protecting forests and wildlife

There are a few things that I think are important in considering this.

1. Does it cost billions to set aside land as protected, thus restricting development or other economic use? I would say that the answer to this (unless you qualify lost profit potential as a cost) is that it does not cost a prohibitive amount of money.

2. Qualifying profit potential. Two of the more prominent examples of exploitation that natural habitat in this country suffers are commercial logging and land reclamation (draining of wetlands, etc) for real estate development.

Without going too in depth into cost benefit analysis of these practices, it's pretty clear that timber removal at current rates is neither sustainable on a permanent basis, nor is it an environmentally sound practice. So where is the benefit? Only in the wallet.

As for reclamation of wetlands, wetlands are an incredibly rich source of biodiversity, but they are also tremendously fragile. To me, the cost-benefit analysis weighs in far more favorably for the wetlands than it does the drained developments placed in their stead. I find this justifiable strictly on the basis of the threat to habitat, and the lack of need on the other end strikes me as gluttonous. Additionally, the draining of wetlands and other such activities can actually facilitate the death and destruction that comes along with forces of nature such as Katrina. During such environmental calamities, wetlands act as a natural buffer zone, a shock absorber, whereas the drained final product can actually facilitate the storm's movement inward.

There are a lot more examples of corporate and industrial want being placed in front of environmental need and these are only a couple, but I think they adequately illustrate my feelings on the matter across the board.

3. What if it did cost billions? I guess I would have to look at something like that on a more individualized basis, but a few examples of what I would support:
a. The cleaning of superfund sites (3 of which I believe went underwater during Katrina)
b. The return of impacted areas to their natural state.
c. Efforts to maintain forests through controlled burns and the removal of scrub brush.

Ultimately, for me it just comes down to the fact that we, as Americans, as people, can always come up with new ways to make money. But we only have one environment, and I for one think it is worth spending money to preserve.

"I would be just as cautious of damaging our economic system as I would be a natural wetland."

-When you destroy a wetland, it and its creatures will be gone forever. When you quash one proposal for capitalist enterprise, another pops up. Which should be guarded more ferociously?

What do you call "maintaining the environment"? You're right - it is sometimes not a zero sum game. Sometimes it is.

Reservoirs in national parks? Zero sum game.

Draining essential wetlands for golf course? Zero sum game.

Cutting down protected old growth forests with no sustainability plans or viable supervisory agency? Zero sum game.

Saving dollars for ignoring ultrahazardous waste sites? Zero sum game.

Allowing "self regulation" of pollution standards by industry? Zero sum game.

Oh dear. Sorry for not being clear, but I don't understand what I wrote that would lead you to believe that I feel trees and animals are more important than people (I don't differentiate the poor from other people - beloved or not). Do I think that old growth forests are more important than the obstinate loggers who attempt to cut them down? Of course - once cut, those trees are gone forever.

Maybe you didn't read my previous post carefully enough, but for one thing, wetlands provide an important barrier in protecting mainland areas from storms such as Katrina. That's right. Wetlands erosion was partially responsible for the destruction wielded by Katrina. So yes, they are more than "cool to look at for some people."

So your justification for the destruction of wetlands is
a) they're only good for being pretty, and
b) any natural benefits could "probably be offset"?
Let's just pave it all then. Not like we benefit from anything natural.

Sure, there is "such a thing as planting new trees." But as I mentioned before, these are old growth trees. Old growth trees do not require merely a "few decades" to "resemble" the ones that were cut down. Some old growth trees were standing when the Magna Carta was signed. The current level of logging cannot be sustained by merely planting new trees in their place.

Nobody has a problem with logging in principle. We all need trees as a raw material. But sustainability requirements range from lax to non-existent, and the federal answer to dwindling forests in one area is to open another. This is not sustainable. It is not unlimited. It is foolish. If you want to read some articles on it, they're posted on my site.

Yes I did read what you wrote there. Tell me how there is a METHOD to cultivating OLD GROWTH trees by replanting the ones that have been cut so that they "RESEMBLE" the originals in a FEW DECADES. Explain your method to me. Please. How about you educate yourself on something before writing on it? I can see you've troubled yourself to visit my site. Go ahead and click the links and learn a thing or two about the government's environmental policy.

Maybe what Boymarine wrote can help you, because you seem to think that there is no reconciliation between conservation and technology. Fortunately, for those of us who care, we realize it is not a "zero sum game."

Something worth building? Yeah, go ahead and build another golf course on the wetlands. And then when the next hurricane uses it as a highway to another city's front porch, enjoy spending your billions to clean it up.

(unless of course you want to take on some of the things I called a zero sum game)
(or if you want to show me where, "time and time again," I have proven that I do not believe in god)
...because I am a sporting man.

But I'm sure you will do neither.

"I'll pick it up for "Bimmer", since you are obviously getting yourself all riled up again."

-Such is the case when someone questions or attacks, among other things, my faith.

"Now back to the discussion, we're not talking about bad individuals, we're talking about policy."
Here are some links for you on policy:
States Take on Feds Over Environment
Forest Service Standards and Accountability (I recommend this one, with regard to the "forester" discussion)
Dangerous Illusions About Wetlands

"Here are a couple of thoughts for the "tree hugger" types. In order to be consistent, please eliminate wood from your life. I propose that you not live in a home built with wood."

-I'm just going to give you a quote from what I wrote above, since either you missed it, or you ignored it....:
"Nobody has a problem with logging in principle. We all need trees as a raw material. But sustainability requirements range from lax to non-existent, and the federal answer to dwindling forests in one area is to open another. This is not sustainable."

I never, anywhere, suggested that people not use wood, or that logging as a whole should be halted...

"Wetlands have always been the target of developers for obvious reasons. But just as soon as there is evedence that harm has been created, the pendulum swings back to protecting them. The reason is one of human nature. First there has to be a problem, then comes a solution. It never has worked the other way, where we anticipate all problems and put solutions in play. This has always been called, and still is, realistic management."

-Yes and no. When adequate warning is given of the problems that will be created, those issuing the warnings are often dismissed as "Chicken Littles" alarmism. The difficulty here is often that the signs of harm come as too little, too late. And with loosening standards, the pendulum is swinging in the wrong direction.

And when have I ignored your answers to my questions?