I feel ill.

Government wants to expand animal trade

Got it,
got it,
need it,
got it,
got it,
need it....

I got an ivory ashtray for Christmas that had a sticker that read:

"10% of the price of this item went to save African elephants. PS The Surgeon General warns you that this elephant died of second-hand smoke."

Cool, I always wanted a parrot but the price is ridiculous.

Oh boy, an eviro-thread. Yeah, this is a good idea like the "terror-futures market" was a good idea.

As asinine as what "managed forests" usually means.

I forsee turtle soup.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

My country seems to have lost its collective mind.

If we just went ahead and wiped out all the endangered species, then we wouldn't have any more endangered species!

I guess this means Bush is seeking campaign $ from another untapped industry.

"That would be horrific for sea turtles,"

i dunno, the world turtle, classic peice of english language.

This is old news, and not surprising given the current administration.

Clear felling = good for forests
pre emptive war = liberation
allowing more trade in animals = good for animals

Jesus. This is a great idea. They just need to give it an Orwellian name. "Clear Skies" was a good one. I forget what the name of the one that allowed for the clearcutting of the old growth forests was. It's too bad they won't use this argument with drugs. "If there were pot available on the open market, less people would break the law to get pot". God bless this administration. God bless the morons who will vote to keep them in place. God bless Howard Dean for managing to make George Bush look appealing to the morons who will vote for King George II.

But do they taste good?

If they don't taste good what is the point of saving them?

Clear felling = good for forests
pre emptive war = liberation

Don't comment if you're ignorant about the issues.
I was a fireman for 6 years and Clear felling IS good for the forest. California wouldn't have been in HALF the trouble if this were done earlier.

And yes, we DID liberate the Iraqi's. 95% of them LIKE that we're there.
Seek the news, don't just get bottle fed by it.

GIS for turtle soup:

The Symbol:

The larger problem is probably that the forests needed to have been burned much earlier - the fires wouldn't have been as wild and the ecosystem would have benefitted more than with clear-cutting.

The Symbol

As a firefighter, I'm sure you know that California's biggest fire problem is that we have supressed natural fires for so long that the tinder-iffic undergrowth has reached a ridiculous level. Clear-cutting wouldn't help. If we supress every fire, then enevitably we will get huge catastrophioc ones, instead of allowing for the regular natural cycle of steady, small, cyclical fires. Fire is nessecary to forest environments, and the more we supress, the worse it will be in the end.

The Symbol,

Ditto.

Yes, clear felling is good for the forests.. but we shouldn't pay the timber industry to do it, just open up the opportunity for them to do it. Everyone wins then.

Number41

You win.

That's what I said.

Shouldn't this have a 'florida' tag?

[The rationale: If enough exotic animals are available in a regulated market, there won't be a black market of species pulled from their most important habitats. ]

It's a similar rationale i've heard from the drug legalization folks - a regulated market would prevent smuggling, reduce violence, ect ect.

I think it could work. And it's certainly addressing the problem of illegal poaching, which I have YET to hear an eco-nut address in a realistic manner.

Clearing the underbrush by allowing natural small burns is not the same as clearcutting.

Woot, kill more animals, we never needed the stinking smelly things anyway!!!

but we shouldn't pay the timber industry to do it
You're right. I always thought the Fry makers at McDonalds were an untapped resource.

I love animals. That's why I like to kill 'em.

just when you think the Bush administration can't fark up anything else....




oh wait, nobody thinks that.

I do not think I can express in words my utter contempt for Bush or the people who vote for him. I hate you all. My hate has grown to a point I did not think it was possible for me to reach. I hate with a level of passion that I was not aware I was capable of, and disgust and contempt fills my soul to such a degree that, if it were made corporeal, would surely destroy everything I touch.

Why would a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal call for a Florida Tag? Statist biggots.

Sounds like Cheney and the oil companies aren't the ONLY ones pulling the strings...

the_god_ninti

For fark's sake, man, they're still Americans! What do you want to do, put them in camps?

But, Weaver, a regualted drug market wouldn't darastically deplete the worlds drugs, it would cause more drugs to be produced legally, where as an unregulated animal market would simply diminish the animal populations.
As per poaching, I have no good answer, other than there must be a better way, which is no kind of answer at all. Off the top of my head, can we address the reasons people poach and what the animals are used/sold for and attempt to build alternatives? I don't know, I'm just riffing here. Anyone got suggestions?

"Jon, this is consistent with this Administration's policy that, in order to save something, you have to kill part of it."

Hear hear, Dr. Cyclops.

Calm down ninti, I share in your rage at said admin and asshat supports of dumbass Bush, but I have a shared contempt for the apathetic assholes that make up our country that sit back and LET this shiat happen. They biatch, they wine, and they talk big, but when someone practically DROPS an opportunity to make a difference in their laps, user-friendly and instant access, they don't do a damn thing, and THAT infuriates me more than anything.

The ONLY thing that Bush has going for him is OUR apathy, and lack to DO ANYTHING. VOTE, you may think that it's pointless, but at least your putting in your opinion, and then you can biatch all you want afterwards. I thought that it was meaningless until I saw the LAST election, and I learned a lot since then.

How about a new name for W? The UnderBush!

