If Bruce Willis, one of the few outspoken AMERICANS left in Hollywerid, isn't liked in IDAHO then I may have to rethink my choice in states to relocate to.

Yeah, I know that area of Idaho is "left leaning" to say the least but it's a huge warning sign to me between there added to Boise being able to tip the state left faster than I care to deal with (which is the reason I took Washington off my relocation list).

Guess I'll have to take a serious look at Montana again.

Part of the problem is he did not like the enviromental politics of are republican governor"kinda shows his hipocrasy" When it comes to the enviroment he is all leftist.
Nothing personal but I dont think to many Idahoans will be upset by one less Cali not moving to Idaho.

Quoted: If Bruce Willis, one of the few outspoken AMERICANS left in Hollywerid, isn't liked in IDAHO then I may have to rethink my choice in states to relocate to. Yeah, I know that area of Idaho is "left leaning" to say the least but it's a huge warning sign to me between there added to Boise being able to tip the state left faster than I care to deal with (which is the reason I took Washington off my relocation list). Guess I'll have to take a serious look at Montana again.

Sounds like a similar story in Cleveland.

Guy owns property. Guy cuts down some trees on his proprty. Neighbors get bitchy because "their" view of the forest is being destroyed. As far as I can see, it was his trees and his property and he should have every right to do what he wants with it. If the people wanted a backyard forest, they should have ponyed up the money for the property.

wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=22513

In Maine if you develop a wetland, you have to essentially 'create' one somewhere else.  In fact, there is a company out there that buys up shitty land in weird spots and turns it into wetlands based on EPA standards....then, when a contractor or developer wants to build on a parcel under wetland delineation, they can purchase whatever square footage they need from this real estate broker.  The land may be on the other side of the state, but no one cares about that.

I'm all for protecting the environment through land trusts, parks, etc - but your property is just that....your property.

Yippie Ki Yah mofo....(sp?)

the environment and the fragility of certain ecosystems have to be noted.

i'm sorry that alot of people in north america cant realize that...its not just in the US, but also Canada and Mexico.

we have a ZERO loss strategy in place for WETLANDS..if you destroy one..you have to build the same acreage to replace it.

as far as the kind fellow...from Kalifornistan..

people talk really big on the internet..
i have a feeling you wouldnt be so macho in real life..

that goes for most of the guys on this board.
alot could benefit from actually going outside into the sun every now and then..maybe to a park..or something..its not normal to stay inside all the time.

for the record..i have a Bachelors in Biology conc in Wildlife Management. 2 years of research in Ursine study and 1 year of study in Avian. the college i went too helps run the EPA's water testing/research center. our college also has a state of the art  Environmental Science program and the biology folks share common classes. the 2 go hand in hand.



water is a crucial thing to protect..however it needs to be done. once a land has been drained..its extremely tough to get things back to normal.

alot of the oncology stuff i see at the hospital is linked to hazmat stuff from areas around refineries and other factories. once a aquafer system has been compromized bad things happen.

lymphoma, Bone Marrow issues, leukemias..not to mention fertility and newborn issues.
where ever find areas of miminal EPA involvement, you'll have the maximum number of oncologists and high risk OB docs.

Quoted: The fact that you put quotes around ownership I think addresses where you stand on Constitutional rights.

I pit quotes around it because we don't really "own" it; we are holding it temporarily for posterity, as they will for theirs. We certainly cannot take it with us, and what we do to it will have consequences for us and our offspring.

The glancing geese standard isn't being applied to keep people from zipping around on ATVs or shooting guns or draining the everglades.   It's being applied to keep people who aren't politically connected from plowing a field, clearing trees, and building a house or a barn.

I wasn't trying to link glancing geest to ATV's, I was citingthat as another example of land use where people complain because they don't get to do what they want to do , because that use has long-lasting negative impacts on  the environment.

The thing is, the environmental health of the US improved steadily throughout the 20th century.  There is now more forest than there was in 1900.  Despite the fact that things are getting better, the EPA and other government agencies take this as proof for more needed regulation and more intrusive behavor and a bigger budget.  If it was getting worse, that would also be proof for more needed regulation, more intrusive behavior, and a bigger budget.

Things are getting better because of government regulations. New regulations become needed as awareness of particular problems grows; for instnace, 50 years ago no one realized what a negative impact the draining of the Everglades would have.

With regard to property rights, yes sir. This is where I think we have a difference in oppinion.  If I dump gasoline or leaking radioactive waste on my property and it contaminates an aquifer or a neighboring piece of property, then yes, the people, state, what have you, does have a right to intervene and punish that behavior.   If I want to cut down a tree or 10 trees, however, it's none of your damn business.  It's not the state's business either.  Whether the eco freaks like it or not, we have to live on this planet and use it's resources too.

Society should not wait til the damage is done; by then it is almost irreversible in any reasonable length of time, short of geological eras. Activity that has the potential for causing massive ecological harm needs to eb regulated BEFORE it happens.

As for your cutting trees example, think internationally for a moment: according to your theory, the owners of the Amazon forests should be free to denude the Brazillian rain forests because its their trees, "whether its one or ten". Well, what about the fact that the entire WORLD depends on the continued existence of the  Brazillian rain forest for the balance of the  world ecosystem? Isn't that something like allowing  world suicide, to allow someone to destroy something so basic to world survival simply because they happen to have ownership rights to that property? Thinking more locally, what if a particular species of bird uses one  area for nesting or some migratory function for part of the year..should the owner of that area be allowed to cut down every tree in an area that is so vital to that species? I think not.

