Eco-Fascist Tree Huggers

D

Dark Avenger

New member
I am VERRRY tired of hearing this derogatory stereotype bandied about. I certainly do not supporting excessive intrusion by "Authorities" telling you what you can do with your land. However, whether it is environmental law or common law, you cannot harm another's property. It is no different whether it is taking a sledge hammer to their windsheild or dumping used crankcase oil into the ground and subsequently poisoning the ground and wells nearby.

At least the hunters here should support measures to protect the resources that should be part of everbody's heritage.

Are there any acceptable environmental protections that you who call people Tree Huggers can stand behind ? . . .Or are you to be counted among the creatures who aren't smart enough not to sh*t in your own nest ?

O.K., I've got my asbestos underwear. Let's hear your replies.
 
DA, I have no problem with people who legitimately want to protect the environment. I don't dump my old oil into the ground, and I recycle when possible.

I *do* have a problem with people who screech and whine about every little change that man makes to the environment without some bureaucrat's approval. With people who drive steel spikes into trees specifically to kill or injure loggers. With people who scream "Save The Spotted Owl For The Children!" when said owl is only precious to them by virtue of its location.


------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
 
I have a lot of problems with people that lie to convince others that they are in the right and get them to join there ranks.I have seen it happen way too often in the mineing industry here in AZ,Half truths and lies do not make others fond of a group.I had a DISCUSSION with one who had no idea what the laws where pretaining to mineing and this was a radical tree hugger.If you are going to stand for something at least know what the h**l its all about.
Allso the interference with legal hunting is real bad here.Someone will get killed one of these days because of it.Who's fault will it be?We know who will get the blame don't we.
Bob
 
My concern with "Eco-Fascist Tree Huggers" is partly the same I have with gun bigots. A portion of their arguments are emotional and not scientific. Another pet peeve is when they are hypocritical. Gore was in the local area last summer and appears to be above many of the laws concerning endangered species that I am held to. The largest threat I see to the environment is population, I just have not heard any viable solutions from any side on that issue. My 2 cents.

Deven
 
Beemerb,
You have to play the game with the anti-hunters. You don't say if you're a hunter, but if you are, here's what you do.
Next time you go out to hunt, and you have one, or a few of these folks bother you, invite them along. Really! Then you tell them that by their going with you, they're going to help you spook the animals. This may not help you that day, but it will certainly help one of your fellow hunters. I bet they'll lose their enthusiasm real fast. If you're going to play, play psych warfare.
 
If someone dumps waste on your land it could be treated as a type of trespass. You should be able to decide what is or is not acceptable to you on your property on your own terms. Your remedy for harm should be found in civil court. Any regulations ought to be handled by state and local authorities and should be based on scientific evidence rather than political power i.e., drastically reform or better yet dump the EPA. If you really want to reduce pollution I suggest going after the worst polluter - the federal government. For example, in agriculture alone: subsidies, import quotas, tariffs, ect, artificially increase pesticide use, habitat loss, damage to wild rivers, unnecessary fuel consumption, and reduction of water quality. I will be much more interested in what the feds have to suggest for my own back yard when they decide to "do no harm" in everyone elses.
 
Gordon F.,

"For example, in agriculture alone: subsidies, import quotas, tariffs, ect, artificially increase pesticide use, habitat loss, damage to wild rivers, unnecessary fuel consumption, and reduction of water quality."
Please enlighten a newbie, I don't understand exactly where you are comming from with this?

thanks
Deven
 
I've become far "greener" over the few years of my adult life, bordering on tree-hugging. I'm all for protecting the environmnent, PROVIDED that the science supports it (EPA has been known to propose crap not really supported by the science). Our environment is the only one we have. G-freeman, I think you're either flat misinformed or naive about polluters. Environmental protection is one of the very few areas in which the fed gov't has a legitimate place to legislate, because the polluted water/air of one state carries over into another, esp. water downstream to the next state, so we really can't rely on state's to act in everyone's best interest. Who exactly are you going to sue when every cubic inch of your air on you land is noxious fumes, as is the case in Shanghai and many other Chinese cities? There are several "market externalties" in the environmental area which cannot be adequately corrected with market forces or civil law remedies. I'm all for putting environmental protections in international treaties, the lack of which is precisely one of the biggest causes for the rioting recently in Seattle. This is everyone's concern who has children and grandchildren. This to me is very analogous to gun rights. I want to preserve nature the same way I want to preserve the RKBA for future generations, in order to remain free and enjoy our incredibly beautiful planet. Having said that, still about 90% of stuff the fed gov't does, it has NO business doing.

OK, now here's my rant on the Endangered Species Act. It certainly modifies my general pro-environment stance. Look, we need to modify domestic and int'l endangered species laws to make a sharp distinction between 2 categories of species. Once a species has been determined to be in fact in danger of becoming extinct, we then need to determine whether this is due to over-hunting or just plain lack of adaptability in the changing world. If it's just a wimp species like the snail darter and the spotted owl, then Darwin's theory should run its course and let the thing become extinct. If however, the only reason for extinction is hunting by humans, legal or otherwise, such as with tigers and several other species, then this is our dumb ass fault for not properly controlling hunting/poaching, and such species in my view should be protected, ESPECIALLY if the species is particularly large, beautiful, or interesting, such as the tiger, rhino, elephant, etc.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited December 13, 1999).]
 
