Caution: snip and reply involved...

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
"riverman" wrote in message
...

Some of your valid points about rivers drying up and runoff causing
floods
are well taken, but you counter that with the standard Bureau of
Reclamation
line about flood control, recreational areas and irrigation. The benefits
and shortcomings of dam projects has been well-discussed for about 20
years,
with the end result being a complete reversal of position by the BuRec to
where they have disbanded their dam building department. The
environmental,
social and ecological impacts are turning out to be much more complex
than
the simple 'rivers cause floods' model, and as a result, opposing parties
have long ago agreed to work much more closely to evaluate the benefits
and
deficits of dams. Reading your post makes me think that I am discussing
this
with someone who has the level of understanding of this that went away in
the 70s.

It may have gone away in the 70's but the projects from then still
exist, and is where I spend most of my paddle time. That certain BLM
types can't put their heads together, and make a wooden sidewalk,
doesn't change what has been done. Nor does it change what should be
done in the future.

This is an invitation for another conversation. I assume from your trailing
sentence that you are implying that the current BLM people are clueless, and
that what 'should be done in the future' is to build more dams? If this
assumption is correct, then I'm going to decide not to even pursue this
topic with you, as it is very thoroughly hashed out in many forums. Its a
very very slippery slope, so in the spirit of maintaining any sort of
reasonable discussion, we should stay off it. EOT for that topic, for me,
with you.



In the nature of my work, I have spent time with some Federal
Engineers.. One EE had trouble wiring a flashlight. So I am not
convinced about the environment. In fact, I had another situation
where I had to secure the EPA water test lab at Denver Fed CTR. That
was a disaster. They had one door to secure, and it almost took an act
of Congress to accomplish that.


Hmm, you have to connect the dots with that one for me. I won't deny that
bureacracy can be a nightmare, even a waste of time and a distractor to what
you are trying to accomplish. But I also can't deny that it is a real part
of managing a huge nation like the US, so its a demon we must learn to work
with. Are you implying that engineers are a bunch of overtrained,
overspecialized, overeducated fools? That seems like a rather thin opinion
of the value of education. So much for 'No Child Left Behind'.....I'd think
that engineers, etc, might represent the highest form of success in our
education system; one that we aspire more people to attain.

Additionally, are you proposing that, because one EE could not wire a
flashlight, then its possible that hundreds of thousands of scientists and
research organizations in dozens of countries over several decades are all
WRONG and that there really is no danger from excess pollutants, mercury in
our water, deteriorating air and water quality? That all that medical
evidence is wrong, that all those 'intellectual elites' are just following a
Liberal goose chase, making all sorts of silly, useless rules that end up
hurting our country by inhibiting development and keeping companies from
making profits? Wow, now THAT is a leap....

That point of view is reinforced with your statement about "we may wake
up
some day to a different world, but we will wake up, and adapt." It sounds
that your nihlist point of view is to go ahead and do whatever we want,
to
hell with any foresight of consequences, and we'll just adapt to the
results. Hmm, maybe YOU can live with that strategy, but I'm pretty sure
that I can't. Personally, I want to be proactive. I want to have
forsight,
and to protect any dwindling resources...which includes uncontrolled
rivers,
uncut forests, and closed wilderness areas. I prefer diversity, abhor
monoculture, and I know that there is much to be learned from natural
systems that we don't yet understand, or even know about. Species are
driven
to extiction before we even catalogue or study them, often (or 'mostly')
because of unguided and careless industrial practices. I believe in
oversight by intelligent, protective organizations who share my values. I
don't want to 'adapt' to a steadily deteriorating environment and
steadily
developing monoculture.

Bravo, at least you finally told me what you believe, instead of the
blame game.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong. There is plenty of blame to be had. I blame a
lot of scientists for living off the 'research fund titty', as we called it
during my 8 years as a research scientist. They have to research things that
there is funding for....which means that research is not as unbiased as it
should be. However, it doesn't mean research is worthless...just that it is
limited.

I blame the current President for allowing clean air and clean water
standards to be compromised in the interest of more permissiveness for
corporations to make profits. Now, don't get me wrong....profits are good;
our capitalist system is based on profits. But we have to weigh things, and
find a healthy balance....compromising our water, air, and environment is
not really a good trade off in exchange for allowing companies to increase
their profits.

I blame the current majority for using unscrupulous methods to keep
themselves in power, like finger-pointing at Clinton (those cheeky rascals),
creating a false sense of danger from terrorist attacks in the US, and by
using sensitive issues like gay marriages to divide the country and rally
more support from the conservative right. I look forward to the day the CR
discovers that the current batch of policians are, well, politicians.

