cheers, Kettle!

“If any of you have this on RSS, consider keeping it on there”

I’ll just repost that one, so everyone sees it!

Have a great summer Bryson, and I look forward to having you back in the game in September.

Given the fact that the Makah did not whale for seventy years, and thus, there’s a huge generation gap between those who knew how to use the whole whale and those who don’t, my guess (and this is pure speculation) is that they would not use the whale in an exactly similar fashion as they used to.

Also, I found this quote from an article in Mother Jones concnerning whether or not the Makah would sell whale meat or whale parts:

“Selling the whale was a thought,” concedes McCarty. “And I’ll be honest with you. Selling the whale could be very, very advantageous to the tribe.” Thompson says the whale hunt was Greene’s idea: “He decided that we should go whaling because there would be money in it.” Greene did not return phone calls for this story.

Hmm…so, given the fact that the Makah were at least considering selling the whale, I doubt that they’d be using the entire whale’s body like they once did. But, again, that’s speculation. Informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless. If any readers out there know a better answer to Alex’s question, I’d really love to hear it!

Thanks for the question, Alex!

Yes, but like I said, at the time, the specific population of snail darter around Tellico Dam was the only one that the lawyers and scientists knew about; it was an issue of extinction to those individuals.

“If a portion of that species, a population, is reduced or decimated, nd [sic] it can be determined that the species would continue to survive and thrive absent of that localized population, then it does not come under the ESA.”

Actually, that’s not necessarily true. Under the ESA, a specific population of a species can be listed as endangered or threatened and thus be guaranteed all the legal protections granted by the ESA. The northern rockies gray wolf population is an example.

As for the polar bear stuff, that’s not really what this post is about, so while I appreciate your comment, I’m not going to respond to that aspect of your post. Thanks, Bardford!

I live in Oregon, and invoking the ESA to “save” the Spotted Owl resulted in destroying the timber industry, and thousands of jobs in small, timber-dependent communities around the state. This may seem a small thing to most people, but it wasn’t for the families experiencing it.

It turns out that the Spotted Owl’s numbers were more a function of competition from its cousin, the Barred Owl, than it was on available habitat. Score one more for bad science and a heavy-handed government.

Now we have the new specter of ESA-abuse with the addition of Polar Bears to the threatened species list. Not because their numbers are threatened or even declining… but because they might decline or become extinct as the result of Global Warming.

This will result will be giving the authority to the government to control virtually every aspect of our lives, from where and when and how we can travel, to how much and how we heat and cool our homes, to any number of other fascistic mechanisms the bureaucrats can dream up under the guise of saving the Polar Bear from extinction arising from fictitious AGW.

I know many of you reading this right now are cheering, and believe that even if it is based on fraud, that at least forcing citizens to live in a more modest and environmentally sound way is a good thing. You only believe this way because you either lack imagination or don’t have a significant knowledge of or appreciation of history.

This is true, however, it’s a separate issue.
The whole TVA controversy was about the survival of a species, and not the survival of a population, or individual animals within a population.

Once a species is extinct, it’s gone forever. If a portion of that species, a population, is reduced or decimated, nd it can be determined that the species would continue to survive and thrive absent of that localized population, then it does not come under the ESA.

If one wants to argue that it is beneficial or desirable to maintain a habitat or protection for a population, even though the species as a whole is not in danger, this is a valid position to take, and may have significant merit, but to invoke the ESA in such cases dilutes the authority and intent of the ESA.

It’s also important to acknowledge that extinction is a natural process. It would occur even if there were no humans on the planet. The rate of extinction is greater as the result of human activity, and thus it is important to judiciously apply the ESA where it is appropriate to protect species who would otherwise survive.

Unfortunately, the ESA has been misapplied in many cases and used as a political football by groups more interested in thwarting industry and development that they view as inherently “evil” because of their disdain for free-market capitalism, than they are with a genuine concern for the “environment” and conservation. The emotionally charged and biased elements in the environmental movement turn science on its head and removes the possibility of rational decision and policy-making.

“”Regarding the caribou, no, it’s probably not that cool, since the reason their population has doubled is likely due to a removal of natural predators, a change that threatens the health of the ecosystem as a whole; that’s just my hypothesis, however.”"

I’m really glad that you brought up the North Slope and Alaska Pipeline development. This is a textbook case of where reasonableness won out and resulted in wise development.

