. What service do you provide besides lip?

 

[ELKCHSR]

As you guy's are absolutly right about using the raw products of their respective countries in the proper way to make it all come together, the main reason these countries you both have mentioned have not done very well, is a direct reflection on how their gov. utilized the resources they have. A country can though go to far and injure itself by going to far in protectionism, it is my feeling that we are in that state in a bunch of areas of the country. I have seen it go way to far in some of my travels and of course not quite far enough yet in others. It is a good balancing act and I just hope some peoples over zelous actions don't put all they have done in jepordy.
Buzz!!!!
That was very well said, and I knew you could do it. You have brought up very good points of debate and is very pleasurable to read, whether I fully agree or not. Keep up the good work!!!

 

[1_pointer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While this is true that these individuals have become financially wealthy, they have done "Nothing" to "Create" wealth. It has come from the backs and hard work of others. If you follow the money trail back to where it originates with any thing, it will come back to those that actually create it from our raw materials. Other wise they are just moving money around or hoarding it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. How is a person who provides a service not helped to create something. The medical profession is very loosely tied to natural resources, yet the provide us with our health.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While this may be very true, the truth is, they still produce nothing to help this country even a little bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I disagree. Every part of our ecosystems provides something to society, whether that be food, fiber, clear air or water. Pinyon juniper forests provide very little in the way of useable goods, but under mismanagement they contribute a substantial amount of sediment to the local watersheds. Did you drink anything today?


I am not a preservationist. A hands off approach for management will not work and provides much less than optimum for society. I am however, for the use of our resources in a way that provides resources for society and maintains the health of the land. In different places, this balance must shift somewhat, but not to the extent that either goal is not met.

 

[BuzzH]

LA said, "Money and other renewable resources are NOT collectibles to be put on a shelf, but are to be USED, recycled again and again. Not wasted or locked up and/or hoarded by a few."

I agree LA, with about 90 percent of that statement.

A vast majority of public and private lands are in production of resources, a vast majority.

There is value in "locking" up some areas for things other than resource extraction. Not all animals or plants do well when resources are extracted, not all watersheds, which are absolutely critical for ourselves and wildlife, can sustain lots of extractive practices (logging, roads, grazing, etc.)

We know these things because we've researched and studied ECOSYSTEMS. Land management has improved and its because of the lengths the various agencies have went through to understand the way things function.

Without studying and research how do we determine or define what proper management is? Without areas that are left untouched by extractive industries, how do we know if we are or arent having negative impacts on the areas we choose to manage? We'd have nothing to gauge proper management on (or at least see the affects of our actions) without areas that are left to their own.

Look, I'm all in on logging, mining, etc. as long as the negative impacts are looked at and studied...and as long as wildlife concerns, diversity, etc. is recognized and dealt with. The problem I see, is that in most cases, wildlife, watersheds, viewsheds, aesthetics, etc. are given NO or very little consideration, and thats NOT proper management, IMO. I'll admit to being a greedy bastard right now, I want lots of elk, deer, antelope, etc. to hunt.

Troy, because you're family farms that makes you a great producer? The welfare farmer checks spend real easy dont they? I wonder how the average farmer would survive without big brother, and how long?

By the way, instead of running static and you're mouth...why dont you just say "thank you" for all the government hand-outs you get. I dont mind paying to support farmers, as long as they leave some wildlife habitat, clean water, etc.

I really like the CRP program and dont mind funding things like that at all.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-29-2003 20:39: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Lostagain]

As far as the "average" farmer would do without big brother handouts is prob a helluva lot better than the "average" sportsmen would. The "average" Ag person doesn't get anything or just a bit from the gov't. I'm sure its out here on the net of
how much gov't payments go to the 1% of AG operations out there. Just guessing I say over 90% of the moneys go to less than 5% of the total number of AG folks.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Anybody remember what this topic's about?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ithica,

I think this topic is about

............................................................................................................................................................

to get into a pi*sing match....

Which is too bad.........as I like to learn the points of others.

It is kind of interesting, but the few comments about the Mining industry don't seem as negative as the ones about the Welfare Ranchers. I wonder if there is a state bias on mining, where people in Montana and Wyoming tolerate and believe it can be done in a responsible manner. My experience in Idaho leads me to percieve mining as worse than the Welfare Ranchers. But most of my experience is up around Stibnite, Idaho, and that thing is a huge clean up mess, thanks to the Mining act of 1872.