EarthCurrent's Dam Adventure

[EarthCurrent]

Sorry on not reading the rest of this thread. I've been gone sense Wensday. In responce to the question over human's impact on the planet:

As a Chirstian, I belive that God has charged us as "Caretakers of the Planet", meaning that we are to take care of the Earth to the best of our ability. However, in the case of dams, we also CREATED a habitat, so I'm of the opinion that we are over reacting to the problems of dams. The animals will adapt or move. Did you know that North America today has TWICE the number of trees as it did before European settlers? Excuse me if I don't pay much attention to what the enviomentalists say. (Californa is run by them and look at the result).

Ugh...such atrocious spelling...
You didn't even manage to spell the name of your own religion correctly

But anyway, let's go through and critically evaluate your statements:

we also CREATED a habitat
I would not say that dams "create" habitat. The word create seems to indicate that habitat was non-existent before a dam was built. A better word is perhaps "modify."

The animals will adapt or move
The idea that animals will adapt or move on should be viewed as something of a half truth. Most North American land species, simply due to yearly variations in climate due to pronounced seasons, are not "specialists" and therefore can adapt relatively well. Yet there are still numerous niche species that do not adapt well to habitat disturbance. The species that are most impacted by dams, are those that atually live in the water. For example, if we look to the destruction of the salmon fisheries of the Pacific Northwest, one cannot say that the fish will be able to readily adapt to the change brought about by dams.

If you want to read up on what some of the Columbia Plateau States are doing to help mitigate dam impact on salmon species head over to this link:
http://www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/sosrepo ... ostext.htm

TWICE the number of trees
And you feel that because we now have more trees the environment is in better condition? <a href="http://1912.history.ohio-state.edu/cons ... restry.htm" target=_blank>Gifford Pinchot</a> might have agreed with you there, but not every species thrives in a forested landscape. Additionally, the reason that we now have so many trees is the fact that we've had over a century of stringent fire suppression. The result: instead of thinned out, open forests with trees of large circumference, we have densely packed forests with trees of narrow circumference.

I don't pay much attention
Many of the people of the state of California might have idealized environmentalist leanings, but California is by and large run by water interests. If the Upper Colorado River Basin states ever got their act together and really exercised their legal rights to the waters of the Colorado River, California would be in for quite a bit of hurt.

[Mariah Ketchum]

First of all, look at my signiature when it comes to spelling, it's there for a reason. I could have put another quote in there, but I put the "Yeah, yeah, I can't spell" there for the benifit of others. I have a learning disorder, and part of that is a dificutly in spelling. Coupled with a large vocabulary, I mispell words often. It might be better if the org had a spell check, but alas . . .

Secondly, for years people complained that human interference was causing the Spotted Owl to become endangered. It turns out, however, that the Owls were inbreeding, and breeding with other species of Owl. So it was no one's fault there. . . not human's anyway.

Next, I was refruing to the whole "Arbor Day: Plant a tree" thing that most enviromentilists use as propganda. I agree with you that more trees is not nessarly better, but again, habitaits change NATURALY over time. Beavers build dams and I have yet to see anyone say "Hey, let's get rid of beavers because they are distroying habitat!" (Well, yes acutally I have, but that was in a e-mail forward, and the person involved was unaware that the 'Non-commisoned dam' was built by beavers and not humans ).

And as for Californa, I was refuring to all the black and brown outs they have been having problems with (not that we have heard much from them as of late).

El Banana, I have no idea what God thinks, sense he is onimponent (Again with the bad spelling) and has been around back even before the whole "slash and burn" farming was popular.

Fyrt, currently do not have funds to buy you dark chocolate, and you are not the most *ahem!* complacent of people, and tend to argue given the chance anyway. . . .

[EarthCurrent]

First of all, look at my signiature when it comes to spelling, it's there for a reason. I could have put another quote in there, but I put the "Yeah, yeah, I can't spell" there for the benifit of others. I have a learning disorder, and part of that is a dificutly in spelling. Coupled with a large vocabulary, I mispell words often. It might be better if the org had a spell check, but alas . . .

I'm sorry that you have a learning disorder, however, if you really want people to see that, put it in bold and make it big. I don't normally read sigs.

Secondly, for years people complained that human interference was causing the Spotted Owl to become endangered. It turns out, however, that the Owls were inbreeding, and breeding with other species of Owl. So it was no one's fault there. . . not human's anyway.

That is the result of diminished populations and the cutoff of migration corridors between patches in the landscape matrix. The reason for the extensive patchiness was the exuberant clearcutting that has occured in the Pacific Northwest for nearly a century and a half. Unless the study that you are refering to had DNA and population sampling data back to the time prior to the begining of extensive human impact on the landscape, I question it's validity.

