# Stupid Is As Stupid Does!



## Lin Hansen

If that saying is true, then all I can say is that some of the townspeople in BOILING SPRING LAKES, N.C fit the bill, in my opinion. (Sorry in advance to any of our N.C. members) But, see if you don't agree...... 


*Rare Woodpecker Sends a Town Running for Its Chain Saws *
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 24, 2006
BOILING SPRING LAKES, N.C., Sept. 23 (AP) — Over the past six months, landowners here have been clear-cutting thousands of trees to keep them from becoming homes for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.

The chain saws started in February, when the federal Fish and Wildlife Service put Boiling Spring Lakes on notice that rapid development threatened to squeeze out the woodpecker.

The agency issued a map marking 15 active woodpecker “clusters,” and announced it was working on a new one that could potentially designate whole neighborhoods of this town in southeastern North Carolina as protected habitat, subject to more-stringent building restrictions.

Hoping to beat the mapmakers, landowners swarmed City Hall to apply for lot-clearing permits. Treeless land, after all, would not need to be set aside for woodpeckers. Since February, the city has issued 368 logging permits, a vast majority without accompanying building permits.

The results can be seen all over town. Along the roadsides, scattered brown bark is all that is left of pine stands. Mayor Joan Kinney has watched with dismay as waterfront lots across from her home on Big Lake have been stripped down to sandy wasteland.

“It’s ruined the beauty of our city,” Ms. Kinney said. To stop the rash of cutting, city commissioners have proposed a one-year moratorium on lot-clearing permits.

The red-cockaded woodpecker was once abundant in the vast longleaf pine forests that stretched from New Jersey to Florida, but now numbers as few as 15,000. The bird is unusual among North American woodpeckers because it nests exclusively in living trees. 

In a quirk of history, human activity has made this town of about 4,100 almost irresistible to the bird.

Long before there was a town, locals carved V-shaped notches in the pines, collecting the sap in buckets to make turpentine. These wounds allowed fungus to infiltrate the tree’s core, making it easier for the woodpecker to excavate its nest hole and probe for the beetles, spiders and wood-boring insects it prefers.

“And, voilà! You have a perfect woodpecker habitat,” said Dan Bell, project director for the Nature Conservancy in nearby Wilmington.

The woodpecker gouges a series of holes around the tree, creating “sap runs” to discourage the egg-gobbling black snake, the bird’s chief enemy. Because it can take up to six years to excavate a single nest hole, the birds fiercely defend their territory, said Susan Miller, a biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service. “They’re passed from generation to generation, because it’s such a major investment in time to create one cavity,” Ms. Miller said.

Like the woodpeckers, humans are also looking to defend their nest eggs.

Bonner Stiller has been holding on to two wooded half-acre lakefront lots for 23 years. He stripped both lots of longleaf pines before the government could issue its new map.

“They have finally developed a value,” said Mr. Stiller, a Republican member of the state General Assembly. “And then to have that taken away from you?”

Landowners have overreacted, says Pete Benjamin, supervisor of the federal agency’s Raleigh office.

Having a woodpecker tree on a piece of property does not necessarily mean a house cannot be built there, Mr. Benjamin said. A landowner can even get permission to cut down a cavity tree, as long as an alternative habitat can be found.

“For the most part, we’ve found ways to work with most folks,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/us/24woodpecker.html

Linda


----------



## Feefo

I just couldn't believe what I was reading. Greed and stupidity reign.

Cynthia


----------



## Reti

Unbelievable.
I have no words for this kind of stupidity 

Reti


----------



## Lin Hansen

cyro51 said:


> *I just couldn't believe what I was reading.* Greed and stupidity reign.
> 
> Cynthia



I know, neither could I. 

Linda


----------



## Skyeking

I was just going to post this one myself...unbelievable reaction, isn't it?


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...r/20060924114809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


----------



## Maggie-NC

Well, being from North Carolina what can I say except I am sorry that we have IDIOTS here as well.

Land values in that area, and most of the other coastal communities in NC, have sky rocketed in the past 3-4 years and everyone wants their share of the $$$$$.

It is pretty sickening when a member of our General Assembly is part of this. 

The town council should have already issued a moratorium.

I am going to contact our local TV/newspaper to see if they will follow up on this news.

IT SUCKS!


----------



## pdpbison

OMG, how nutty can people get!

...what idiots...


Phil
Las Vegas


----------



## TerriB

I would say, "Unbelievable!!" but sadly, it's not. Sometimes people can be so shortsighted!!!


----------



## Avalona Birdy

I would be HONORED to have an endangered species around. o.o What is wrong with those people?? Do they WANT another species to go the way of the DODO??

(No offense to dodos. I am sure that if they had the chance, they would have put humans in cages.)


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Well....what I can say.....is I think I can imagine why these owners reacted the way they did. A two acre cleared lot perhaps could sell for $150,000...and in some cases, many thousands of dollars sometimes are earned by selling the logs. On the other hand, a lot which can not be logged or built on is worth much closer to nothing, except the goverment will charge taxes on the land which they made near worthless by their actions to protect nesting areas. It would appear that quite the opposite has occured.

Not saying what anyone did was right, but I can understand why they did what they did, to protect their wealth. How many readers here, are willing to contribute $150,000 to the cause ? I don't know the exact econmics, but there are areas here where hundreds of thousands would be very likely, and a law to limit future development causes an immediate shortage of supply, but not a shortage of demand.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

*There he goes again !*

The PM said, well Warren, there you go again.....digging up some old thread you decided you just had to go stick your nose in and stir up trouble !!  

Actually, I wasn't thinking so much of the poor wood pecker who needs a tree to nest in, I was thinking of a recent situation in York County Pa. A family farm in this county which has been in the family for generations, is known by just about everybody around here. It may be one of the most beautiful horse farm in the state. From their vantage point, a person can overlook major portions of the county, the neighboring county and the river which seperates the two. Believe me, the views are breath taking....and that is the problem. 

A couple of County Commissioners felt it was so beautiful.....so pretty...so much a gift of God, that it must be "Preserved". So...the county condemed the property so they could turn it into a park !!  It has now gone through every level of the courts...and the family has lost, and the so called "Preservationalists" have won. The family traced their ownership back to the 1700's, and their lawyer explained they would be willing to never develope it, by placing it into a family prservation land trust, but to no avail. Then the lawyer debated that these hundreds of acres could be sold off as building lots and would be valued at 32,500,000 to developers...sorry charlie....the county stole this land, this family farm, and gave them a pittance. 

People actually wrote letters to the editor of the local newspaper, and called the family "Greedy"......for fighting the ideal that this beauty should be preserved for the community ! 

I know I am sure sad that the county will now send in bull dozers to knock down trees and the like, so that roads and parking areas can be built, so that this beauty can be preserved for the public ! I am just so happy, that I have goverment here that looks after the interests of us all, even if they do have to crush a family now and then..... I just wonder, how the wildlife will fare, now that all these people will be driving cars and building picnic areas, walk ways, dog areas, swing sets, etc. in order to turn this farm into a preserved space for people to get away to, walk their dog, jog, ride a bike, listen to a rock concert etc. I know this situation is a little different then trees being cut down in order to avoid having the property condemed by a goverment agent so that wood pecker's could have a nesting spot. But the concept of goverment action destroying families and property rights, in order to protect or preserve something is not new. It's just hard for me to throw rocks at the families who were trying to protect their property. You will have to forgive me, I sometimes slip up in my role as an animal protector, by sometimes having empathy for the human, even if he is not perfect.


----------



## Garye

That's the problem with this country. Land is valuable. I think one of the reasons Massachusetts is so high is that it is one of the smallest states in the nation. There's not a lot of land left - and the demand for it keeps growing. So prices skyrocket.

That's what's causing those people to react the way they are. They're afraid of losing money. Unfortunately, that's what makes the world go round.
And on top of that, they are being taxed on that land because of its "assessed value."

We'll always have this problem unless states can come up with a way of perhaps handing out tax incentives to make people not want to clear the land. Money is what is driving people to react the way they do. Nobody wants to lose out on their investments.

Because unfortunately, we need money to survive here.


----------



## Lin Hansen

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> The PM said, well Warren, there you go again.....digging up some old thread you decided you just had to go stick your nose in and stir up trouble !!


LOL!!! Someone's got you pegged!  

Just kidding....kind of....LOL  

Warren, I know you like to play "devil's advocate" sometimes and that's what I was thinking when I saw your original post. I also understand the point you were trying to make and it is a valid one. I just posted this thread with the title "Stupid Is As Stupid Does" because it seemed to me that the townspeople totally overreacted to the situation. I can understand trying to protect your investments (believe me, I do!), but it just seemed stupid to me to go so overboard as to turn a very scenic place (which is probably one of the reasons the land became so valuable in the first place) into a barren looking "wasteland" over the _possibility_ the _some_ of the trees would be protected.

This situation you describe that happened near you is a totally different story in my book and I can totally understand your outrage. I feel the same way. I think it's a terrible situation and no matter how pretty the area is, I don't feel the government or the town or whoever has ANY right to take this family's land and then on top of it, not pay them fair market value. My blood would boil over a situation like this as well.

Linda


----------



## Litewings

I've often thought that as a species we are pretty stupid.
Litewings


----------



## Cassiopeia

Litewings said:


> I've often thought that as a species we are pretty stupid.
> Litewings


Hear hear! I swear, if I ever meet Press Clay Southworth in the afterlife, I'm going to find a way to kill him again. He sees an especially pretty bird, his first reaction is to shoot it...the last passenger pigeon in the wild! And it's a male! And there's a female in captivity! Congratulations moron, you've just doomed a species. 

