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.

Pastimes : Where the GIT's are going -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (120777)	9/19/2006 10:14:54 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 225578

I would be more than thrilled to see that little woodpecker, and I've been thrilled to see many little California quail in our back yard, including a few nests. Right now I'm in the interim stage where I had to destroy all the quail habitat in order to restore it to quail habitat -- a necessary step to remove some piles of gravel and stuff that were left by the previous owners. Now that that's done, I'm going to plant lots of wildflower seeds and let the weeds go, and put up a shelter for quail. Right now, it's pretty barren and we haven't had any quail all summer. A lot of people don't understand the law of unintended consequences. Years ago, environmentalists were very active in trying to stymie the harvest programs I was involved with. They succeeded in reducing timber harvest levels on federal lands by filing appeals and objecting to virtually everything we did, even though our programs were specifically designed to achieve the very things they demanded. As a result, the unintended consequence was an increase in the value of stumpage. Next thing I knew, there were no less than five clearcuts between my house and town, a distance of six miles. And every woodlot in the valley was getting cut for the valuable timber, even though there was little or no habitat management component to the harvest plans. One place I knew of was cut right up to the edge of an anadromous fish stream, which never would have been done in areas that I worked on. Same thing with herbicides. Sometimes it was necessary to use herbicides in order to get trees replanted, but we kept this to a minimum because of public objection. Our program was 40 miles from town, but the environmentalists raised no objection to roadside spraying done by the highway department on all the highways leading into Portland, even though many of them were immediately adjacent to anadromous fish habitat. My suspicion is that our regulations required us to have intensive public involvement. We did the right things, but we laid ourselves open to attack and didn't stand up well to it.