RateItAll: The Opinion Network

The rest of this items should read: and yet you support the right of spotted owls en masse destroying the homes of loggers.

Not only that, but you're willing to go out on a limb and LIVE in that said tree (no pun intended) with the spotted owl until the loggers "come to their senses."

It is not just about the spotted owl. It's about logging RESPONSIBLY. That means not letting logging get so out of control as it is now. It means putting an actual LIMIT on the trees you cut down, and replanting trees at a closer rate. Too bad the logging companies are too greedy and lazy for that. They'll take as many trees as they can so they'll get more money. Here in America, it's all about the money and the wonderful benefits we lucky Americans can get by destroying our environment. Repulicans think that the environment will always be there to log--even though it's apparant we are using it up. What will happen to the logger's precious jobs when they've destroyed all the natural areas? I'll start caring about their jobs when they take some responsibility for what they're doing.

You might be a Republican if you think that allowing more toxins in the environment is good for the health of you & your children,and that it's OK to destroy beautiful,natural,God-given beauty so some greedy company can line it's pockets.

UPDATE: Another thing that many do not understand is that the environment is much more resilient than once thought. This can be beneficial because someitmes it takes us a little while to realize when something we're doing is dangerous. Unfortunately this can work against us too. In 1876 kudzu was introduced as a way for farmers to prevent soil erosion. Today it covers over seven million acres in the southeast. It strangles other plants in order to thrive and is a huge pest. ORIGINAL COMMENT: The problem here is that many liberals look at ecology from the standpoint that all creatures are equal to their human neighbors. They then set arbitrary boundries through which they think we should not tresspass. For example: chemical x cannot be in greater presence than so many parts per million in the air/water. Man actually has dominion over the plants and animals of the land. This does not mean that we can do whatever we like, but it does mean that we will do whatever is best for the human race. What much of the left dosn't understand is that if you approach ecology from this standpoint, you won't destroy the ozone layer exterminate the spotted owl, pollute our water tables, because these things do not benefit humanity.

F&ck; the owl, but you can't simply cut down ALL the natural areas! EPA regulations have been met in several areas only because the standards for quality have been lowered. Go to Beijing and see what it's like to live in a nation with no environmental rules whatsoever. (After 3 days, your snot is black when you sneeze- it's really scary folks, trust me.) A few loggers? Go to college. The same goes for the horse-and-bugggy makers. . .the economy is different and you have to adapt to a changing job market. (A cornerstone of conservative economic thought.)

Why is it so difficult to simply comply with a request for empirical facts to substantiate your opinion? Conservatives like me want clean air and water, spotted owls and buffalo, the ozone layer preserved and the ecosystem saved. You see, as long as we continue to build and improve homes, buildings and infrastructure, we're gonna need more wood. One poster maintains that the forests are almost gone! Whew! But, OK, how many million acres of forest land remain compared with 100 years ago? Is it less today? Or more? I remember in the early 1970's, when the Alaskan Pipeline was proposed, the caribou would become an endangered species. There are three times as many caribou today than 1970, they apparently like the warmth of the pipeline in their mating process. I gues the environmentalists didn't see that coming. What else do they not see coming? Anyway, lower the shrillness and condescending tone and put some facts up.

In the U.S. it's not about saving the spotted owl at all: it's about saving the ecosystem. The spotted owl is the hook into the regulatory network that can actually prevent the ecosystem from being destroyed. Very few people will understand the complexity of the biological system, and it isn't worth the trouble to try to explain it to them: you use the cute factor of the owl to win public support with much less expense, time and trouble. Though it may be a little cynical, it IS realistic; most people aren't scientists. UPDATE: pardon me for raising my voice a little: the right-wingers on here either didn't read my comment, or else didn't understand it. The point is to save the ECOSYSTEM, and the only way to do that under the current regulatory framework is to invoke the Endangered Species Act: the only way to do THAT is to find an endangered critter, whether it's a bear, a bird, a rat or a bug. That's how it works.

i believe in environmental conservation i didnt know i was actually advocating the loss of jobs, i guess thats just an added bonus! Mr.Political- it's call sarcasm

I am all for animal rights and believe that any body who would purposely seek out to hurt them in any way is cruel and vicious, plain and simple. That said, we must draw the line between hurting innocent animals and hurting humanity. Right now we are paying sky high prices at gas stations (although we're supposedly stealing so much oil from the war in Iraq...lol) because of a few radical environmentalists that don't want to disturb the precious Porcupine Caribou's snow in ANWR. Oh, and emj5687...let's see how big a bonus losing people jobs is when it's your job that's gone.