The developers of that project initially met with little opposition, and it looked like they would be allowed to rush into the building phase using pipeline designs that reflected less concern for the environmental impact than with keeping costs low and getting into production as quickly as possible.

Had environmental objections not been raised, and the pipeline been built per the original specs and methods, not only would the environment been put at great risk from the resulting breaks in the pipeline (faulty design), but it would have been an economic disaster for the developers as they would have been shut down or faced with expensive retrofitting to cure the design and construction flaws.

Happily, thanks to environmental concerns coming to the fore, the developers were forced to go back and redesign and rethink the construction of the pipeline, with a more sound knowledge and background of the unique conditions that existed there. Although delayed, and more costly, the pipeline went through, the much-needed oil flowed, and the environment has not been significantly impacted to this day.

The groups opposed to the pipeline development on environmental grounds were forced to compromise. They wanted NO development initially. The developers were forced into costly delays an increased costs. The result was a near-perfect balance of interests. Win-win, which is the way it should be, IMHO.

Bear in mind that it only worked because the developer could build the pipeline in a responsible way, and the market for their product could afford to pay the increased cost of the final product.

I firmly believe that the best way to increase the implementation of sound environmental practices and policies is to ensure that our economy is strong and that our overall standard of living remains high. This way, we can all afford to be good stewards of the environment and the resources we have.

Cheap energy has been the main ingredient in the success and wealth of our nation. With so much wealth comes the luxury of being good stewards of the environment.

The trend today is to make energy less available and more expensive by government fiat and legislation. I believe this is ultimately going to result in less concern for the environment and less “reasonableness” on both sides of the issue.

As people find it harder to heat or cool their homes and more of their paycheck goes into simply getting to and from work, I think the backlash to the Green Movement could be devastating to reasonable environmentalism.

Unless we are willing to enact mandatory abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, or some other means of curtailing a growing population, we are faced with difficult choices in weighing environmental concerns with the needs of a growing population.

It is not helpful in achieving a reasonable balance when sound science is replaced with shrill rhetoric, exaggerated or “faked science”, or crying wolf too many times.

I am one of a growing number of people who are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a massive fraud, and that saying C02 levels cause climate change is like saying wet sidewalks cause rain.

I’ve studied the science behind AGW since the nineties, and the “coming Ice Age” before that. I believe that the truth will eventually come out, and that the result will be public distrust and skepticism of genuine scientific concerns that may arise in the future.

I like all animals, but particularly Polar Bears. If I believed they were in jeopardy from my carbon footprint, I’d be walking or riding my bike rather than driving, and I’d be out there marching for C02 reductions. But it is all bunk, and the good news is that the polar bear will go on… even if there were to be significant warming in their habitat from natural climate change.

I also like clean air and clean water, and believe there is much more we can be doing to improve the quality of both, and also preserve a high standard of living, good health, and personal freedom.

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Management from Humboldt State University. I didn’t work on the Alaska pipeline, but during that time knew people who did, and was a commercial fisherman in Alaska, so I followed the debate and development first-hand during that period.

FYI, Caribou populations, like all wild populations fluctuate cyclically over time in response to a variety of environmental conditions. I think it was quite likely that the pipeline has had no effect, or only a minimal effect.

To say that reducing the number of predators has resulted in larger numbers of caribou is in error, I think, although it could be one factor in an extraordinary situation. Generally, predator numbers are more controlled by prey population numbers than the other way around, and lag behind prey population levels. There is a correlation, but you have it backwards.

Similarly, there is a strong correlation between temperature and C02 levels, but a close examination of the data reveals that C02 levels lag behind temperature changes… indicating that temperatures affect C02 levels, and not the other way around.

However, at the time that the suit was filed, the population of snail darter in the area near Tellico dam was the only one known to exist, and once Tellico dam began to operate, that population was destroyed.

As far as polar bears go, my knowledge of that particular issue is limited.

Regarding the caribou, no, it’s probably not that cool, since the reason their population has doubled is likely due to a removal of natural predators, a change that threatens the health of the ecosystem as a whole; that’s just my hypothesis, however. I don’t have any data to support that statement, but a similar thing happened in Yellowstone National Park with ungulate populations. It wasn’t until the reintroduction of the wolves that the ungulate population began to stabilize.