Next, I was refruing to the whole "Arbor Day: Plant a tree" thing that most enviromentilists use as propganda. I agree with you that more trees is not nessarly better, but again, habitaits change NATURALY over time. Beavers build dams and I have yet to see anyone say "Hey, let's get rid of beavers because they are distroying habitat!" (Well, yes acutally I have, but that was in a e-mail forward, and the person involved was unaware that the 'Non-commisoned dam' was built by beavers and not humans ).

Indeed habitat does change, but in most cases it is gradual, and the natural system is adapted to deal with the occasional catastrophic event such as a flood or fire, which is usually the stimulous that the biome has adapted to use a trigger for regrowth.

A dam is not a gradual change, and comparing a manmade dam which floods hundreds of square kilometers to a beaver dam which floods at most an acre is a bit questionable to be used as a retort. Additionally, most manmade dams are designed to last centuries and withstand floods. Beaver dams are built to last for a few years, and are regularly destroyed by flooding.

In recent decades, with the decline in trapping and the lack of natural predators (wolves, bears, mountain lions, etc.) in many western watersheds, beaver populations have blossomed. In some watersheds, this has led to overpopulation and extensive impact to shoreline vegetation as the beavers compete with each other for food resources. As a result, it has been necessary to conduct artificial culls by either capturing and relocating or killing beavers to reduce their numbers.

If you want to see an actual beaver management plan, here you go:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/manage ... gt_ce.html

And as for Californa, I was refuring to all the black and brown outs they have been having problems with (not that we have heard much from them as of late).

Okay, this is the second time that you have had to take a step back and clarify what you were "refering to"originally. I recommend, truly, that you remember to "refer" the first time round. It saves time for everyone.

Anyway, so what you are saying is that it is the "environmentalists" fault that California uses too much electricity despite the fact that energy production and transmission levels haven't increased to meet the demand?

To an extent that might be one factor. Environmental concerns have disallowed a number of power development project to be built in California since the late 1970s. Yet, nuclear power is a bust, and hydroelectric can only go so far, and needs proper sites. Natural gas remain expensive alternatives, and wind power, while increasing in popularity, is still not effecient enough to rely on alone.

The reality of the situation, I feel, is far broader than you seem to want to lay blame.

I am also curious as to what exactly you think an "environmentalist" is as you seem to swing the term around as though people with that label belong to some sort of well defined party.

[fyrtenheimer]

Tuna in your vagina is a bad idea.

Fyrt, currently do not have funds to buy you dark chocolate, and you are not the most *ahem!* complacent of people, and tend to argue given the chance anyway. . . .

They're 50 cents you cheap bitch.

[Mariah Ketchum]

Ok, let's go down the line:

I deal with my learning dissorder, as I have all my life, and I don't need your pity. I'm just asking that you take that into consiteration before you lable me as stupid, and start berating me over my spelling.

And I suppose that eruppting volcanos don't count as natural changes? And sometimes animals don't adapt to slow changes well either. I do not belive that we caused the last Ice Age, and look how many species died from that.

I assumed that because we were refuring to dams (creatated for either irrigatiron or electricty) you would realized what I meant. I do view Enviromentalists as a group/party. And they practically control Californa, just like people say that Rebulicans control Texas. Dams have been invaluable in arid areas where there is not much life to begin with, such as Israel, so they are not all bad.

I'm not saying that we have been perfectly kind to the envirmoment. I AM saying that not all of the blame rests at humantiy's feet, the way you seem to be suggesting, I could, however, be wrong as to what you are getting at.

Fyrt, even if I did buy you chocolate, how would I get it to you?

[SSJVegita0609]

And I suppose that eruppting volcanos don't count as natural changes? And sometimes animals don't adapt to slow changes well either. I do not belive that we caused the last Ice Age, and look how many species died from that.

MK before you continue arguing with EC you should probably know that he's a geology teacher. Anyways, about this here comment. You really can't use natural extermination and killing of organisms and species as an excuse for US doing the same thing. It's like saying its fine to kill a person because every now and then a person falls down the stairs and dies by accident. It just doesn't work.

[jonmartensen]

Yes it does.....<_>

[Mariah Ketchum]

I am not for wanton killing. I never meant to imply that. I am just saying that not all things humanity does are bad. We try very hard to make sure that endangered animals survive. Look at the North American Aligator, they are doing quite well (and probably should be taken off the endagnered species list soon). We (humantiy in general) dispite being increadably lazy as a species, do try our very best to do the right thing.

As for the teacher thing, if I can not defend my views against the knolageable, what good are they? I understand where he is comming from. I am just saying that I dissagree and why.

[EarthCurrent]

I deal with my learning dissorder, as I have all my life, and I don't need your pity. I'm just asking that you take that into consiteration before you lable me as stupid, and start berating me over my spelling.

Lordy. No need to continue with the antagonism. And with that, the discussion is over, I raised the issue of your spelling once, learned of your problem with spelling, and left it at that. I see no need to continue with it.

And I suppose that eruppting volcanos don't count as natural changes? And sometimes animals don't adapt to slow changes well either. I do not belive that we caused the last Ice Age, and look how many species died from that.