What we do has an effect on other species  well beyond our recognition of that impact at times.We need to recognize that before the damage we do is irreversible.

Quoted: i'm sorry that alot of people in north america cant realize that...its not just in the US, but also Canada and Mexico.

I really dont think the latter give el fucko. Survival may be a slightly higher priority.

we have a ZERO loss strategy in place for WETLANDS..if you destroy one..you have to build the same acreage to replace it.

You just proved how little you actually know about the reality of a thing called environmental regulations. I have been out of the game for a few years now, and they had enough regulation then to force businesses closed, and its only got bigger.

people talk really big on the internet.. i have a feeling you wouldnt be so macho in real life..

I can vouch he is indeed a scholar, gentleman and a sailor. I know him personally.



For all the education you claim below, you miss his obvious point. Everyone here bashes KA constantly, myself included, however this PC left wing kommie pinko tree huggin bullshit is a nationwide epidemic.

that goes for most of the guys on this board.

Out to win friends and influence others eh?

for the record..i have a Bachelors in Biology conc in Wildlife Management. 2 years of research in Ursine study and 1 year of study in Avian. the college i went too helps run the EPA's water testing/research center. our college also has a state of the art  Environmental Science program and the biology folks share common classes. the 2 go hand in hand.

Sounds like alot of that indoor time you were referring to. Any real life practical application??? BTW, what college did you go "too"?

www.hunt101.com/img/181737.jpg</a>

If by some fluke chance you took this picture, you need to read this.

alot of the oncology stuff i see at the hospital is linked to hazmat stuff from areas around refineries and other factories. once a aquafer system has been compromized bad things happen.

So the refineries destroyed the "aquafer" and thats what makes people sick? Your theory is "compromized".

lymphoma, Bone Marrow issues, leukemias..not to mention fertility and newborn issues. where ever find areas of miminal EPA involvement, you'll have the maximum number of oncologists and high risk OB docs.

I can see you know nothing about this. EPA involvement is one of the best .gov money pits since the IRS, for a liberal who wont go get a real fuckin job. Those who can do, those who cant, work for the EPA.

In a former life, 7 years Environmental Manager. Outdoors.
P.S. Dont get me wrong. We go home and procreate everynight, we owe the children we make a world they can live, breath, eat and drink in. However, to create a bureacracy that chokes business, serves little useful purpose other than to harrass, and is rarely science based is ludicrous.

So what did the EPA accomplish since the 70's? We closed all our businesses that cant make code, they moved to China who has no EPFA, and then you buy their shit at Wal-Mart.

EPA= typical liberal touchy feely answer. N.I.M.B.Y.

Quoted: Quoted: i'm sorry that alot of people in north america cant realize that...its not just in the US, but also Canada and Mexico. I really dont think the latter give el fucko. Survival may be a slightly higher priority. we have a ZERO loss strategy in place for WETLANDS..if you destroy one..you have to build the same acreage to replace it. You just proved how little you actually know about the reality of a thing called environmental regulations. I have been out of the game for a few years now, and they had enough regulation then to force businesses closed, and its only got bigger. people talk really big on the internet.. i have a feeling you wouldnt be so macho in real life.. I can vouch he is indeed a scholar, gentleman and a sailor. I know him personally. For all the education you claim below, you miss his obvious point. Everyone here bashes KA constantly, myself included, however this PC left wing kommie pinko tree huggin bullshit is a nationwide epidemic. that goes for most of the guys on this board. Out to win friends and influence others eh? for the record..i have a Bachelors in Biology conc in Wildlife Management. 2 years of research in Ursine study and 1 year of study in Avian. the college i went too helps run the EPA's water testing/research center. our college also has a state of the art  Environmental Science program and the biology folks share common classes. the 2 go hand in hand. Sounds like alot of that indoor time you were referring to. Any real life practical application??? BTW, what college did you go "too"? www.hunt101.com/img/181737.jpg</a> If by some fluke chance you took this picture, you need to read this. alot of the oncology stuff i see at the hospital is linked to hazmat stuff from areas around refineries and other factories. once a aquafer system has been compromized bad things happen. So the refineries destroyed the "aquafer" and thats what makes people sick? Your theory is "compromized". lymphoma, Bone Marrow issues, leukemias..not to mention fertility and newborn issues. where ever find areas of miminal EPA involvement, you'll have the maximum number of oncologists and high risk OB docs.   I can see you know nothing about this. EPA involvement is one of the best .gov money pits since the IRS, for a liberal who wont go get a real fuckin job. Those who can do, those who cant, work for the EPA. In a former life, 7 years Environmental Manager. Outdoors. P.S. Dont get me wrong. We go home and procreate everynight, we owe the children we make a world they can live, breath, eat and drink in. However, to create a bureacracy that chokes business, serves little useful purpose other than to harrass, and is rarely science based is ludicrous. So what did the EPA accomplish since the 70's? We closed all our businesses that cant make code, they moved to China who has no EPFA, and then you buy their shit at Wal-Mart. EPA= typical liberal touchy feely answer. N.I.M.B.Y.

As another holder of a BS degree in Wildlife Management, I apologize on behalf of higher education for the moron in question.

Anyone who has done any practical field work knows that common environmental sense and EPA realities are very often in conflict.  There are far too many ivory tower, east coast elitists making policy and delineating procedures for lands and projects they know NOTHING about.

My favorite is the endangered species thing.  If you keep finding it in enough places - and the projects keep getting shut down - common sense tells you that maybe the damn critter isn't as endangered as we think?  By the time the EPA accepts this, years go by and the project is ruined.