Sorry. That's still a very sore point. But I agree, humans are, on the whole, idiots.


----------



## TheSnipes

Pigs.

I notice the story is from '06. Wonder what happened?


----------



## Squab81

Cassiopeia said:


> Hear hear! I swear, if I ever meet Press Clay Southworth in the afterlife, I'm going to find a way to kill him again. He sees an especially pretty bird, his first reaction is to shoot it...the last passenger pigeon in the wild! And it's a male! And there's a female in captivity! Congratulations moron, you've just doomed a species.
> 
> Sorry. That's still a very sore point. But I agree, humans are, on the whole, idiots.


Press Clay Southworth was only fourteen. You should research someone before you decide you hate them.


----------



## conditionfreak

People get married, have babies, work full time and some have even lied about their age and fought in the military.

Being fourteen is no excuse for shooting something just because it is there.

Yea, yea, I know. I was fourteen once. I was chasing my little Margie, and stealing cars for joy rides. But I never killed anything just because I could. I also didn't pull the legs off of grasshoppers and crickets, just to watch them squirm.

It is the hunters mentality to shoot something. Anything. If they have a gun in their hands. A stop sign. A cow in a pasture. A crow. A no hunting sign. A sound in the bushes. 

Same with the young men in the ghetto's. Got a gun. Shoot something. Stop sign. Street light. Guy crossing the street a block away. A stray dog. Something.


----------



## UncleBuck

conditionfreak said:


> People get married, have babies, work full time and some have even lied about their age and fought in the military.
> 
> Being fourteen is no excuse for shooting something just because it is there.
> 
> Yea, yea, I know. I was fourteen once. I was chasing my little Margie, and stealing cars for joy rides. But I never killed anything just because I could. I also didn't pull the legs off of grasshoppers and crickets, just to watch them squirm.
> 
> It is the hunters mentality to shoot something. Anything. If they have a gun in their hands. A stop sign. A cow in a pasture. A crow. A no hunting sign. A sound in the bushes.
> 
> Same with the young men in the ghetto's. Got a gun. Shoot something. Stop sign. Street light. Guy crossing the street a block away. A stray dog. Something.


 WHAT!?! That is a pretty broad brush to be painting everyone with. Please save your judgement on my activities until you live where I live. I am a hunter and I do not shoot everything that moves. I think a lot of people have been spending too much time reading and watching idiots that give the rest of us hunters bad names. I eat what I shoot, unless it is a predator which does not taste good (Raccoon, possum, skunk, bobcat) and it gets into my animal pens. (AND for the record: My pens are as predator proof as I can make them. I have had the conservation department come out and inspect them and make recommendations on what I can do to stop the predation. I have been told trapping and killing is about my last resort.)
I teach hunter education class. We do not teach anyone to shoot things they are not going to eat. Targets are the exception.
As far as the land clearing... Well, it is their land and the government has a bad habit of coming in and telling you what you are going to do with it. They do not reimburse you for your expenses either.
I have a drainage creek that runs through my property which is eroding. I want to put a large drainage pipe in the ditch, which will not obstruct the flow, then fill in around it so I can stop the erosion and use it to cross over to the other side of my property. I need an engineering survey ($15,000.00), a permit from three different agencies (Approx $3,000.00) and then I can begin to buy the materials I need (Culvert, fill material and rental equipment). If you have that kind of money you can just throw away, toss it my direction.
Look what the spotted owl did to the lumber industry back in the 1980s...
I am not familiar with the 14 year old that shot the pigeon, but I do wonder if he knew it was the last one. 
anyway... that's my opinion and I am sticking to it.


----------



## conditionfreak

I also stand by my opinions. Mine are based on my life experiences. I was a cop in the ghetto's and know about what I am speaking of when it comes to that part.

I also have known what I call "strokers'. Those that are infatuated with guns. They love to hold them and reach out and touch something with them (shoot). They just want to shoot. Whether it be a stray cat or a tin can. They can call it target practice all they want, but what the heck are they practicing for? Iraq?

I have a brother-in-law that is a huge deer hunter and he and I have argued about this same subject. He also claims that he hunts just to feed his family. Hogwash I say. If that is the reason why, how come he has over two dozen deer heads mounted on the walls of his den? Trophys, that's why.

If you are a hunter, how many times have you shot a deer or whatever, and never found it? It goes to ground and dies a slow death, and you have to go shoot another to "feed your family".

A different brother in law of mine was playing poker at my home last year and he related how he shot three deer earlier that day, on his property, and found none of them He said he knows that he hit them, because his shot knocked them over each time, and he found blood. But he couldn't find the deer. He finally got one and found it, so he was happy. Others have related similar things. Deer running away with arrows sticking in them, never to be found. So you shoot another and another.

I go to the local gas station/store near my house and one wall is plastered with pics of people from the town, posing with their "kills". White tail deer. Some the them have very huge antlers (which do not feed the family unless you eat antlers), yet the hunters always try and get the biggest rack they can. For a trophy and bragging rights. They don't brag about the weight of the deer, just the rack. Some of the pics are of ten year olds and their prize kill. Are the ten year olds feeding their families also. Can't daddy and mommy provide for them, through their regular jobs?

You can make all of the excuses you want about hunting, but in this day and age, it ain't necessary to feed the family through hunting. It is a choice. I do paint with a broad brush. I can not say Tom, Dick and Harry are okay hunting, but those other 42 million people are not. Tom and them may indeed be exceptions, but do I have to name them to make sure I am not painting with a broad brush? There are of course good and decent hunters, but not so much anymore. Even you recognize there are some idiots and you are defending the hunting "hobby".

I hater hunters. I hate guns. Both are sometimes a necessary evil, but not necessary too often in my opinion. Most people don't even like deer meat, but will tell you that if prepared right, it is good.

After you spend money on equipment, permits, travel, time wasted looking for or waiting on deer to get in your sights, chancing accidents (you teach hunting so I am sure you know the stats on hunting accidents), paying for the deer to be processed, etc. If you got a part time job working the same number of hours you put into hunting, you could feed your family very well, even at minimum wage. People hunt for the most part, because they like it. How much are you saving versus buying your meat at the store?

None.

There. Those are my opinions and I am sticking with them, no matter what. How come people that are not hunters, are not starving?


----------



## UncleBuck

And that is what makes this country great. I choose to process my own meat, for reasons which are important to me. I never said I had to hunt to feed my family, I choose to hunt.
Hope you all are having a wonderful day.


----------



## bluebirdsnfur

I'm with Conditionfreak. I hate hunting!  We moved here four years ago on an acre and a half. Farmland. There is another 7 acres behnd us (farmed) and then a 35 acre heavily wooded wildlife habitat on the edge of the 7 acres. I was ecstatic to see deer, coyote, and wild turkey!
In the last couple of years, 3 deer stands have been put up on the edge of the woods. During hunting season, without binoculars, I can see orange up in the trees. That's fair chase!???? As soon as the deer leave that habitat . . . 
For two last years I have seen no coyote or turkeys. Hunters want to kill all of 'em.

I keep a close watch on the woods during hunting season with my binoculars as I know the gal that owns the 35 acre habitat. A month ago, last day of hunting, a very foggy morning, I notice a truck in back by the woods. An unfamiliar looking truck. I grab binoculrs and see two guys go into the woods where there's no hunting (it's a wildlife habitat). I call this gal, she calls DNR and within 10 minutes two DNR vehicles go flyn back there. They caught the guys coming out of the woods and spent 2 hours back there with them. Took a lot of pictures. I'm sure you all know what they were doing . . . yep . . . bating! 
DNR confiscated all hunting gear (bows) and a deer carcus dragged to the edge of the woods. There may have been more back in the woods as DNR walked way back in there and came out with more orange bows.
So yeah . . . I think those deer suffered a long slow painful death. I believe it's a control and power thing. I never met a hunter who wasn't a control freak and that includes my son-in-law who hunts. 
I just cant stand teaching children to kill (my grandson is 11) . . . when there is already so much brutality in the world as it is.

Sorry for the long post..


----------



## Guest

I for one believe it is not for anyone else to judge on how another choses to live their lives ,hunting is as natural today as it was when the native americans ruled the country without the white mans influence.. how can you judge someone on something as natural as hunting or farming for that matter when its what kept the people of america alive today ??  you wouldnt want anyone else to tell you how to live your life and judge you on your choices of your existance would you, so why dont you give everyone else the same the benifit of the doubt and freedom of choice that you so choose yourself .. we can only account for ourselves in this lifetime , the rest is out of our hands so to speak


----------



## conditionfreak

Well, I don't want to get into a fight, but we all actually participate in telling everyone how to live their lives, constantly. Don't you nag you spouse about this or that? Doesn't the government require you to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle? Isn't it a requirement to get a license to get married? Can you marry your cousin? Can you build on your personally owned property without getting permission? If there is a certain rare toad or whatever, living on your property, can you kill and eat it? Can a thirty year old man sleep with your 17 year old daughter if she says yes, without getting into trouble?

Life is full of being told what you can and can not do. If you believe in the stories of the Bible, the first day, the first thing. God told Adam and Eve what they could and could not do. It hasn't changed since that first day of mankind.

No one in this day and age need hunt for food. Period.

However, i do understand that some living things will starve if let just multiply without being culled. However, what I object to is not the killing for that reason nor even so much the killing for food. I object to the killing for fun and trophy.

Like hunters have the right to hunt (in certain areas, at certain times of the year, with permits). I have the right to not like it. To hate it and to speak out about it.