Gee, I guess I might be a Democrat, then. There were 6 (count 'em) six buffalo left in the world before shooting them was made illegal. The passenger pigeon is gone. The bald eagle, symbol of America, was on the verge of extinction (I guess if you're all for destroying our national symbol, you must be Republican). And I don't see in any bible where it says Go out unto the garden and kick the crap out of it and destroy all these animals.

I wouldn't put it that way. But it goes way farther then this when it comes to logging trees, as I think most of the people posting here know. Forests provide for much more then the spotted owl. Destroying the forests is destroying the entire chain of life that lives there, which includes the spotted owl. Wether or not the owl is endangered is not the issue here. The forests and the life in them, which we are invading and destroying, is the issue.

Junk science at its more abhorrent. In 1986 the Audubon Society warned that the bird was declining and heading towards extinction. In 1991 a federal judge suspended most Northwest logging resulting in the loss of thousands of high wage jobs. I find it hypocritical for some people to fight and argue for an increase in the minimum wage, yet offer nothing more than a curt sorry for the men and women who can no longer feed their families thanks to this unproven (and now being proven incorrect) research; as if the unemployed loggers could simply snap their fingers and find employment elsewhere. Loggers make good money and pay taxes, which is more than can be said for people who work minimum wage and get everything refunded back to them. Political and legal maneuvers continue on the assumption that the 1980s study about the owl is correct. Further research however, is slowly but ever so surely proving that not to be the case. David Wilcove, a biodiversity expert for the Environmental Defense Fund states It appears the spotted owl population is not as bad as imagined 10 years ago, or even five years ago. Steven Self and Thomas Nelson, researchers employed by Sierra Pacific, a timber company with a progressive reputation, estimated that California alone is home to between 6000 and 8000 spotted owl pairs. (That's pairs..... as in two of them) Lowell Diller, a wildlife biologist employed by Simpson Timber finds spotted owls reproducing in young woodlands managed by foresters, areas which were presumed the bird could not thrive. Agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game have found spotted owls living and reproducing in several types of non-ancient woodlands including oak savannas and low tree habitats. There are many more spotted owl pairs than previously estimated and this raises questions as to whether their extinction, which has cost thousands of honest people their livlihood, is bogus or at the very least, grossly exaggerated. The need to preserve forests is not a false alarm and researchers agree that old growth woodlands require alternate methods of logging in place of the indiscriminate cutting that began in the postwar era. However, the need to regulate forestry should be argued on its own merits and not by resorting to false claims of owl extinction. (Quotes and research findings taken from the writings of Gregg Easterbrook)

Interesting little sidebar here. The spotted owl actually does pretty well on the edge of clearcuts, because the rodents they live on have less cover.

I agree with CastleBee. Loggers won't be going anywhere, anytime soon. There will always be a demand for what wood can do for the country. As for the animals, we have the responsibility to take care of them if we are going to invade their territories.

Tree-huggin' hippies! Nah just kidding. This is a tight call because as Redoedo points out with this list item, no one considers the human beings who are out of jobs but instead focus on the sweet little innocent owl who doesn't have to go home to his wife and kids and explain why he can't put food on the table for them. But on the other hand this is just another contributing factor towards the slow but inevitable deteritation of our lovely planet Earth.

I certainly don't see the logging business going under any time soon. But I do think we all have a responsibility toward all creatures on this planet. We aren't here alone and that's a very good thing for myriad reasons. If we don't learn to truly appreciate that fact and deal with the safety of animals how can we expect to survive ourselves? Loggers shouldn't go away - but would it kill any of them to work with the conservationists and admit that our existance on this planet is not all about money? I don't think so.