And I especially blame a LOT of fundamental conseratives for pushing their
personal religious agenda on the rest of the country, and for deliberately
keeping themselves simple-minded 'like a child', ignoring issues that impact
all of us, even the rest of the world, and for creating a modern America
that is too self-serving, isolationist and self-righteous to be a
constructive or cooperative world partner.


And I have no idea what you mean by you last statement: "unless we
choose
to not adapt, and choose instead to live in our blue bubble of
unrealistic
liberalism." The term 'liberal' has been tossed around so much that it
has
lost almost all meaning. In your statement, I see that you have chosen
'sides' so thoroughly that you are saying things that don't even mean
anything any more.Are you saying that people who resist mindless
expansion,
unsupervised development and have a forward-looking attitude of
conservation
are 'liberals', and as such, are unable to adapt? That adapting to
deteriorating situations is preferable to having some sort of guiding
principles of protectionism? That good things are not worth keeping, and
people who want to keep good things are 'liberals' and as such, bad? It
is
pretty difficult to have an intelligent, open minded discussion with
someone
when they are so tangled with hyperbole and rhetoric that they don't even
make sense.

But you are having conversation with me now, so it can't be all that
bad.

Oh, trust me on this: I find conversing with you excruciating. You might be
an interesting paddling partner, but if we ever tried to develop a
friendship based on our political ideoligies, we would _not_ be friends.

The blue bubble are those east and west coast states that went
blue. Liberal does have a meaning, and most have found they do not
want their program identified as such because they all know that it
means idealistic, unrealistic, and out of touch. Liberal also means
that the Federal Government is central in regulating the programs, and
in this case enviromental.

Bravo, at least you finally defined what you mean by 'liberal'. However, be
careful: 'idealistic', 'unrealistic' and 'out of touch' are entirely
relative terms. Idealism can agree on in part: it be easily qualified as
being a bit of a waste of time in a pragmatic (non-idealistic) society, and
can even be cast as a 'wishing for what you ain't got' type of mentality.
But 'unrealistic' is a bit harder to pidgeonhole, as is 'out of touch'.
Personally, I think your perspectives on human adaptation, the futility of
scientific research, preventative measures and the overall fundamentalist
perspective are VERY unrealistic and out of touch. Just because those who
propose to be supporters of that point of view won the election doesn't make
the issues dissappear. When you propose pulling garbage out of urban streams
as a valid alternative to preserving clean wilderness streams, I think you
are WAY out of touch. Reality sucks; I'm taking about PHYSICAL realities,
not POLITICAL or 'pseudo-spiritual' ones. Call me idealist or unrealistic,
but the alternative is just disgusting. I cannot fathom how the conservative
right gets off saying that the liberals are 'elite'....the eliteness of the
CFR is staggering!

Originally the conservationist were involve
in conserving our resources, and protecting our heritage, and then
along came the Liberals who federalized the projects as a financial
boon-doggle. The conservatives eventually distanced themselves, and
the programs became the sole realm of the Liberal.

Hmm, thats a pretty convenient theory, but its a lot of BS. Another way to
look at it is to say that we NEED to federalize certain projects to ensure
that they are enforced and protected. Leaving the protection of the
environment in the hands of local forces means that the people with the
money and local power....often the lumber yards, timber barons, factory
owners, and developers, for example....will be able to do what they want,
even if it harms the interests of the general population. Modern developers
are becoming expert at twisting meanings....clear-cutting and calling it
'Fire Prevention', dumping measured amouts of pollution and saying that they
are proving 'cleaner water' (because they aren't dumping MORE pollutants),
but it doens't change the realities. Federalizing conservation projects was
Teddy Roosevelt's idea of how to ensure that things were protected 'for the
common good'. Now, don't get me wrong. Timber companies can do whatever they
want on their OWN land, but one of the rich heritages of the US is the
common ownership of national forests and parks. Those, I want them to stay
the hell out of, and I need Federal clout to do it, but I'm not getting it
from THIS government. That's what is so disenfranchising. Personally, I
cannot understand why you want to give some private timber company all your
trees in YOUR national forest, and get pretty much _nothing_ in return.
Seems pretty foolish to me.


I had a thrill the other day, I was walking down the side of a
property, and saw one lonely flower, that had been found by a
butterfly. I watched it for a good 5 min. then it flew away over the
rooftop. My whiskers felt a whole lot better!

Well, that's cute.

--riveramn