> I'll just add a few last comments on this issue in reply.
>
> Diane
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, WIEST JAMES ANDREW wrote:
>
> > But land ownership is well defined accross time, it just changes
> > ownership. It's not like it "goes back into the pot" for anyone to have,
> > it is transferred in a logical, well defined way. While I may own it
> > only for my lifetime, it will always be owned by someone.
>
> If someone will continue to own it after you, then you need to consider
> that someone in your management. That's stewardship. If land owners
> won't leave the land in good shape for the next generation, we need to
> encourage them to do so. The same applies for current and future other
> species.
That's not a legal basis for regualtion. I'm all for stewardship, but if
someone chooses not to be a good steward he/she will simply have to face
the consequences of the land being worth less when it is sold. This is
called economics. Where you get to impose your *moral* viewpoint upon
someone is beyond me as far as legalities go. If I want to kill all the
snail darters on my property then so be it. If you don't want them
killed, then buy them or pay rent for them. This is the economic
solution to the mral dilema. "encourage" I agree with, "force" I do not.
> > > >
> These claims are legitimate, but just because "I don't like
> > his/her management policy" is not sufficient reason.
>
> But it's not just that "I don't like his/her management," its that the
> management might negatively affect other species and future people too
> much.
Who decides what is to much? Maybe cheap paper products are worth more
than the spotted owl after all. There seems to be some "magical" nature
given to "species" and their survival when species and habitat have
always been in flux. As far as what we leave to future people, that is
your moral choice. Do what you want with your property, I'll do what I
want with mine.
>
> > Animals are property too.
>
> How can you own animals that move on and off your property? (Or are
> they considered trepassers?) How can you own migrating birds that move among nations?
> This is a philosophical stance that is inconceivable to me. Should you
> not have any concern for the survival of other species?
>
I should have been more specific. *many* animals are classified as
property. As far as birds go, if they are a problem then offer a
solution, don't penalize a landowner because they choose to land there.
We(the state) sells tags to harvest many kinds of animals so there is a
price there as well. Having concern about species is a moral issue. The
world will not screech to a halt without the spotted owl. Do I think
reasonalbe means should be established to protect endangered species?
Yes. Is there a pricetag for that? Yes. Is there a limit to how much
we should spend to save the spotted owl? Yes. This is a logical,
economic decision. Want to save the Salmon? Fine. How much are you
willing to let your power bill rise?
>While you may not *like* that farmer Brown is
> > killing all the field mice, you have no grounds to stop him on his own
> > property unless you arrange to solve his problem by taking chage of the
> > mice yourself.
>
> But if Farmer Brown uses chemicals to kill the mice that also kill lots
> of birds ("my" birds too?), then I should have a right to influence his
> management.
>
Not unless you can keep "your" birds of his property, or are willing to
compensate him to keep him from using that chemical. This is
fundamentally what *private* property means. If your cat wanders onto a
farmers field and gets "eaten" by a combine, who's fault is that? Same
logic applies.
> Our planet is just not that fragile. Besides, the earth does more
> > ecosystem damage than humans do.
>
> The Earth can take care of its own damage, but may not be able to take
> care of Mt. St. Helen's and Hanford testing and Chernobyl and the Silver
> Valley, etc. We really don't know when the whole web of life will reach its limit.
>
It won't. If we blew up the world with all the atomic bombs we have,
there would still be life, and it would grow and the earth would
recover. Would it be different? Of course. What I'm saying is that man
is just not able to damage the earth as much as popularly publicized. Do
we exact "damage" on the earth? Certainly. Should we weigh the economic
costs and benefits? Yes. I personally would be willing to pay more for
paper in exchange for less clearcutting and more thinning because I think
it's healthier. This is a moral/economic decision that is valid. This
is a message that producers understand.
> > As far as "essential" plants and animals, there are none really.
>
> I doubt any scientist would say this. Humans are dependent on plants to
> make biological energy from the sun's. We never know what role each
> species plays. If we kill off a certain bird, will some insect it
> preyed upon eat up our crops? If we get rid of a wild strain of maize,
> will we lose a gene pool that could save our whole corn crop when a new
> bacteria or virus appears? If we lose the wild salmon, will we lose
> the key to making hatchery fish resistant to certain diseases? Or if we
> lose a plant, will it contain a compound to cure a deadly human disease?
>
I was being specific, you are speaking in the general. OF course we need
"plants" to exist. But claiming that each species is "essential" is just
plain not true. Whenever something goes down, something else moves in to
take over or the balances change. This is not neccessarily bad. If we
stopped issuing elk tags in Idaho, in a few years large heards would
starve out in mass numbers. Management is permitting a predator(man) to
maintain a balance. Do I believe in the wanton waste of species? No.
But if I don't choose to maintain that strain of maize, or help preserve
wild salmon, or keep that plant alive with *my* dollars than Farmer Brown
can do waht he wants on *his* property.(just a side note: using the
"this plant could cure all diseases" argument is specious at best because
it tries to push the value of an item above it's real value. Besides.
It is unlikely. Kinda like car ads where the cars get 50MPG, but the
small print says "under ideal conditions" which simply do not exist.)
> I just want *intelligent* management practices.
>
> As Aldo Leopold said, the first step of intelligent tinkering is to save
> all the parts. So I agree, I want intelligent management too. Let's try
> to save all the parts, because we are *very* far from understanding the
> nature and the role of each of its parts.
>
Saying it doesn't make it right. Many intelligent people develop thing
by processing the parts. Anyone who does not marvel at the simple
creative products we make from wood is missing an experience.
> >
> > But money is the only common commodity we have. This is why we price
> > everything. Treating land as a commodity ensures that the land is placed
> > in it's position of highest economic value.
>
> But humans aren't the only players here. Elk don't have money. And
> stewardship (rather than ownership) considers that.
>
> Diane
>
But Elk arn't players. They have no responsibilities therefore they have
no rights. They do not vote. They are indeed a "commodity". A type of
cow which the state allows people to *purchase* the right to kill for food.
If you do not see distinct differences between humankind and other
animals than you must truly live in a desparate part of this fair state...;)
Seriously, I realize that my last statement will raise the ire of many
"animals and humans are brothers" believers, but this is truly a
theological discussion that I don't believe this forum was designed for.
Best,
Andy