EF! Fined $1million in Idaho
lenhart at rippers.com
Mon Nov 25 02:20:25 EST 1996
Don Baccus wrote:
> >Heres a couple.
> >Bear,deer, beaver, muskrat, big cats, owls (even the spotted was proven
> >to migrate to secondary growth redwood) , squirell, wolf...
> >Start with those. Theres plenty more.
> Sorry, I want to see your list of species which biologists claim to
> be old-growth dependent, which you believe really aren't. Bear, deer,
> beaver, muskrat, and big cats aren't thought to be old-growth dependent
> by any biologist I know of.
Don, Dont pull that "ET changes the rules half way through the game"
crap with me.
Let me refreah your memory...
"Please list those species for which you believe your statement to be
Now before you start whining, National Geographic and Discovery have
both aired shows claiming these species are/were endangered and
dependant on existing forests. Refute it or "get off the pot" .
> As far as northern spotted owl goes, I already mentioned that you're
> wrong about it's not being dependent on old-growth forests except in
> the special case of second-growth redwood forests, so I fail to see
> why you bothered to parrot my statement as proof that I'm wrong.
I fail to see how, just because "you" mention something , it automaticly
becomes The Gospel truth.
Further, I like how you backpedal by using a cop out "Special case" . It
proves the point. They DID Don, They did survive in SECOND GROWTH
FOREST. Now if this is the case for the spotted owl, after all the crap
ET's put the PNW through over it, how many more does it hold true for ?
I'll tell you . We dont know. Why ? Well, unless Im mistaken, None of
your "Experts ever bothered to find out.
They dont want thier "pet theories" disproved.
> case you've forgotten, the USFS is charged with maintaining species
> on National Forests throughout their range, and the vast majority of
> National Forests which are within the northern spotted owl's range
> is not redwood forest...
Yea but the thing sure can live there .
> Name those that can, please. Back to the original question. Listing
> species which aren't dependent on old-growth doesn't support your
Name one proven to be extincted by loss of old growth forests. Proven
Don. Not disputed in the scintific community. Proven.
> I think you mistook me for another poster.
D Braun was the post I confused you with. My apologies.
> They're professional biologists who've been involved with management
> issues for decades each. I trust them more than I trust a random
> netizen who cites deer as evidence that there are no true old-growth
> dependent species, that's all.
Well, thats your right, but Those pro biologists are backed and funded
by the SC and or agencies supported by them. No bias or anything.....yea
Don, Independent biologists reached different conclusions on many
subjects in the environmental field. They are as distingushed and
reputable as those you cited. Both groups are not correct, but only one
> >> But, of course, I should ignore the input of these distinguished wildlife
> >> professionals and take the word of you, an uncredentialed netwit.
Pot, kettle, black.
> Creationists tell us we should make an attempt to see the other side of
> the evolution issue, as well, and ignore biologists, geologists, and
> other scientists. Sorry, I have no time to waste trying to understand
> fairy tales which have no factual underpinning.
Don, this has nothing to do with psudoscience. The only fairytales here
are those propagated by you and the other ET's.
> OK, point me to some scientific literature which proposes that there
> are no old-growth dependent species.
Point me to UNBIASED literature that says there are. Again Don,
Dependant does not equate to immutable. No matter how bad you would like
it to. They CAN, and like our friend, the spotted owl, DO migrate to
other areas. Why not have the SC, EF! or the audibon Society fund a
study to find out ? After all, it's the environmet that would stand to
benefit. Of course , they're so busy going through REAMS of paper in
thier offices, they might not have time. They're so busy using toxic
inks and chemicals to print calanders and pictures that they cant fit it
in the schedule.
BTW Don, I noticed in your sig. that you are a photographer. I share
your intrest there. Can you tell me how you dispose of the Highly Toxic
chemicals you use in developing film and paper ? Hmmm ? Please tell me
you dont pour them down the sink. They are FAR from Biodegradeable and
seriously pollute the water.
See Don, Even though Im a hellspawned Off-Roader, I DO try to do SOME
things to help where I can. MANY of us do. Open your eyes and you would
Editor / Writer VW&SC - Off-Road.com
" The Best Dirt on the Net " !
VW's & Sand Cars
More information about the Ag-forst