2

9/25/2006 6:32:14 PM

who the fuck wants to live in a neighborhood with no trees?

9/25/2006 7:15:28 PM

Have you been in ANY new neighborhoods? Shit most of the newer developments in the Triangle don't have shit for trees. Anything 10+ years and you start to get something, but you gotta have an older house to really have much of a chance of having any trees of substance in your yard, if your in a development.

9/25/2006 9:58:18 PM

Trees are a liability in many people's eyes, since they can fall on their house.

9/25/2006 10:27:12 PM

Quote :

"who the fuck wants to live in a neighborhood with no trees?"

If you read this and related articles you will learn that most cutters did not clear-cut their land, just all the trees that are over 40 years old. You see, the woodpecker is picky, it prefers trees that are around 70 years old. So, if you cut every tree by the age of 40 you are safe from Woodpecker induced devastation.

The people that needed clear-cutting permits were in the unfortunate situation of having only trees 70+ years old.

9/25/2006 10:45:12 PM

i am so glad that tax dollars pay for maps like this!

9/25/2006 10:47:58 PM

Quote :

"However, if you imagine an alternate universe where the ESA does not exist then none of this would have been news. None of the trees would have been cut down, none of the birds would have been hunted down and shot. Man would have lived in harmony with the woodpecker since, without the ESA, no man has an interest in the birds demise."

That's right, folks. Before they passed the ESA, nothing endangered species. It was a blissful time of harmony between man and nature. Back then, habitat loss didn't happen. No one knows why, exactly, but we'll all take Snarkie's word on the matter.

9/26/2006 3:09:35 AM

^ I don't know where you got that idea, but to fill you in on something you apparently cannot reason for yourself, the ESA was passed because people wanted to protect animals.

The fact that the ESA has accelerated habitat loss and accelerated the path to extinction with the use of shotguns and chainsaws was an "unintended consequence" as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread. 30 years later we now know it would have been better to do nothing.

Or did you learn a different lesson? Perhaps it is your intention to continue arguing that "We obviously need more regulation" when the current regulation destroys more animals than it protects. Fine with me, if you manage to get enough regulation then we shouldn't have any birds left to protect and the problem solves itself through extinction

9/26/2006 9:58:01 AM

plus you cut the older trees that are there (there value goes down once they reach a certain age) and get paid for those

then you replant with more pine (if you plan on keeping the land for investment) and sell the trees again in 30 years

9/26/2006 10:04:32 AM

Quote :

""That would include landscaping, mowing, building a carport, etc. etc. etc." Are you sure about that?"

Quote :

"According to an Executive Order signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, invasive species are broadly defined as "any species, including seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem." DeWeese notes that Kentucky bluegrass and English ivy, found on most lawns and golf courses, are just two examples of common invasive species that could open the door to government regulation of a person’s property."

There is landscaping. You could have a woodpecker in a tree in the yard and because of that, you couldn't even put grass in your fucking yard.

9/26/2006 10:53:13 AM

well I guess all I have to say is....Boiling Springs Lakes have fun with the 15min.

9/26/2006 10:56:11 PM

Quote :

"^ I don't know where you got that idea, but to fill you in on something you apparently cannot reason for yourself, the ESA was passed because people wanted to protect animals."

And yet, according you, species wouldn't be threatened if it weren't for the ESA. Is this some sort of closed timelike curve? Did the ESA cause itself?

Quote :

"30 years later we now know it would have been better to do nothing."

No we don't. Even if that were true, it's still ridiculous to suggest that everything would be fine without the ESA.

Quote :

"Fine with me, if you manage to get enough regulation then we shouldn't have any birds left to protect and the problem solves itself through extinction"

There's bound to be something left to protect.

Quote :

"There is landscaping. You could have a woodpecker in a tree in the yard and because of that, you couldn't even put grass in your fucking yard."

No grass? OH NOES!

9/27/2006 3:59:56 PM

Quote :

"And yet, according you, species wouldn't be threatened if it weren't for the ESA. Is this some sort of closed timelike curve? Did the ESA cause itself?"

I believe his argument was that THIS particular species wouldn't be threatened if not for the ESA, but you're free to extrapolate that into vastly unfair, over-reaching conclusions.

9/27/2006 4:36:08 PM

Quote :

"I believe his argument was that THIS particular species wouldn't be threatened if not for the ESA, but you're free to extrapolate that into vastly unfair, over-reaching conclusions."

That still runs into the same problem, unless red-cockaded woodpeckers were put onto the endangered list for no reason.

9/27/2006 5:36:48 PM

The ESA creates incentive to destroy habitats rather than incentive to preserve them.

No ESA is better than having the ESA, but No ESA != no extinction.


LoneSnark is just pointing out a failure of Government legislation. Although I've seen it said that the ESA does exactly what it was designed to do, which was to allow the fed to take ur landz for cheap instead of protect wildlife. But of course we know politicians would never do such a thing, so that can't be.

Incentives for conservation would be a better way to protect species habitats.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 5:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2006 5:44:29 PM

As others have pointed out in this thread, Shaggy got it.

The current ESA is worse than no ESA. But, that is not to say all regulation is doomed to cause extinction. For example, numerous private environmental organizations have made great strides towards protecting habitat by purchasing land. Sometimes it does this by buying cheap land and relocating the creatures, sometimes it does it by buying the habitat from owners.

But this isn't even the best option (it can get expensive buying millions of acres). A better option is to set a subsidy that is awarded to anyone with endangered species on their land. If you kill the species (by building a farm, etc) you lose the subsidy. If the species is near extinction then the subsidy is large, if not really in danger then the subsidy is tiny.

Now, in an alternate universe where the ESA has been replaced with Endangered Species Subsidies (ESS), all these land owners would instead be trying to make their land attractive to the woodpecker in hopes of attaining the subsidy.

Yes, some land owners will ignore the subsidy, but most will not. They will build their house making sure not to damage the older trees on their property in hopes that the woodpecker stays. They will make an effort to keep predators away. It is amazing how creative people can be when given the right incentives, just as it is amazing how creative people have been under the perverse incentives of the current ESA.

9/27/2006 6:15:45 PM

Quote :

"A better option is to set a subsidy that is awarded to anyone with endangered species on their land. If you kill the species (by building a farm, etc) you lose the subsidy. If the species is near extinction then the subsidy is large, if not really in danger then the subsidy is tiny."

Yeah, that does sound pretty reasonable.

Quote :

"They will make an effort to keep predators away."

That could actually become a problem, depending on how zealous they were about it.

9/27/2006 6:33:07 PM

So what happens if an endangered predator's only source of food is an endangered species?

9/27/2006 6:47:56 PM

Bad things?

9/27/2006 6:50:23 PM

If they were getting a large enough susbidy, the people would probably find something else to feed them to keep both endangered species around and get both subsidies.

9/27/2006 6:54:19 PM

In a few decades, we'll just nanofab up whatever food is required.

9/27/2006 7:17:50 PM

Quote :

"It is amazing how creative people can be when given the right incentives"

As I read that, I had a flash of the future- where every poor inner-city family has an endangered frog or bird or something living in the bathtub so they could get the subsidy. Gangs fighting each other for control of rare mudskipper wetlands. Gov't officials scratching their heads as they read about Columbian woodpecker cartels.

9/28/2006 12:28:35 AM