Yea, what a great country.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Lin Hansen said:


> If that saying is true, then all I can say is that some of the townspeople in BOILING SPRING LAKES, N.C fit the bill, in my opinion. (Sorry in advance to any of our N.C. members) But, see if you don't agree......
> 
> 
> *Rare Woodpecker Sends a Town Running for Its Chain Saws *
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Published: September 24, 2006
> BOILING SPRING LAKES, N.C., Sept. 23 (AP) — Over the past six months, landowners here have been clear-cutting thousands of trees to keep them from becoming homes for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.
> 
> The chain saws started in February, when the federal Fish and Wildlife Service put Boiling Spring Lakes on notice that rapid development threatened to squeeze out the woodpecker.
> 
> The agency issued a map marking 15 active woodpecker “clusters,” and announced it was working on a new one that could potentially designate whole neighborhoods of this town in southeastern North Carolina as protected habitat, subject to more-stringent building restrictions.
> 
> Hoping to beat the mapmakers, landowners swarmed City Hall to apply for lot-clearing permits. Treeless land, after all, would not need to be set aside for woodpeckers. Since February, the city has issued 368 logging permits, a vast majority without accompanying building permits.
> 
> The results can be seen all over town. Along the roadsides, scattered brown bark is all that is left of pine stands. Mayor Joan Kinney has watched with dismay as waterfront lots across from her home on Big Lake have been stripped down to sandy wasteland.
> 
> “It’s ruined the beauty of our city,” Ms. Kinney said. To stop the rash of cutting, city commissioners have proposed a one-year moratorium on lot-clearing permits.
> 
> The red-cockaded woodpecker was once abundant in the vast longleaf pine forests that stretched from New Jersey to Florida, but now numbers as few as 15,000. The bird is unusual among North American woodpeckers because it nests exclusively in living trees.
> 
> In a quirk of history, human activity has made this town of about 4,100 almost irresistible to the bird.
> 
> Long before there was a town, locals carved V-shaped notches in the pines, collecting the sap in buckets to make turpentine. These wounds allowed fungus to infiltrate the tree’s core, making it easier for the woodpecker to excavate its nest hole and probe for the beetles, spiders and wood-boring insects it prefers.
> 
> “And, voilà! You have a perfect woodpecker habitat,” said Dan Bell, project director for the Nature Conservancy in nearby Wilmington.
> 
> The woodpecker gouges a series of holes around the tree, creating “sap runs” to discourage the egg-gobbling black snake, the bird’s chief enemy. Because it can take up to six years to excavate a single nest hole, the birds fiercely defend their territory, said Susan Miller, a biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service. “They’re passed from generation to generation, because it’s such a major investment in time to create one cavity,” Ms. Miller said.
> 
> Like the woodpeckers, humans are also looking to defend their nest eggs.
> 
> Bonner Stiller has been holding on to two wooded half-acre lakefront lots for 23 years. He stripped both lots of longleaf pines before the government could issue its new map.
> 
> “They have finally developed a value,” said Mr. Stiller, a Republican member of the state General Assembly. “And then to have that taken away from you?”
> 
> Landowners have overreacted, says Pete Benjamin, supervisor of the federal agency’s Raleigh office.
> 
> Having a woodpecker tree on a piece of property does not necessarily mean a house cannot be built there, Mr. Benjamin said. A landowner can even get permission to cut down a cavity tree, as long as an alternative habitat can be found.
> 
> “For the most part, we’ve found ways to work with most folks,” he said.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/us/24woodpecker.html
> 
> Linda


 Just stopping in to view all the various posts, funny how such a thread can go in so many different directions, hunting, guns etc. I'm in the tree trimming, removal business...so in this particular case, I would be the one removing all of the trees from the property. I could agree or disagree with what goverment regulations do....I try to remain neutral...but with such regulations, I would recommend to the property owner to remove all trees from the property. I would suggest that those who disagree, should purchase the property, tear the home down, and let it go back to a natural state. Most who disagree, don't really stand to lose anything. Most such people want to require other people to take the loss. 

Anyway, if anyone finds themselves in such a situation in my state of Pa., just drop me a line, and we will be over there to remove any and all trees as fast as we can !


----------



## Grimaldy

Actually the point of the original posting was that somehow people never change.

Clay Pressworth, the kid who shot the last passenger pigeon in America was really acting out of American tradition, which is basically to destroy rather than build. Consider the herds of Buffalo that roamed the plains by the millions. People came from out East to shoot them, only because they were there. Consider the original inhabitants, the American Indian, who helped the original settlers to settle and learn about the American wilderness, an occasion we still celebrate on Thanksgiving Day. We killed them simply because they were in the way of land ownership and the opportunity to make money. And so the list goes on and on.

Today we blame the little spotted owl for "what he did to the lumber industry", but who was there first. The lumber industry? I don't think so. Now people in rural South Carolina want to make certain their investment in land is not curtailed in any way, although that does not seem to be the possibility at all. South Carolina issues permits for clearing land; it seems to be local petty corruption if the local officials issue 368 permits to applicants, deny the others, and bleat in public about how the landscape has changed. What did they expect? Why did they think the permit regulations were there, to favor the first 368 to apply? But it is all the fault of the woodpecker, I see. Just like the Indian, the buffalo and the passenger pigeon. As a nation we are just doomed to never grow up while there is the opportunity to make a God Almighty dollar. People will line up to do the killing, the cutting, the clearing and whatever it takes.

As conditionfreak put it so well, 'What a great country"!


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Grimaldy said:


> As conditionfreak put it so well, 'What a great country"!



You do of course have the option of moving to Cuba or North Korea....your post certainly has gone off course, and now you are becoming very political. 

You certainly have offended me for what it is worth. As a Moderator, I must try to bite my tongue, and try to set an example. But, your comments in my opinion, go over the line, and perhaps they belong on another site. 

I just happen to work for those dollars you speak of, they feed my family. It seems to be trendy to speak of how terrible it is to work for dollars. And also trendy to bash my relatives who settled this land and formed a Nation. The Nation which has done more to advance freedom and liberty then any Nation on earth. And the most generous of all Nations when it comes to providing aid for poverty, and ending disease and hunger. 

And if it's any consolation, we have replaced the passenger pigeon with the rock dove, which now numbers in the millions, which was not native to this land. And we spend more of those "evil" dollars on wild life conservation then any Nation on earth. So while you have enjoyed all the fruits of this country, what have you personally done to preserve and protect this piece of real estate in the world, and all of it's creatures ? 

Besides bashing this country, and it's people, what contributions have you made ? I don't want a response, what I want is a little more attention paid to the rules of this site. My family has paid the ultimate price in terms of blood, and we have the tomb stones to prove it. It is not perfect, but if there is a more perfect country in the world, then please move to it. I apologize to all our readers for having gotten emotional and political myself. This is an International community, and as long as I fill the role of Moderator, I will not allow any political speech or Nation bashing, mine or any others. 

I also happen to like humans, they to are not perfect, but I happen to be married to one, and I happen to be related to a lot of them, and most of them I love, regardless of their imperfections.


----------



## Lovebirds

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> You do of course have the option of moving to Cuba or North Korea....your post certainly has gone off course, and now you are becoming very political.
> 
> You certainly have offended me for what it is worth. As a Moderator, I must try to bite my tongue, and try to set an example. But, your comments in my opinion, go over the line, and perhaps they belong on another site.
> 
> I just happen to work for those dollars you speak of, they feed my family. It seems to be trendy to speak of how terrible it is to work for dollars. And also trendy to bash my relatives who settled this land and formed a Nation. The Nation which has done more to advance freedom and liberty then any Nation on earth. And the most generous of all Nations when it comes to providing aid for poverty, and ending disease and hunger.
> 
> And if it's any consolation, we have replaced the passenger pigeon with the rock dove, which now numbers in the millions, which was not native to this land. And we spend more of those "evil" dollars on wild life conservation then any Nation on earth. So while you have enjoyed all the fruits of this country, what have you personally done to preserve and protect this piece of real estate in the world, and all of it's creatures ?
> 
> Besides bashing this country, and it's people, what contributions have you made ? I don't want a response, what I want is a little more attention paid to the rules of this site. My family has paid the ultimate price in terms of blood, and we have the tomb stones to prove it. It is not perfect, but if there is a more perfect country in the world, then please move to it. I apologize to all our readers for having gotten emotional and political myself. This is an International community, and as long as I fill the role of Moderator, I will not allow any political speech or Nation bashing, mine or any others.
> 
> I also happen to like humans, they to are not perfect, but I happen to be married to one, and I happen to be related to a lot of them, and most of them I love, regardless of their imperfections.



Amen!!!!


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> The PM said, well Warren, there you go again.....digging up some old thread you decided you just had to go stick your nose in and stir up trouble !!.....
> 
> Actually, I wasn't thinking so much of the poor wood pecker who needs a tree to nest in, I was thinking of a recent situation in York County Pa. A family farm in this county which has been in the family for generations, is known by just about everybody around here. It may be one of the most beautiful horse farm in the state. From their vantage point, a person can overlook major portions of the county, the neighboring county and the river which seperates the two. Believe me, the views are breath taking....and that is the problem.
> 
> A couple of County Commissioners felt it was so beautiful.....so pretty...so much a gift of God, that it must be "Preserved". So...the county condemed the property so they could turn it into a park !!  It has now gone through every level of the courts...and the family has lost, and the so called "Preservationalists" have won. The family traced their ownership back to the 1700's, and their lawyer explained they would be willing to never develope it, by placing it into a family prservation land trust, but to no avail. Then the lawyer debated that these hundreds of acres could be sold off as building lots and would be valued at 32,500,000 to developers...sorry charlie....the county stole this land, this family farm, and gave them a pittance.
> 
> People actually wrote letters to the editor of the local newspaper, and called the family "Greedy"......for fighting the ideal that this beauty should be preserved for the community !
> 
> I know I am sure sad that the county will now send in bull dozers to knock down trees and the like, so that roads and parking areas can be built, so that this beauty can be preserved for the public ! I am just so happy, that I have goverment here that looks after the interests of us all, even if they do have to crush a family now and then..... I just wonder, how the wildlife will fare, now that all these people will be driving cars and building picnic areas, walk ways, dog areas, swing sets, etc. in order to turn this farm into a preserved space for people to get away to, walk their dog, jog, ride a bike, listen to a rock concert etc. I know this situation is a little different then trees being cut down in order to avoid having the property condemed by a goverment agent so that wood pecker's could have a nesting spot. But the concept of goverment action destroying families and property rights, in order to protect or preserve something is not new. It's just hard for me to throw rocks at the families who were trying to protect their property. You will have to forgive me, I sometimes slip up in my role as an animal protector, by sometimes having empathy for the human, even if he is not perfect.