Rotorhead, Here is an example on agriculture.www.ncpa.org/pd/ag/ag3.html Effects On
Pollution

The U.S. Department of Agriculture may actually be
promoting pollution through its farm subsidy
programs.

Here's how it works:

Deficiency payments' reimburse farmers for
the difference between the market price and
the guaranteed price (always higher) per
bushel of a subsidized crop.

Farmers have an economic incentive to
produce more in order to increase their
subsidies.

To counter the effects of its own interference,
the government requires farmers who
participate in the subsidy program to set aside
acreage not to be cultivated.

The USDA pays rent to farmers who set aside
acreage (currently some 36.4 million acres of
land).

Economically encouraged to maximize yields
on fewer acres, farmers increase the use of
fertilizers and pesticides which run off the
lands and eventually find their way into rivers.

The farm programs cost taxpayers $10 billion a year.
Farmers dump 40 billion pounds of fertilizer and 500
million pounds of pesticides on fields every year.
Then the government spends $1.4 billion a year to
control pesticide pollution and $600 million to
control agricultural runoff.

It is estimated that eliminating farm subsidies could
result in a 35% reduction in chemical usage and a
29% reduction in fertilizer use per acre.

Source: Jonathan Tolman (Competitive Enterprise
Institute), "Poisonous Runoff From Farm
Subsidies," Wall Street Journal, September 8, 1995.
 
Futo, I consider myself a 'practicing environmentalist'. I go to work every day and try to improve the envioronmental quality of the land I manage. Over the years I have battled for and succeeded in getting a large percentage of acreage on its way to being restored to native grassland and wildlife habitat. We are members of the Audubon Sanctuary Program. Through IPM practices we have reduced overall pesticide and fertilizer use by 45%. Physical buffer zones and better technology enable us to utilize lower use rates to protect water sources. There is much more, but know that the people I work for are not tree huggers. It takes sound economic and scientific evidence to sell this stuff. That and results are what motivates positive change in practices. This kind of proactive approach is being implemented successfully in a lot of places. I agree that this issue is very much like RKBA. Where we seem to differ most is I do not want to relegate enviornmental protection to a controlling central authority anymore than I choose to for my own personal protection. Frankly, in my back yard (its a big yard), I am much more effective at both.
 
I like to believe that there is a great difference between "Environmentalists" and "Conservationists".

I consider myself a conservationist. I believe there is a balance between preserving resources and the need for the human race to provide for itself. I believe that the answer to many of the environmental problems we face is in the development of technology to resolve them. We should embrace technology, not curse it. The problems with pollution were necessary to advance the state of the human race, and we can solve these problems through scientific advances.

Environmentalists want us to return to the stone age. Want us to go backwards, to Devolve.

As far as endangered species, species have gone extinct since the first single celled organisms. Extinction is part of the progression of life. Older species are forced out by more advanced species. We as the human race are part of this process.

We really are arogant to think we are the end point of evolution.

Geoff Ross
 
Here is the problem. I take care of mine and you take care of yours. No problem, but who takes care of ours? Ours is handled by our government who is influenced by special interest groups. You know- Whale lovers and Tree huggers. And the government figures if they are right about our common land, the same standards should apply to ours.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Freeman,

First thanks for the web site, I'll be up burning some midnight oil this evening. Tobacco has always been one I can't understand. I also work in the Ag industry and I guess I see a lot of similarities with the general public's view of both. Much the same with the media sensationalizing them. I also know without present technology having 2% of the population feed the rest would not be possible. I also understand there has been abuse, no denying that. IPM has helped, a good dose of education, and simple economics, fertilizer and pesticides certainly arn't cheap. I have a lot to learn about staple products (I deal exclusively with fresh produce) however it seems to me the staple industry is kind of stuck in the post depression era. How much has the price of wheat changed compared to say cars? The government needs to butt out of all sides.
 
I prefer the term "Envirocrat."

Futo Inu:

Any discussion of the ESA must begin with a search of the U.S. Constitution for the relevant section authorizing the federal government's power in the area. No such section will be found.

The federal cup of power runneth over. Most unwarranted powers are only hazily justified on the most slippery of constitutional pretexts. It's time for the federal government to return to the roots of its formation: limited powers, sharply defined. That means an end to all federal environmental laws, no matter how beneficial they might be.



------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
 
Dark Avenger: I am a professional engineer, with some four years of intensive learning about environmental matters from working with field biologists in Texas' Coastal Zone Management Program. Also, I've farmed and ranched, and have been an Outdoorsman for almost sixty years.

I consider myself a Conservationist and an Environmentalist in the strict dictionary sense of these words.

"Tree Huggers", based on my 30 or more years interest in environmental issues, refers to those whose hearts may be in the right place as to love of "The Environment", but who are extremely emotional. They commonly seem to be ignorant of the science of many issues, and apparently regard any human activity to be bad.

