Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Bubba Ray Boudreaux, Sep 20, 2002.
All I can say it "TRUTH"
I have to laugh at the extremists. They say they are saving the earth, I just wish they could realize they are helping to severely change it (which they are opposed to). Change is part of nature, preservation can only go so far. I know several environmentalists that help to keep man from hastily changing the earth, but also realize it happens naturally (floods, tornados, drought, winds, etc), and try to keep it to a minimum while also enjoying the beauty of nature (they belong to "tread lightly"). I agree with conserving natural resources and landscapes, not preserving them (like some sort of jelly).
Just my 2 cents! Flame away.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I agree with conserving natural resources and landscapes, not preserving them (like some sort of jelly).
[/ QUOTE ]
I printed it out and hung it above my desk at work. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
Keep up the good work bubba...I'll give that to one of my professors in the political science dept. He's a greenie and ought to like it pretty well /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
I love the ones that are vegetarians, but will spend $200 on a pair of leather shoes. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif
They don't eat animals, but they make fine footwear!
"Vegetarian" - Old Indian word for lousy hunter. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
i don't want to sound like a total idiot here, but i don't get it? did an enviromentalist start that fire ?
They are against managing the forest. Treefall builds up and provides fuel for fires. Selective logging can help this. It can be a pretty hot debate.
well i think people should clear out fallen trees, what is the reason for leaving them ?
Actually going there with vehicles and cutting logging roads is one of the issues. Its one of those debates where nobody wins untill something happens, like a forest fire, that proves a point. I think its been proven.
Lots of uneducated folks will say something about disturbing natural habitat and ecosystems. There is much truth to that, but as man closes in on animals and their living space, then we need to help manage that space otherwise when it goes up in flames, where do the critters have to live?? Think of this, when a fire destroys a forest, where do the animals end up? Many of them end up in areas they aren't supposed to be, or they are in such a cramped forest that many die from the lack of basic needs. Think of it like this. If the US burned down except for say like Arizona, and all the people had to go there to live, it'd be a VERY bad thing. You would have food shortages, water shortages, cramped conditions, and prolly a lot of crime for survival. The same goes for the animals in the forest. If you push them in too close, you do just as much harm. So what is worse, preventing huge fires by cleaning up the forest and risk damaging a natural ecosystem, or do you let mother nature wait until the trash is too much and she burnes it ALL down?? I have my own opinion, but it's something to think about.
Separate names with a comma.