I guess I should update this. Our local court awarded $17,000,000 to the family. A jury of our peers found that the County acted improperly in trying to steal their land. Plus, there was a million or so for legal fees. The down side is every tax payer in York County will be paying for this award over the next 20 years, because the County had to sell bonds to pay the award. Ah yes, private property.....there still is justice in the world. Now, it can remain a farm instead of a park with paved roads and swing sets. I bet the local birds love that !


----------



## LUCKYT

Warren! you are a great at oration! Well said, well put. This is a topic that each side seems to be OVER the edge on in our society. 
I used to hunt a lot when i was younger, but no place around here left.
I cannot see either sides stance on this. been both places. 
Hunting is responsible for the restocking of the wild turkey, as well as many other types of game animals. 

Again i see both sides of the argument, AND neither side will ever be civil about it. Dave


----------



## Grimaldy

Being a moderator does not entitle you to take out your soap box and give political lectures, does it? Or does your idea of being a moderator consist in peddling your own funny brand of politics in the name of moderation?

Unless you happen to have an honorable discharge from the armed forces of the United States you have nothing to tell me about contributions to my country. But since you ask there have been a number of us who have fought in foreign lands for the right to criticize our government, and some of us didn't come back while the moderators stayed at home giving lectures about how offended they were. Best you stick to pigeons and not politics.


----------



## UncleBuck

I am glad to hear the family in York County, PA was properly compensated for the problems they had. Imagine the wildlife that is roaming the woods there!
Retired 24 years active duty United States Air Force.
Permanently Disabled American Veteran
Served nine long tours overseas (Longer than one year)
Served 23 short tours oversea (Shorter than one year)
Chose to retire in the United States, because I believe i is the most beautiful country in the world.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Grimaldy said:


> Being a moderator does not entitle you to take out your soap box and give political lectures, does it? Or does your idea of being a moderator consist in peddling your own funny brand of politics in the name of moderation?
> 
> *Unless you happen to have an honorable discharge from the armed forces of the United States you have nothing to tell me about contributions to my country.* But since you ask there have been a number of us who have fought in foreign lands for the right to criticize our government, and some of us didn't come back while the moderators stayed at home giving lectures about how offended they were. Best you stick to pigeons and not politics.



Grimaldy, 

I think we both should stick to pigeons, I am sorry for getting up on a soap box. But, for the record, I was not questioning what you "have done for the country", but what you have done to preserve the land and the wildlife, and not with the intention of being accusatory. I simply feel that being a positive part of the solution, is more productive then jumping on the band wagon of blaming others for past mistakes.

I do offer my apologies for becoming a bit defensive. I am a Viet Nam Era veteran. The Lord saw fit to see me return home, a brother and an Uncle were not so fortunate. I do not apologize for loving this country, but not the goverment, and so you can criticize this government to your heart's content, as I do often, but this site is really not the place. And as you said, I do have a very funny brand of poltics.  

Everyone please have a nice day. And everyone please be happy 




This is not what I look like today, this picture is what I looked like 37 years and 154 pounds ago !


----------



## spirit wings

Lovebirds said:


> Amen!!!!


second that.....wow.


----------



## Grimaldy

No harm done GI,

That looks like Saigon in the background. It was a long time ago.

I too could have used less provocative writing I am sure. But for the record America has been very good to me in many ways; it has given me an education and a profession, which are some things that can never be taken away from me, as well as a family and a good living. It is unique among the countries of the world in that it offers unlimited opportunity to do good, to lead, to set an example for the rest of the world, which unfortunately is no stronger than its present political leadership.

While it is our right, and indeed in some cases our duty, to disagree about our country's policies, we are as President John Kennedy reminded, all in the same boat together. And so if I have written intemperate words that have offended you, it is I who owe the apology, for offense attacks the messenger and does not address the message.

And having said that if anybody wants to discuss the economic aspects of ecology and wildlife management, let him or her step up.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Grimaldy said:


> No harm done GI,
> 
> That looks like Saigon in the background. It was a long time ago.
> 
> I too could have used less provocative writing I am sure. But for the record America has been very good to me in many ways; it has given me an education and a profession, which are some things that can never be taken away from me, as well as a family and a good living. It is unique among the countries of the world in that it offers unlimited opportunity to do good, to lead, to set an example for the rest of the world, which unfortunately is no stronger than its present political leadership.
> 
> While it is our right, and indeed in some cases our duty, to disagree about our country's policies, we are as President John Kennedy reminded, all in the same boat together. And so if I have written intemperate words that have offended you, it is I who owe the apology, for offense attacks the messenger and does not address the message.
> 
> And having said that if anybody wants to discuss the economic aspects of ecology and wildlife management, let him or her step up.


Thank you for your kind words....


----------



## conditionfreak

When I joined the Marines both times, I took an oath to defend this country, right or wrong. When I joined the Navy, I tool the same oath.

Even now at age 55, I tear up when hearing the National Anthem. I root for the American in the Olympics no matter if he or she is black, white, yellow or red. I stopped recently at a house a few miles from mine and got into an argument with the occupants because they were flying the American Flag on a pole in their front yard. The flag was upside down. I assumed they just did it accidently. But no, they were haters of their own country.

I do not like hunting. This is America and I am allowed to not like it. I understand the motivation of those that do and I also am familiar with how important hunting was in the formation of this country and indeed, the entire human race.

I wish no harm to any hunters. I also wish no harm to any white tail deer, doves or turkey. A favorite pastime around here is coyote hunting, because they are considered a pest and you can hunt them year round, without any permits required.

Funny thing is. I have lived here for five years and have yet to see one, and I am looking hard.

How pesky can they be.

Anyway. Ya'll have a nice day. Even you dang nab it hunters. Hope you completely miss each and every shot


----------



## Grimaldy

The Chicago Tribune ran a great little cartoon in the comic section last Sunday which showed a tiny wooded park in the middle of skyscrapers, crowded highways, factories and power plants pouring smoke and dirt into the air and river and the park is crowded with hunters with shotguns peaking out of the bushes. In the foreground in the park are a couple of deer and one deer says to the other: "Wait, let me get this straight. It is our herd that needs thinning?".

The great unresolved conflict in wild game management is the confinement of game to designated areas. People might like the idea of seeing wolves and coyotes and mountain lion in a national park, but when a coyote takes the family pet dog or cat out of the back yard, or a mountain lion decides to take a taste of a jogger, then they become "pests". And lets face it, most people do not like the idea of living on or near a wilderness area where you had better keep your eyes open and a rifle nearby.

By the way, disagreement with the political policies or leadership of our country does not mean people "hate" their country.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Some very good points....for whatever reason, winners and losers in the animal world have been chosen. Take birds just as one example, certain birds are chosen as "Winners" and laws are passed to protect them, and other birds are "managed", which means we only try to kill so many at a time, ...while others have no protection at all, in fact governments in the form of cities and the like, actively try to kill them off in some cases. 

Same of course can be said about all the various mammals in the world. In theory, every animal plays a part in terms of the "Balance of Nature". Yet how much money is spent every day, around the world, trying to make rats and mice extinct ? But, if they were all gone off the face of the planet by the end of this weekend, how many other birds and animals that rely on them as a food source would then perish in the days and weeks that follow ? And then those that perish, what impact will that have on a whole bunch more ? 

Your last comment is very valid also. Much like one's own family, there are debates and disagreements all the time. Sometimes we even "hate" the actions of a relative.....but if you are a wise person, you are careful when talking to a Mother about her son or daughter. She may complain to her husband about her kids, but let a neighbor or co-worker say something about her kids, and you might just have WWIII !  

I married a ready made family, complete with still at home children at the time, and adult married children. I am now happy to be a "Pappy" to grand children and great grandchildren !  I learned very early, that I must choose my words very carefully, when I "complain" about the actions of "our" children. My wife can complain to me, but it's dangerous ground when I complain to her....emotions are involved. As the old saying use to go, "Blood is thicker then water"....and that applies to family units, and larger extended families, and often is transferred up the line to one's local community, school, town, county, state and at some point Nation. If I mess up..my wife might call me some french sounding name......but nobody else better call me such a name in her presence, or she will tear you up !  

So, yes I agree with you, you can belong to the same tribe or nation, and pledge your allegiance to her and the flag, and still disagree much like any family which from time to time disagrees on something. The great thing about my tribe, is you can disagree without losing your head, or ending up in a "Re-education center or work camp". And that is not the case in every tribe on this planet. We have employees who we hire to run the place, and every so many years, we fire some and hire others. It's what we have done for over two hundred years, and so far, I think it's worked out pretty well.