In other words, if the shoe don't fit, don't wear it. :)

FWIW, Art
 
I teach Environmental Science at the high school level. I have to balance my environmental views with the communities' economic standards. Unfortunately, the best environmental solutions are also expensive.

Not surprisingly, most of the farmer/ranchers (and their kids) in our area are more environmentally conscious than the average suburban dweller. Sure, agriculture does pollute, but look at the city/suburban population. Wow, NYC is the worst of all possible land use plans...
 
Enviro nuts, they are so funny. Who was it that made environmentalism and conservationism popular Theodore Roosevelt...a gun nut/hunter from the word go. The left nuts tend to forget this. After all he was a Republican…

Now I want to relate an old joke my father used to tell..

Seems the preacher went over to have lunch with a farmer and before lunch the farmer gave the preacher a tour.

After seeing rows and rows of straight tall, and weed free corn the preacher said to the farmer "you and the lord have done magnificent work here"
The farmer showed the preacher a beautifully mowed pasture filled with healthy cows and fat calves. The preacher exclaimed "you and the lord have done magnificent work here"
The farmer showed the preacher his garden full of growing vegetables and no weeds and the preacher said again "you and the lord have done magnificent work here"
Later during lunch the preacher told the farmer again "you and the lord have done magnificent work here" to which this time the farmer replied "well you should have seen this place when just lord had it to himself"

The moral of the story is that the land needs a steward and the Government has proven time and again that they are the poorest stewards of all, they just leave it to the “lord” (in their case them as they are the land lord to do nothing with but let it deteriorate )….
 
I got my Eco-Fascist Tree Hugger card years ago.

I am a certifiable wafflestomp'n, flop-necked ,quiche-gobblin,duck-squeez'n,bed-wett'n,limp-wristed, forest-fairy.

Or at least, were I accused, my defense would be difficult and complicated.

That said, Wanna know what a Ecologist is? I'll tell ya, an Ecologist is someone who already has their cabin in woods, and doesn't want you to have yours. Or, its someone who *WANTS* that cabin in the woods, and can't afford it -yet-, so they want to block you from getting it.

A conservationist is someone who thinks some of this cool stuff is worth having around.

Big difference.
 
From todays London Times.This is what you are all about--

Whitehall security alert for anarchists

BY TOM BALDWIN
DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR
DIRECT-ACTION tactics adopted by green groups,
animal rights campaigners and anarchists have led to an
overhaul of security across Whitehall.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the
Department of Trade and Industry have installed
expensive anti-terrorist measures. Stephen Byers, the
Trade Secretary, is understood to have personally
approved a large bulletproof screen and panic buttons
after the DTI building was invaded by anti-capitalist
anarchists earlier this year.

His concerns were reinforced by his experience at the
World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle two weeks
ago, when riots crippled the city. A similar protest in
London at the same time organised by "Reclaim the
Streets" is believed to have been aimed at the DTI.

MAFF now has airlock doors, bomb-proof glass and a
direct line to Special Branch protection officers in its new
building in London. Nick Brown, the Agriculture Minister,
said last weekend: "We are one of the most secure
departments. It is because of our many enemies."
 
The environmental movement is much broader than it appears. We have the so-called "tree huggers", and we have the "bunny huggers", and many that are somewhere in between. Some are called animal rights activists, "greens", eco-terrorists, or the broadly misrepresented name of "environmentalist". But whatever side these environmentalists are on, whether protection of flesh or plant life or water or air, the ultimate agenda is one that we all need to be aware of. This agenda puts MAN at an equal level with or below that of other God's creations. This agenda blames MAN for nearly every environmental incident, be it forest fires or global warming. This agenda sees MAN as earth's cancer, slowly killing it. This agenda includes zealous ideologies which include human population control and reduction and genocide, which is their ultimate solution to resolving so-called environmental issues.

Animal rights zealots clearly put beast before MAN. They suggest the utopian wetdream of "having the lion lie down with the lamb". Whereby MAN no longer controls, domesticates, consumes, manufactures, hunts, fishes, recreates, experiments with, and/or jails (as in zoos and aquariums) animals. That no MAN should "own" another animal. That no little boy should ever enjoy a new Labrador puppy on Christmas morning.

The tree huggers have created a disaster in U.S. owned forests. By protecting "endangered species" millions of acres of our land is no longer being properly forested, which has resulted in diseased, dead stands of timber itching to burn into an inferno. These measures have also caused federal land grabbers to steal millions of acres of privately held land from their rightful owners, thereby "protecting" them from MAN as well.

Their arguments are widely known to be emotionally based and scientifically empty. But they are winning. And they are winning because we've been blindsided by the simple fact that our legislators would rather hear a simple lie than the complicated truth. Many of the commentaries made during legislative sessions are made by paid eco-freeks pretending to be constiuents, most who aren't even residents of the States in question. Their pleas are indeed emotional. They claim all sorts of scientific fact backing up their statements, but rarely do legislators investigate the validity of such statements. Their arguments sound good for all, and they are passed into law.

Put people first. Use sound scientific data to analyze and decide hard environmental decisions. And participate individually to keep our Earth clean.

Save a deer, shoot an activist!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top