Logging doesn't clear the scrub brush or undergrowth which constitutes the biggest fire hazard. It only clears the old-growth trees which are relatively fire resistant. Periodic fires clear the undergrowth. It's very unlikely the logging companies are going to spend anytime clearing undergrowth.

just when you think the Bush administration can't fark up anything else....

Just when you think a liberal cant piss and moan and blow something out of proportion for the sake of hating Bush.

Get some balls and be a man! Honestly how many of you bleeding hearts even care the slightest bit about a friggen sea turtle?

TunaRevenge:

I take it you've never seen a clear-cut (former) forest. There's no undergrowth, trees, or animals left. They often use bulldozers.

Sometimes I wish the U.S. would annex Canada so I'd feel I have a natural right to beak off about politics down there (soon enough, I know, but then who would take the blame then?)

There's an article in Rolling Stone about how Bush has put the fox in charge of the henhouse in all areas of natural resource management:

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2154

Do you think the policy makers are killing themselves when they come up with the doublespeak. "Hey Tom, I've got a new one! Let's propose we just 86 the EPA altogether and replace it with something called the Enviromental Protection Agency."

[But, Weaver, a regualted drug market wouldn't darastically deplete the worlds drugs, it would cause more drugs to be produced legally,...]

Which would kill all the little 'mom and pop' drug manufacturing operations, wouldn't it? Ultimately a 'wal-mart' effect could very well take down the big time illegal drug manufacturers.

[...where as an unregulated animal market would simply diminish the animal populations.]

Again, not necessarily. I think you'd really have to throw the book at anyone who broke the law and got caught smuggling in order for it to work.

[As per poaching, I have no good answer, other than there must be a better way, which is no kind of answer at all. Off the top of my head, can we address the reasons people poach and what the animals are used/sold for and attempt to build alternatives? I don't know, I'm just riffing here. Anyone got suggestions?]

So far every attempt by the eco-nuts to stop illegal poaching has failed. Maybe it's time to try a free market approach - after all, if the animals in question are someone's market resource, they'll protect them far better than some government functionary ever could.

I'm not a liberal and I don't worry much about friggen sea turtles but I can't stand the unreal amount of smoke this administration has blown up our asses.

Get some balls and be a man! Honestly how many of you bleeding hearts even care the slightest bit about a friggen sea turtle?

Uhh.. Me? It's got a right to live like anyone else. We shouldn't mind going a little out of our way to insure that we don't makke it extinct. And I don't think caring what happens to another living being has removed or affected my testicles.

Yeah, they're still there.

Just when you think a liberal cant piss and moan and blow something out of proportion for the sake of hating Bush.

Get some balls and be a man! Honestly how many of you bleeding hearts even care the slightest bit about a friggen sea turtle?

For the record, I'm a conservative -- but no longer republican. Being conservative doesn't mean that you don't recognize the importance of conservation and environmental protection. Only a fool shiits in his own nest. So unless you've conquered interplanetary space travel, it's in everyone's interest to take care of our only home.

from:
http://www.cccturtle.org/wwwboard/messages/2480.html

Why should humans care if sea turtles go extinct?

There are two major ecological effects of sea turtle extinction.

1. Sea turtles, especially green sea turtles, are one of the very few animals to eat sea grass. Like normal lawn grass, sea grass needs to be constantly cut short to be healthy and help it grow across the sea floor rather than just getting longer grass blades.

Sea grass beds are important because they provide breeding and developmental grounds for many species of fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Without sea grass beds, many marine species humans harvest would be lost, as would the lower levels of the food chain. The reactions could result in many more marine species being lost and eventually impacting humans. So if sea turtles go extinct, there would be a serious decline in sea grass beds and a decline in all the other species dependant upon the grass beds for survival.

2. Beaches and dune systems do not get very many nutrients during the year, so very little vegetation grows on the dunes and no vegetation grows on the beach itself. This is because sand does not hold nutrients very well. Sea turtles use beaches and the lower dunes to nest and lay their eggs. Sea turtles lay around 100 eggs in a nest and lay between 3 and 7 nests during the summer nesting season. Along a 20 mile stretch of beach on the east coast of Florida sea turtles lay over 150,000 lbs of eggs in the sand. All the unhatched nests, eggs and trapped hatchlings are very good sources of nutrients for the dune vegetation, even the left over egg shells from hatched eggs provide some nutrients.

Dune vegetation is able to grow and become stronger with the presence of nutrients from turtle eggs. As the dune vegetation grows stronger and healthier, the health of the entire beach/dune ecosystem becomes better. Stronger vegetation and root systems helps to hold the sand in the dunes and helps protect the beach from erosion. As the number of turtles declines, fewer eggs are laid in the beaches, providing less nutrients. If sea turtles went extinct, dune vegetation would lose a major source of nutrients and would not be as healthy and would not be strong enough to maintain the dunes, resulting in increased erosion.

Hey, i'll bet most of you whining live in some "Medowbrook" subdivision, that used to be a forest until they came in, with bulldozers and knocked it down. they left only a few aethetic tress and built your pretty upper middle class tower, and now you sit in it and condem everyone else.

Timber!

I live in the midwest, and don't eat seafood, so none of that affects me.. but it does affect a lot of people, so we should care.

Well said, TunaRevenge.