----------



## Grimaldy

Actually federal management of wildlife has its history in something like the history of the passenger pigeon. At the time of the enactment of the migratory bird laws and the game regulations, the commercial meat production industry had been pretty well developed, but commercial refrigeration was still a problem. The result was that cattle and pigs could be transported hundreds of miles to slaughter houses, butchered and sold for immediate distribution. While that provided the large cities with railroads plenty of protein for human consumption, there were no interstate highways and truck transport to speak of, so small towns were left to their own devices to acquire sufficient supplies for their own use. One of the sources readily available was wild game. Suppliers were people who went out and hunted and killed tons of game every week, largely for profit. It was clear to the Congress if that continued, there would soon be no wild game. More than anything the fish and game laws were enacted as a form of defense preparation. If the country were invaded, a food supply for the citizens would still be at hand.

Of course, left unmolested, wild game does what it needs to do, reproduce.
Enter the hunters and the introduction of predatory species to assist in "management".

The problem with political science is that it is not taught in schools until the college level and even then in rudimentary form. Democracy as a form of government requires constant discussion and consideration of policy, simply because the problems facing the governed constantly change. As Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, the test of a good idea is its ability to sell itself in the market place of discussion. Since many people have difficulty understanding the political process, they are content to let "others" do it with the result that the "others" frequently operate for their own profit and not that of the nation. Slogans like "national security" and "terrorism" also give the scoundrels cover. But freedom does not come for free, and it takes much more than a willingness to silence the critics to keep it.


----------



## UncleBuck

conditionfreak said:


> ... Anyway. Ya'll have a nice day. Even you dang nab it hunters. Hope you completely miss each and every shot


 My friend used to say something like this "... I hope your sights are off and your barrel is bent, your scope cracked and your powder is wet. Most of all I hope you catch a cold!"

Like a lot of people, I love this country, but disagree with a lot of the political going-ons' with our elected officials. I vote to get most of them out of office.
Hope everyone is having a great day.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Grimaldy said:


> .......The problem with political science is that it is not taught in schools until the college level and even then in rudimentary form. Democracy as a form of government requires constant discussion and consideration of policy, simply because the problems facing the governed constantly change. As Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, the test of a good idea is its ability to sell itself in the market place of discussion. Since many people have difficulty understanding the political process, they are content to let "others" do it with the result that the "others" frequently operate for their own profit and not that of the nation. Slogans like "national security" and "terrorism" also give the scoundrels cover. But freedom does not come for free, and it takes much more than a willingness to silence the critics to keep it.



Well, and the other problem is, there are so very few democracy's in the world. I for instance, do not live in a democracy, my country is a Republic. At any rate, when my country was founded, simply learning to read or write was a major accomplishment. Perhaps are most beloved leader was Abe Lincoln who attended very little formal schooling, and was mainly home schooled or self taught. So perhaps instead of a bunch of political science majors, what we could really use is more people with some plain common sense. Problem is, once they graduate from some of these esteemed institutions of higher learning, they usually lose most of what little common sense they had in the first place.

And when you speak of "slogans", such as "national security" and "terrorism", depending on where you live in the world, those things will mean different things. And for people and places where it is dangerous just to leave your home, for fear of your life, it may not be a "slogan" at all. Did you see the recent article in the Racing Pigeon Newsletter about the pigeon fancier in Iraq ?



ZUBAYR, IRAQ -- Nothing is too good for Thair abu Yousif's loved ones. He buys ice each day to cool their water. He has built a special house for them, with a guard outside. Some nights he lies awake, wondering how to find them perfect mates. 

That the objects of his adoration are pigeons does not strike Abu Yousif as odd. In fact, he is one of the most respected bird breeders in Iraq, his passion rekindled after years of violence that made lingering on rooftops an invitation to be shot by a sniper. 

"This hobby is in my blood," says Abu Yousif, who wears a traditional white dishdasha robe and black-and-white headdress, as he tends to his birds in his hometown of Zubayr, outside Basra in southern Iraq. He rarely travels, worried that he will not be there should any of his more than 100 birds fall ill. A well-tended bird can live 25 to 30 years, he says, and only he can provide the care they need; he even vaccinates them himself. 

Abu Yousif, who has a real estate business on the side, has turned down immense sums of money to hang on to his best pigeons. 

Recently, a wealthy breeder in a gulf country offered $4,000 for one of his favorites, a female roller pigeon, so called because of her ability to perform somersaults in the sky. "I didn't sell it. I won't, even if they pay me $10,000, because I love it," Abu Yousif says. 

Bird breeding has long been popular in Iraq, particularly in the south, where the marshes offer an ideal environment for many varieties. Pigeon breeding gained popularity after the British invasion in the early 1900s, which brought in people from India, Iran and other countries in which the hobby was popular. But it has been a difficult passion to pursue in recent years. 

Under Saddam Hussein, the country's closed borders made it a challenge for breeders to do business with those elsewhere. International sanctions and wars hurt the economy and hampered bird lovers' efforts to support their hobbies and their families. A bird with a sterling pedigree costs as much as $1,000 straight from the egg. 

In recent years, the spread of Shiite Muslim militia activity in southern cities such as Basra and Zubayr hindered hobbyists.* Not only did breeders risk getting shot *while on the roof with their birds, they were also accused by some religious extremists of using their high perches to stare into neighbors' windows. 
But militia activity has been largely quelled, and Abu Yousif and his friends feel safe once more. 

Carrier and ornamental pigeons also are popular here. Carrier pigeons once transported messages during wartime. Now, they are bred for competitions: Breeders race them over long distances and bet on which will win. Ornamental pigeons are kept as pets. 

Roller pigeons, Abu Yousif's specialty, are the most popular and the most expensive to acquire and keep. They require special diets to stay strong and healthy but light enough to fly gracefully. 

"Like a runner, he must keep himself thin," says Abu Yousif, who gives adult birds a mixture of wheat, barley and corn. Young birds get more lentils and ground chickpeas in their food. 

In the air, the rollers swoop and flip somersaults, their white, silver, blue and gray feathers catching the light. Luxuriant tails, made up of 12 to 18 feathers, add to the visual delight. 

"I forget everything around me when I watch such birds," says Murtada Mahal Mohammed, a pigeon breeder. 

"When the birds fly, everyone's eyes are on them," Abu Yousif says. "According to our custom, nobody talks at all. Nobody answers their phone calls." 

That's remarkable in a country where most people seem to have cellphones glued to their ears. 

Priming such creatures is not easy. Roller pigeons can perform their aerobatics only when the wind is strong, about 25 mph to 30 mph. Their education begins when they are chicks, under gentle wind conditions of about 5 mph. Each year, the pigeons are subjected to stronger winds until they are deemed ready for breeding or selling. 

During the winter, Iraq's roller pigeon specialists gather in the south for a competition. Dozens of breeders have their birds fly for a few minutes before a group of judges. Just as Olympic judges rate gymnasts for style, form and the difficulty of their maneuvers, the pigeon panel rates the competitors. A bird that fails to complete a certain number of somersaults or gets blown off course by the wind loses points. One that can fly in a straight line back and forth, without gaining or losing altitude, scores highly. 

Breeders use a combination of whistles and the banging of sticks against iron sheets to steer their charges. This can make the mentors unpopular with neighbors. Abu Yousif had to sell one talented bird for only $300 because neighbors complained about the ruckus when people gathered on his roof to watch it perform. 

Once, bird breeders were looked down upon by other Iraqis, who eyed them with suspicion for their obsession with feathered creatures and their habit of staring skyward. 

Nabeel Merhad Zerhan, a breeder, insists that testimony by bird lovers generally is discounted in court because Iraqis believe them incapable of noticing anything except their birds. But as more shops dedicated to birds open and as cross-border trade and prices increase, the bird lovers' image is improving. So is their outlook. 

"When the militias were controlling things, we were not working freely," Abu Yousif says as he watches his pigeons fly. *"Now, we enjoy freedom*."

In our country at the moment, we have the luxury of debating the fate of a wood pecker, or a snail darter. And to debate the use of lands and how that might affect the animals which live there. For some of our readers, and for some pigeon fanciers around the world, they have much more pressing issues they must contend with. Like can they go outside their home without getting shot, or can they keep the roof over their heads, or feed thmselves and their birds and/or animals this week ? So while some things may change, some challenges have remained the same, for a very...very long time.


----------



## LUCKYT

WOW! I am so lost1 LOL! Dave


----------



## LUCKYT

So we get in trouble for messing with squirrels but not this? LOL! Dave


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

LUCKYT said:


> So we get in trouble for messing with squirrels but not this? LOL! Dave


You may be sooooo right...this thread as gone so far off topic...in so many directions, I just should have kept my fingers off the keys....I always end up shooting myself in the foot...and then I put the foot into my mouth....


----------



## LUCKYT

Warren? You too! lol! I know were you are coming from. Dave


----------



## Grimaldy

> "For some of our readers, and for some pigeon fanciers around the world, they have much more pressing issues they must contend with. Like can they go outside their home without getting shot, or can they keep the roof over their heads, or feed thmselves and their birds and/or animals this week ? So while some things may change, some challenges have remained the same, for a very...very long time.


Sounds like South Chicago or East Philadelphia.


----------



## conditionfreak

You know. That article puts in perspective many things that we Americans (I especially) take for granted.

I worry about hawks taking my birds. Others worry about the government taking their birds. Or being shot while taking care of their birds. Or having their home and lofts bombed intentionally or accidentally. Or being outright shunned or banned from society.

Funniest part of the article is where the courts tended to not take serious the testimony of pigeon keepers, because they are always watching their birds in the sky.

That is hilarious. Maybe in America we should not take serious the testomony of those who watch TV, especially American Idol.