I don't know where you got from any of my statements that the impact from a volcano would not be classed as a natural change; Aside from the fact that you are just being purposefully argumentative now. But that is okay, we'll work with it.

The scope and effect of an eruption disruption to the natural environment, is largely dependant on the type of volcano the landscape around it, etc. And eruption can and have led to extinction. Indeed, one of the factors that has been theorized to have resulted or aided in the mass extinction at K/T boundary were the major eruptions of the Deccan Trappes in India.

Stephan J. Gould, who before his death was probably one of the leading theorists on evolution, theorized that in terms of percentages, most extinction were the result of worldwide cataclysmic events as opposed to gradual decline. As examples in the fossil record of such major extinction and transitions, we have the K/T boundary extinction, P/K boundary extinction, C/T boundary extinction, etc. I lean toward this theory as well.

As for the Ice Ages and the extinction they caused. No we didn't cause the ice ages. Rather they were most likely the result of increased mountain building in North America and Asia, as well as alterations of the warming influence of the Gulf Current flow in the North Atlantic and St. Lawrence Seaway.

The mass die off of megafauna following the ice ages has always been questioned though two leading theories continue to duke it out. The overkill hypothesis--that the mass extinction of large mammals in North America around 10,500 years ago was the result of human hunting
--was first put forward more than a century ago and has been widely accepted for the past 30 years. However, some have argued that man's impact would not have been extensive enough at that time for such wide-ranging extinction. This has led to the popularization of the simple idea that climate shifts during the late Pleistocene and related changes in weather and vegetation patterns were the likely culprits in the demise of North America's megafauna.

I assumed that because we were refuring to dams (creatated for either irrigatiron or electricty) you would realized what I meant. I do view Enviromentalists as a group/party. And they practically control Californa, just like people say that Rebulicans control Texas. Dams have been invaluable in arid areas where there is not much life to begin with, such as Israel, so they are not all bad.

To borrow a quote, "Assumption is the mother of all F**k-ups." It is better to be precise and clear with your statements rather than hope that the person will be able to correctly guess at the connections you are trying to make with vague inferences.

I disagree with your assertion that we can lump all "environmentalists" into one heap, though. There are environmental stewards in the line of Gifford Pinchot, and wilderness advocates in the line John Muir. There are wise-use advocates who look to the writings of Aldo Leopold. Scientists like Rachel Carlson. Theorists like Paul Ehrlich. People who recycle, or hunters, backpackers, or fisherman, and so on. So diversified are these people and the ideas they represent that it is impossible for me to conceive that their is an environmentalist platform, beyond perhaps, the acknowledgement that man has a responsibility to acknowledge that his behavior and choices affect the health and wellbeing of the planet.

I'm not saying that we have been perfectly kind to the envirmoment. I AM saying that not all of the blame rests at humantiy's feet, the way you seem to be suggesting, I could, however, be wrong as to what you are getting at.

Indeed, we aren't the only factor that has a direct impact on the environment. And indeed, life will probably carry if and when humanity is snuffed out. But unlike the rather unpredictable nature of natural disasters, our impacts are, for the most part, controllable and we can rationalize the costs and benefits of our activities. What I am saying, is that it is rather arrogant to simply argue that the positives gains that we derive from our uses of the environment will always outweigh the negatives. It is important to look at both sides, and to understand the long term effects and not just short-term gains.

[EarthCurrent]

I am not for wanton killing. I never meant to imply that. I am just saying that not all things humanity does are bad. We try very hard to make sure that endangered animals survive.

Here in the U.S., from a political action standpoint, our interest in species extinction, unfortunately is really only a recent development. The Endagered Species Act (ESA) wasn't signed into law until 1966. Until that time, efforts were focused almost entirely on maintaining game species populations, which led to mass cullings of predator species such as wolves, coyotes, wild cats, etc.

Look at the North American Aligator, they are doing quite well (and probably should be taken off the endagnered species list soon).

Just to let you know, the American Alligator was removed from the ESA Listing in its entire range in the late 1980s.

We (humantiy in general) dispite being increadably lazy as a species, do try our very best to do the right thing.

Some might argue that we only do the right thing when we feel it is in our own best interest, or when it will not directly effect our pocketbooks negatively.

Personally I haven't decided, human kind varies too much based on culture and socioeconomics to really make broad categorizations as to what exactly defines the "right thing." (guess I don't subscribe to the concept of Natural Law...)

As for the teacher thing, if I can not defend my views against the knolageable, what good are they? I understand where he is comming from. I am just saying that I dissagree and why.

If you can't defend an argument against what some one says against it, doesn't that mean that you have learned something new? I believe that is quite valuable.

And as I always say, the "knowledgeable" should never stop you from thinking on your own or questioning what they say. So long as you are willing to look at all sides of an argument, and critically and rationally evaluate the points made, then I have no real problems.