Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7990)	3/8/2001 10:11:45 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

The latter group (those that don't care about the environment) have tended to be more vocal and better funded than than the former (environmental zealots). Even when the government does set aside land (like the National Forests), it has been under a policy of exploitation and not generally one of preservation. The National Parks have been better managed but look at how much resistance people have put up to prevent the stressed animals of wintertime Yellowstone from being chased about by hordes of snowmobiles. The best and most environmentally protected regions around me have still been used for extensive cattle grazing. I have mixed feelings about this because the grazing of the land is necessary. The problem is that the ecological balance has been altered and that all the large native grazing animals have been killed off and the introduced species take over without the grazing. Like I told Tim, we typically spend 5% or more of our income on insurance of some kind to ensure we are made whole in the even of calamity. The only way to make whole on loss of habitat is to put some entire ecosystems under protection. Governments are not good at protecting entire ecosystems. They have had a very poor track record. They protect some, and leave others in the same web damaged (like native fish destroyed by logging activities).