----------



## Jay3

Yes they did over react, but as Warren stated, they were just trying to protect their investment. They have land, that they held on to, hoping that someday they could make a profit on it. Then to fear that they would be stuck with land, land on which they would be taxed, but couldn't build on, or sell for that purpose..........................
Some of these people may have counted on that profit to retire on. It may be all they had. I have elderly patients who have done just that. They bought land 60 years ago, and now that they are retired and on a fixed income, they live by selling off that land. That is their future. I can't imagine living all those years, planning on getting by from the sale of their own peoperty, and then being told that they can't sell or build because it is protected. Maybe they DO work with some, and maybe they can SOMETIMES work around it. But would you want to wait and find out if that were the case with your parcel of land? Kinda crazy, but if you really want to try to understand it............
I would love to have an endangered species nesting on my property. But not if it meant losing the right to use my land as I had wanted. And as I had planned for decades. Who reading this really wouldn't mind having them tell you what you can and can't do with the land that you have owned for many years, and pay taxes on? And how would you even sell that land, to get out of having to pay taxes on useless land? Who do you think would buy it, knowing that they cannot do anything with it. I don't know. I can see both sides. Too bad it had to come to that though. Sad.


----------



## Grimaldy

Actually it has nothing at all to do with taking people's land away from them because there is an endangered species of wildlife living there. The article clearly says that it would only result in "tighter" building restrictions, whatever that might mean, but lets face it folks if a piece of land has sufficient numbers of trees growing on it to make clear cut harvesting profitable, we are not talking about small lots. And the village gave out 368 permits to clear cut.

What the article does not say is that lumber is sold as a commodity and its price is set by the lumber exchanges. Take a look at the Chicago Board of Trade any day of the week and that will tell you what you get when you sell lumber. What that means is if you suddenly start dumping lumber on the market, you push the price down. The southeastern United States is where a good slice of American lumber production comes from and for the past 10 years or so it has been terrible for the mills. The reason the states require a permit to cut lumber is to try to stabilize the terrible fluctuations that tear at the lumber market. The article wants you to believe that the permits are for scenic and aesthetic reasons- not so. In fact the village issued 368 permits to someone, are we to believe they did not know what the result would be?

The sad thing is that the press always promotes the industry point of view and blames its own problems on wildlife, and when there is no wildlife to blame, on the activists and "tree-huggers". Nobody seems to ask who buys these trees when they are cut down? In fact the same people cut them as buy them and it is not the owner of the land. And when it is a commodity whose price is determined by supply and demand you keep prices up by restricting the supply. 
Those darned woodpeckers! I guess we should be lucky they don't build their nests near gasoline filling stations.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Grimaldy said:


> Actually it has nothing at all to do with taking people's land away from them because there is an endangered species of wildlife living there. The article clearly says that* it would only result in "tighter" building restrictions*, whatever that might mean,* but lets face it folks if a piece of land has sufficient numbers of trees growing on it to make clear cut harvesting profitable,* we are not talking about small lots. And the village gave out 368 permits to clear cut.
> 
> What the article does not say is that* lumber is sold as a commodity and its price is set by the lumber exchanges. *Take a look at the Chicago Board of Trade any day of the week and that will tell you what you get when you sell lumber. What that means is if you suddenly start dumping lumber on the market, you push the price down. The southeastern United States is where a good slice of American lumber production comes from and for the past 10 years or so it has been terrible for the mills. The reason the states require a permit to cut lumber is to try to stabilize the terrible fluctuations that tear at the lumber market. The article wants you to believe that the permits are for scenic and aesthetic reasons- not so. In fact the village issued 368 permits to someone, are we to believe they did not know what the result would be?
> 
> The sad thing is that the press always promotes the industry point of view and blames its own problems on wildlife, and when there is no wildlife to blame, on the activists and "tree-huggers". *Nobody seems to ask who buys these trees when they are cut down? *In fact the same people cut them as buy them and it is not the owner of the land. And when it is a commodity whose price is determined by supply and demand you keep prices up by restricting the supply.
> Those darned woodpeckers! I guess we should be lucky they don't build their nests near gasoline filling stations.


I'm not sure you understand the economics of the situation. I don't think it had anything to do with the feasibility or profitability of clear cutting. You could own a small building lot, which is full of trees, and if you can't cut down the trees at some point in the future, because a wood pecker might live in one of the trees, then the lot which could have been worth $100,000+ as a building lot, is now worth something less then 0. From time to time, my firm will clear cut trees from a lot, and it costs the owner money to remove the trees. Most of the trees end up as mulch or as firewood. Sometimes there may be a log or two which may be worth something, but we give it to a logger who is willing to simply come and get it. 

As a side note...The price of lumber, or gold, or stocks, or pork bellies or any other commodity, is not set by the exchanges .....the prices are determined by buyers and sellers...more buyers then sellers the price goes up.....the opposite is also true, more sellers then buyers, the price goes down, this is what is referred to as "The Market"....the exchanges are simply where these buyers/sellers meet to do business. 

Since most of us live in homes with wood, or eat off a dinner table made of wood, and we write on paper and use items such as toilet paper, or buy newspapers....we all are the ones buying the products made from the trees which are cut down. Try to imagine a world without paper or wood products, I challenge everyone to live in a house and live for awhile without touching, or causing any wood products to be used on your behalf. 

The major problem I had with this article, is that people without any skin in the game, and who use wood products, felt free to condemn those property owners who wanted to be able to preserve their right to build on their property at some point in the future. 

So if the press seems to write stories from the perspective of humans who use wood products, instead of the wood pecker, well to me that would seem quite natural. I mean when was the last time you read a story from the perspective of a Black Angus cow on the way to "market" ? Cows and wood peckers don't buy newspapers.

In conclusion, if any reader really loves the wood peckers, then stop using any wood based products, and go out and buy tracts of land with woods on them, and have it placed into a land trust. Don't just sit comfortably in your wooden chair, hundreds if not thousands of miles away, and insist that a building lot owner who paid money for his lot, should be forced to bear the cost and hardship, because of your new found passion for a wood pecker. If you think it is OK for someone else to take a big $100,000+ hit, then be willing to give up as much your self....and make sure there is no wood in your pigeon loft to !  




.


----------



## Grimaldy

Well side notes first.

Actually the exchanges work on the principle of "the forward markets". That is what is really being traded is an option to buy or sell a contract for delivery of a commodity at some future date. That means if your business or mill wants to be certain about the price of the commodity they need for tables, pigeon lofts or whatever, they can purchase a option to buy or sell the commodity. The traders in the market place on the other hand are only interested in the market fluctuation, it is in the market swings that they make their money and it is their transactions that give the market its necessary liquidity.

I have no doubt there may be small lot owners with undeveloped lots, but as the news article says, building restrictions may tighten, that is not the same thing as forbidding the cutting of any trees at all. Besides if you anticipate that a few hundred nesting woodpeckers live in several thousands of hectacres of forest (BC Canada surveys) it would be difficult to say with a straight face that a 2-5 acre lot is in danger of being taken over by woodpeckers so that no trees can be cut down. If I wanted to convince people that I needed to harvest or clear cut a few thousand acres of forest I would think the easiest thing to do would be to start a story that Joe Blow with his 2 acre lot will not be allowed to cut any trees down and so he won't be able to sell it to the condo developer or supermarket that is coming to town next year, maybe. All because of a harmless little bird whose presence is going to wipe his investment out and drive him to the poor house unless he gets busy with his chain saw. Then talking about a spotted owl that happens to be in the middle of my 50 thousand acre forest is not going to generate any public sympathy.

The funny thing is that when this topic of clear cutting got started on the west coast 20 years or so ago, the studies affirmed that clear cutting worked in favor of the spotted owl. It seemed to be the presence of humans, lots of humans, that created the problem if my memory is correct, not the loss of trees.


----------



## Grimaldy

Hi Jaye,

Actually both you and Warren pose the same idea, whether the rights of an investor to make a profit should be upheld whatever the consequences to the rest of the nation. That is an 18th century economic idea that has long been discredited. Consider a steel mill that pumps thousands of tons, not pounds, of raw chemical and acid into the air in a large city. Multiply those mills by five and the number of cities by 15. Do the rest of the citizens in America have to suffer so the few investors can realize a profit, or should the rest of America be ignored simply because they "have no skin in the game". What about cigarette smoke? Should the right of the investor to sell to whomever and encourage consumption be upheld, even though the health costs have to be paid by the rest of us? Should the company that owns thousands of acres of forest have the right to kill off and drive away wild game simply because it interferes with their need to make a profit. I don't think so!

Consider the current problem facing Scotland a small country north of England trying desperately to achieve independence. Scotland is slightly smaller than the state of Illinois, but all of the land in Scotland is owned by about 300 families. Those families make a lot of money encouraging foreign tourists to visit and shoot game on their property, mostly game birds like grouse and a type of prairie chicken. Recently the Scots began to reintroduce the Eagle a large, majestic, beautiful bird which has been extinct in Scotland for over 100 years. The Eagle however eats game birds. The estate owners have begun a surreptitious campaign of poisoning the Eagles even though it is against the laws of that country, because as they say, we have a right to make money on foreign tourism and the Eagles (even though there are only three left) take "our" gamebirds. If you know the history of Scotland, one of the more shameful pages of its history is what happens when the right of a few investors to make money is upheld over the rights of the other citizens. At least they have learned from history.

Whether you chose to see America as a democracy, republic, commune, or a collection of anarchists, the simple fact is that we all have to live together. If we consider the right of a few to make money by whatever means they can, regardless of the result or effect on the rest of us, that takes us right back to the erly days of the industrial revolution, with 12 hour workdays, child labor, no rights for injured workers, polluted water supplies etc. If we truly believe that conflicts of this kind are resolved by majority vote and rule, then it is the duty of the few, including the small investor, to comply. Or go live somewhere else where a dictator will let you work people to death with no burden on your right to make a profit.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

*"Resistance is futile"*

Actually Grimaldy, 

I think the concept of private property and the rights of the individual, and the resulting conflicts, go back much further then the 18th century, perhaps back to the beginning of time. I can imagine that once upon a time, during a hard cold winner, someone had secured himself a cave, and had stored for himself and his mate and children provisions for the winter. Then along came some humans who had not done so, and for the benefit of themselves, they decided that his provisions should be taken. Then perhaps this played out in larger groups, say a small tribe, and another stronger tribe decided that the smaller tribe's resources should be confiscated. Somewhere in time, various different ideas were experimented with, collectives where there was no such thing as private property, and then again arrangements where there was private property and something in between. Perhaps some day, in the "modern" era, there will be one world government, and we will all serve for the good of the collective. See: BORG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

Perhaps under such an arrangement, there will be no individual rights or ownership, and conflict will be eliminated and thus we will have reached a utopia........ 

One thing for sure, history is full of examples, where conflicts arose because of land and resources. And that has not changed in thousands and perhaps millions of years. In the last thousand years, we know that Kings arose, where they owned everything, and over time, Kings were replaced by governments which own everything. And then we have to this day, governments which covet their neighbors land and resources and again conflict. And now we go full circle back to this thread, which is the conflict between man and animals, which live on the land, and the people who "own" or otherwise control the land and resources. 

At one extreme, we could simply remove all humans, and their machines, homes and factories from all the land ( don't know how this would be possible) and return the planet to what it may have been like thousands or millions of years ago. And when some event, like an asteroid hitting the earth, wipes us off the face of the earth, in as little as a few thousand years, the earth would return in large measure to the way it was. And humans join the ranks of all the other millions of species which are now extinct. 

Until that happens, the human population will continue to grow, and little by little, day by day, more land and forests will be consumed to make room for people. Don't know how long that will take, a hundred years, or a thousand, but I understand there are more people alive today, then had ever walked the face of the earth since the beginning of time. So, how many times will the population have to double before there is not a single extra square foot of land left for any "wild" life ? So, I suspect conflicts with people and wild life, will continue for as long as any of us are alive. 

I have some family members that did do their part in trying to preserve the land. In Lancaster County Pa. there is some of *the richest and fertile farm land in the world*. The big deal around these parts, is not clear cutting, it is taking farm land which has been farmed for hundreds of years, and turning it into hundreds and thousands of those fancy two car garage homes on 1/2 acre lots, and putting in roads etc. Our family member placed his 90 acre farm into the Land Preservation Trust, assuring that it can never be built on. This way the family farm which was in the family for generations, will forever remain green. Truthfully, I'm not sure I would have personally been able to pass up the large seven figure amount that the developers would have paid. And so I personally am not comfortable saying that the majority of us who live on land which was once farmed, or a forest, should now say that some family which now owns a farm, or a lot, should not be able to build on it. And if we do, then that family should not bear all of the cost, simply condemn the property, take it from them, and pay fair market price, like we do for roads and schools. In the mean time, I don't see a long term future for either the wood pecker, or the human species.


----------



## Grimaldy

Actually Warren the notion of private property is a relatively new one in the historical scheme of things, and one that is still not accepted by many cultures in the world today. Among certain Arab tribes for instance, as well as the American Indians (past), Aleuts and Eskimos, certain aboriginals in the Southern hemisphere. If you were a bible scholar you would for instance have noted the underlying message of the Book of Acts, which modern churchmen still avoid at all costs.

There is no question however that you are absolutely right in your observation that the human race is expanding in geometric and exponential progression. The nature of our society here in American demands that the newcomers contribute and take their places, if they wish to enjoy the rewards of modern day living in America, and lets face it, they are many. And so are the penalties for the non-conformists. That is not a reason to despair nor is it a reason to cling to the past. New problems demand new solutions. We, as a nation have a collective conscience that recognizes that concrete streets and cities are fundamentally unhealthy, socially, mentally and medically. In fact we came to that realization back in the middle 1880's when we began setting aside land for national forests and parks, as well as public parks in our largest urban cities. A part of that realization is the fact that a whole stratum of wild life not only survives on that small wilderness, but to a great extent humanity does too. Consider the fact that only in the past 10 years we now realize that rainforest absorbs tons of carbon dioxide, the main green house gas responsible for global warming. It would be tragic indeed to come to these realizations when it is too late, and so we must do something if we are not to poison ourselves and choke in our own waste.

Against that background we now ask the question if Joe Blow should be allowed to make a few dollars displacing some of the wildlife necessary to sustain the ecological balance of our nation, which is already in tatters? You tell me!

(As an aside, I notice your writing style has changed)


----------



## Jay3

Well Grimaldy, guess we just have to agree to disagree. Don't see it as the same thing, but of course, that depends on which side you are on. Then let them pay the land owners what the land would be worth if they were to sell it for a good price, and keep the land a reserve. Not just decide that they cannot do anything with land that is theirs, while they not only continue to pay taxes on the property, but also lose their investment in it.
How many of you people would feel this way if it actually happened to you? Not many. Easy to say you would, when it isn't. Some of these people probably had to sacrafice to pay for the land in the first place. Maybe now, with the way land has gone up in value, they can no longer afford to pay taxes on said land. They need to sell. Who are they going to sell it to? The woodpeckers? Still, I think it sad that it had to get to the point where so many acres were ruined. I still can't help but to put myself in their places. Mind you, even if they were paid fair market value now, they'd still be losing, as the land would have grown in value as time went on.


----------



## Grimaldy

I don't think we disagree Jaye, I think we are apart on the factual details. 

The federal government does compensate people for taking property, even if the taking is only an intrusion which deprives the owner of the use or some of the use of his land. Fifth Amend. US Const. However the science on the density of woodpeckers in the wild is quite well known and studied. Briefly it runs on the order of 100 woodpecker nests to several thousand hectacres of forest. That translates to something on the order of one nest of woodpeckers to well over 100 hectacres of forest. Why a person with a 5-50 acre lot of forest should be remotely concerned escapes me, unless he is simply grasping at straws.

Nobody likes to lose money, but the nature of capitalism is that if you want to make money by investment, you have to be willing to accept a certain degree of risk. The return on the investment is directly related to risk; that is why bank savings accounts pay the lowest return on the money and commodities futures pay the highest. Also you can not talk about risk unless you have losses; that is simply how it works. If you are unwilling to take the risk of losing some or all of your money, you do not invest in speculative adventures. Sadly enough we are now seeing a time when everybody wanted to be an investor, and that investment was related to a highly speculative real estate market. People invested money ignoring the risk, in the hope they would become wealthy. Now the fact of risk has appeared and people who had hoped to be wealthy are losing their homes. They have nobody to blame but themselves, certainly not the woodpeckers, because they ignored the first rule of investment: Do not invest any more money than you can afford to lose. Yes many of those people were people like you describe, retirees, working people with families and debts, but the rules of investment are like the laws of gravity. What goes up must come down, and it usually comes down lot faster than it went up


----------



## Jay3

But Grimaldy, when a person purchases land, and pays for it, and pays taxes on it for years, you rightfully, think of it as yours. Which it is. Buying a piece of land shouldn't be a risk. True, at the time, you can't be positively sure of how much the value of said land will go up. But you do consider it yours. And the government doesn't pay what it is worth. I also don't think that they were offering to buy the land from these folks. Or am I mistaken? This is not the same as investing in the stock market for crying out loud. They bought the land. Their name is on the deed. It's their land! Not the same at all. Buying land isn't normally considered a risk. The value almost has to go up over time, and even if it didn't, it's still your property. Or it should be. Not the same at all. Do you, when you purchase and pay for something, think of it as a risk. Do you invest only what you can afford to lose? Of course not. You're not investing. Your making a purchase to own something.If a purchase a house, should you have to look at it as though it were the stock market. Only invest what you can afford to lose? I don't think most people can afford to just have someone walk away with their house. Many people put most of what they have saved to buy a home. Are you saying that they shouldn't do that unless they can afford to lose it? After paying on it for years, and finally paying it off? If that happened, most would not be able to just buy another one and start making mortgage payments all over again. So, by your standards, they should never have bought to begin with. They should have realized the risks? Who'da thought there would be something out there that would just take it away? They bought and paid for it. They own it! I really don't think that this scenario can be compared to investing. Purchasing land shouldn't have to be done with the thought that someone might just walk in a take it.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

Grimaldy said:


> ....Nobody likes to lose money, but the nature of capitalism is that if you want to make money by investment, you have to be willing to accept a certain degree of risk. The return on the investment is directly related to risk; that is why bank savings accounts pay the lowest return on the money and commodities futures pay the highest. Also you can not talk about risk unless you have losses; that is simply how it works. If you are unwilling to take the risk of losing some or all of your money, you do not invest in speculative adventures. Sadly enough we are now seeing a time when everybody wanted to be an investor, and that investment was related to a highly speculative real estate market. People invested money ignoring the risk, in the hope they would become wealthy.....


Yes, I think I must agree with what you say....and now unfortunately, most "investments", be it land, a home, stocks, bonds, etc. are down. At least in the USA, people are being reintroduced to the concept of "Political Risk". Changes in laws, rules, regulations, taxes, polices and the like, as well as government intervention, etc. as many people have now found out, can have a traumatic negative impact on the value of what you own. With the stroke of a pen, as a farm family in York County recently discovered, "government" can seize what you own, and in this particular local case, for the good of the "Collective"...or...I think the term they used was for "the public good". 

So...."the notion of private property is a relatively new one in the historical scheme of things"...means perhaps at least to some degree, we are moving away from this notion of private property, and are moving towards the concept that anything which can be deemed for "the public good" can be confiscated, taxed, regulated, or otherwise have it's value to the owner affected by government policy. 

So, it should come as no surprise, that in the process to "save" various animals or birds, some people will be asked to "contribute" more to this "public good" then others. And even in those cases where a government entity pays something to an owner, such as a landowner, the government must confiscate funds from other people unequally to pay this one particular owner. 

And from my perspective, government polices are picking winners and losers not only in this age of government bailouts, but they are also picking the winners and losers in terms of which animals and birds are afforded special treatment and protection, such as a Wood pecker or a Coopers Hawk, while other birds such as our pigeons, which served this nation during a time of war, are now treated as vermin, and directly or indirectly government actions support extermination. And if you live in the wrong neighborhood, in the interest of "the public good" they can order you to remove your loft and birds, and if you refuse, you will be sent to a prison for "Rehabilitation". 

I think I lean more towards Jay3's line of thinking, because when those heavy handed government agents end up stumping on the head and rights (human, civil, property or otherwise) of the least of us, in the name of "the public good"...then none of us are really safe. And I feel for that little wood pecker, I do, but I also feel for the family that falls victim to "the public good". I don't know how many wood peckers there are in the world, but I do know, that many people have died throughout history, because of actions taken by governments for..."the public good". So, I distrust the whole process.


----------



## Grimaldy

There is no earthly reason why the value of land has to go up Jaye, is there?
The fact is that the 20th century has been a long period of inflation, meaning that whatever you want to buy takes more money; in the 19th century America went through a long period of deflation, as did the Japanese in the 20th. Property values dropped like a bag of hammers in an elevator shaft.

An investment is a purchase of something we hope will appreciate in value (buying long), but not something we really need, so we will collect a profit by selling when the price rises. Like a stock share or a vacant lot, or a parcel of land. A house we need to live in is something we need to survive, a place to live. If we choose to purchase a large extravagant home so it is an investment as well as something we need, we are still stuck with the rules governing investment. We might try to fool ourselves by saying that we need a place to live, a necessity, but the fact is that we also are aware that we seek to make money, making it an investment. 

People buy land and lose their money all the time, both for residence and for investment. There are no guarantees in life, that is simply how it is. There is a tendency for rural people to believe that land has some sort magic, sacred value because you can see it and walk on it, but these are people who do not know the history of their own country. America was founded on land sales and land swindles, right from the days of independence down to present. Look at the State of Florida for an example. George Washington, first president of the nation got his start as a land surveyor, west of the Allegheny mountains, which was English territory at that time. Surveyors were paid then by taking a part of the land they marked out.

Now America is no worse, and indeed much better than many other nations when it comes to land swindles. They have been in the forefront of trying to protect the investors and to stop the practices when they find out about them in America, whereas that is just a way of life in certain other nations.
But lets be realistic; we buy those things we need with as little money as we need to spend, we invest money according to our means and opportunities. Certain rules follow investment and those who ignore them end up paying for it. Blaming woodpeckers and spotted owls and tiny fish is a sucker's game to deflect the blame from where it really belongs.


----------



## Grimaldy

I can't say I disagree with what you have written Warren.

There are some things that only government can do and should do; there are many things government can not do. It can not regulate morality, religion, or reproduction to name just a few. It can and must regulate many other matters simply because it is best situated to do that. The present financial mess that America suffers and as a result most of the world as well, is the result of government failing to regulate. The "market place" is a den of thieves that will lie, cheat, steal and do anything necessary to make money. For the past eight years we have been told of the magic and wonders of de-regulation and the result has been global disaster. The thieves not only have their money they have now resorted to black mail; if the government does not bail them out with taxpayer dollars they will bring the whole nation down with them. In other countries and in other times, responsible government would simply take them out, put them up against a wall and have them shot. Today we can only learn from our mistakes so we do not repeat them.

Ecology prcoeeds from the fact that this planet we call home is really a very fragile place. A few changes in temperature or in the food chain can produce tremendous and disasterous results. Humans have been walking the face of the earth for only 30-50 thousand years, a blink of the eye when you realize the dinosaurs lived here millions of years ago, the plants millions of years before that and the bacteria millions if not billions of years before all of them.
We do know that all species of life are interdependent on one another to a greater or lesser degree, and we know it as the food chain. We do not know what the result will be if those relationships start to unravel, but once they do it may well be too late to do anything about it. Unfortunately people like Rick Santelli are now starting to emerge with their appeals to the worst instincts of human nature, trying to suggest that government attempts to change the situation is really picking winners and losers. Some people see the problem as spending money on wildlife that we would be better off without. One thing is certain however, appeals to base instinct gets you people like Adolph Hitler. We need to understand the problems and to work together to find solutions rather than blaming pigeons, woodpeckers and spotted owls.


----------



## Jay3

Well, to buy and pay for something, then pay taxes on it probably for years, and to have the government swoop in and deam it worthless to you, sorry but that is unfair. Nothing is safe. Nothing is yours. Even if you have bought it outright. It sucks. And yes, I can understand how those people felt, having what was theirs, pretty much taken away. So everybody did what they had to do. The government did what they had to do, and so did the people. And usually when that happens, nobody wins.They may have gone overboard, but they made their point. What more is there to say? In this case, everybody lost something. It's too bad. But this is what happens when someone or something is taking what is yours. You stand up and fight for it. Sometimes your decisions might be a bit faulty, but that is what happens when people are pushed too far. And how far is too far is individual. I guess we definately know where these people stand.


----------



## Grimaldy

If you think about it for a moment Jaye, you might think you own land. But if you fail to pay your taxes, you will usually find out it is the government who owns it and they have just been renting it to you.


----------



## Guest

which kinda shows you that fighting for your freedoms and rights is a useless fight and plight ..so many die each day for something that can be taken away from you so easily if the government so chooses it ,its no wonder the country is falling apart so fast an furiously ..maybe if these people running the country had to actually go to war for what they had they would see things in a different light but its very hard for them to get a grasp of it all from the comfort of their over indulgent lifestyles to say the least


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

*This thread is now way over the TOP*



Grimaldy said:


> I can't say I disagree with what you have written Warren.
> 
> There are some things that only government can do and should do; there are many things government can not do. It can not regulate morality, religion, or reproduction to name just a few. It can and must regulate many other matters simply because it is best situated to do that. The present financial mess that America suffers and as a result most of the world as well, is the result of government failing to regulate. The "market place" is a den of thieves that will lie, cheat, steal and do anything necessary to make money. For the past eight years we have been told of the magic and wonders of de-regulation and the result has been global disaster. The thieves not only have their money they have now resorted to black mail; if the government does not bail them out with taxpayer dollars they will bring the whole nation down with them. In other countries and in other times, responsible government would simply take them out, put them up against a wall and have them shot. Today we can only learn from our mistakes so we do not repeat them.
> 
> Ecology prcoeeds from the fact that this planet we call home is really a very fragile place. A few changes in temperature or in the food chain can produce tremendous and disasterous results. Humans have been walking the face of the earth for only 30-50 thousand years, a blink of the eye when you realize the dinosaurs lived here millions of years ago, the plants millions of years before that and the bacteria millions if not billions of years before all of them.
> We do know that all species of life are interdependent on one another to a greater or lesser degree, and we know it as the food chain. We do not know what the result will be if those relationships start to unravel, but once they do it may well be too late to do anything about it. *Unfortunately people like Rick Santelli are now starting to emerge with their appeals to the worst instincts of human nature, trying to suggest that government attempts to change the situation is really picking winners and losers.* Some people see the problem as spending money on wildlife that we would be better off without. *One thing is certain however, appeals to base instinct gets you people like Adolph Hitler.* We need to understand the problems and to work together to find solutions rather than blaming pigeons, woodpeckers and spotted owls.



Well....I think we have now really gone way past pushing the envelope, to completely off the envelope. We have gone to the extreme of listing the talking points of a particular political party, and then listing the actual name of a private US citizen who has been critical of recent government actions, and in the same breath liking him and others critical of government policies to Adolf Hitler. If this is not an example of off the envelope, and then off the wall, then I don't know what is. 

I confess, that I admire those like Mr. Rick Santelli, who have spoken out in opposition to polices, which many Americans would agree, is the largest confiscation of wealth and power by a government, that the world has ever seen. And as such, I am not unbiased. And I offer my apologies for having contributed to the demise of this thread. 

The discussion of how government policies can have unforeseen and unintended consequences, when dealing with issues in regard to the protection of endangered species, has now gone far afield. Now private citizens who are critical of the socialist agenda and redistribution of wealth, are now appealing to "the worst instincts of human nature" and Adolf Hitler. 

This discussion has now gone so far to the extreme, that anyone who may disagree with the current polices relating to protection of wild life and now redistribution schemes, is compared to the worst vestiges of mankind the world as ever known. Which leads me to believe that many issues relating to the environment is just one small piece of a much larger agenda, and that is even greater control and power to a centralized bureaucracy.

I might suggest, that this thread has now outlived it's usefulness.


----------



## UncleBuck

Amen! I agree with you Warren.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft

I will again apologize for not exerting better over site to this thread, and perhaps for contributing to it's demise into a left vs. right discussion. Such is the downside in trying to discuss issues which invite political debate. Since this is not a web site designed for political discourse, but a pigeon resource site, I will close this thread and invite such discussions to take place on some political blog site.


----------

