Author Topic: "Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"  (Read 1523 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
"Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"
« on: November 08, 2011, 02:47:43 PM »
HotAir links to a WSJ piece entitled "Flies and their lawyers" and offers this write-up:

Quote
The drama unfolds in the Sierra Nevada wilderness of California, southeast of Tahoe near the Nevada border.  In brief, the Paiute cutthroat trout (not to be confused with other varieties of cutthroat trout, like the Lahontan, for which there are also restoration projects underway) has been absent for decades from the 9-mile-long lower-creek area from which it is believed to have sprung some 10,000 years ago.  State fish and game officials introduced different varieties of trout into the lower-creek area some time back, and those trout did away with the Paiute cutthroat.

Happily, however, in 1912 a guy toted some Paiute cutthroats to the upper-creek area, above the waterfall, and the Paiute cutthroat trout survives to this day.  California Fish and Game and the federal authorities want to reintroduce the Paiute cutthroat to the lower creek.  They’ve been working on it since 1990.  The process itself isn’t expected to take long – get rid of the “non-native” fish by killing them off, put the Paiute cutthroat back in – but the regulatory requirements and the lawsuits have kept the restoration waiting on the shelf for 21 years.

Lawsuits?  Who could object to restoration of the Paiute cutthroat trout in its ancestral home?  That would be the legal defenders of invertebrates, of course.  Defenders of “flies,” to put it in WSJ’s generic terms.  Well, and people who just don’t like the use of chemicals.  To eliminate the unwanted fish, the state authorities want to use rotenone, a chemical whose naturally occurring base, found in the roots of common plants, was once used by indigenous tribes to kill fish for easier harvesting.  Rotenone would be tough on the flies (although they would be back in force pretty quickly).

Now, it turns out that the EPA has already been pleased (literally, that’s their word) to note that the project managers plan to use forms of rotenone that do not contain the synergist piperonyl butoxide (PBO).  They would prefer that the project use a rotenone compound with less naphthalene wherever possible, of course, and they recommend that Tamarack Lake receive physical treatment only (that is, have the unwanted fish removed physically rather than by chemical extermination).  They note that the lake is already deemed to be fishless, but the project managers reserve the authority to treat it chemically if the need arises.  The EPA wants them to commit to physical removal as their method of prior choice.

...

... this is what your tax dollars are doing for you.  Some questions to consider:

1.  Do you care if the Paiute cutthroat trout, which is already surviving elsewhere, is reintroduced to the 9 miles of lower creek where, over the millennia, it developed its unique markings?

2.  Do you care enough to pay for the restoration?

3.  Do you care enough to spend all the money spent by the US federal government and the states of California and Nevada to overcome years’ worth of regulatory bureaucracy and lawsuits?

4.  Do you think this is a high-priority topic for the US federal courts?

5.  Would you care even if the Paiute cutthroat trout had not survived?

6.  Since this whole issue has arisen because of fish management activities undertaken by government officials in the past, should we not think twice about continuing to bustle around relocating fish, for abstract, sometimes fanciful reasons that end up competing with each other down the road?

The other important perspective on this is that a burdensome, demosclerotic process of this kind can only be sustained by government.  Government doesn’t have to worry about a bottom line – at least not in the short run.  You’ve got government’s back.

...

Virtually all of the money that has changed hands so far has gone to lawyers, advocacy “experts,” and government employees, none of whom gets anything done that generates food, shelter, commerce, production jobs, and revenue.  Every single speck of this whole tale is self-imposed overhead.  

...

A business could never run this way.  It would be bankrupt by the third day of operation.  But there’s one more perspective worth taking a look at here, and that is the modernist perspective:  that we know enough, and government agencies are smart and well-appointed enough, to cruise the landscape with perfect foresight, resettling the fish for what are basically sentimental purposes.  It’s an odd marriage of irredentism and technological self-satisfaction, as if we can now use technology and the majestic powers of government to enforce mythical beliefs.

The most important question of all – whether this project is something worth having the taxpayer-funded government do – doesn’t get a serious debate.  The important question never gets posed to the people footing the bill.  Instead, with a government now run largely through its bureaucracies, and a court system attuned to arcane environmentalism, the process is extended for years, costing more and more money, over ancillary questions like how much naphthalene ought to be present in the rotenone compound, and whether fish are sexier than flies, environmental-advocacy-wise.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 03:18:55 PM by Pandora »
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: "Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2011, 03:09:13 PM »
*sigh*

Our legal system  is so corrupt. Our regulatory regime is so corrupt.

I think reintroducing these fish to the waters known to have spawned the species is a fine idea. But if it can't be as simple as "kill the non-native species and restock the trout", then what's the point?

The legal system is set up to make every proposed action adversarial. The regulatory regime is set up to prohibit any proposed action without the resolution of the conflict. It has all devolved into a ridiculous morass. Someone should just go down there under the cover of darkness and pour the chemicals into the river that kills the non-native species. Then after the wailing and gnashing of teeth subsides over the anguish caused by dead fish and bugs, somebody should slip down there and drop a few mating pairs of trout in the river, dust off their hands, and let God take care of the rest.

I edited to correct my typo in the title. - Pan
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 03:19:57 PM by Pandora »
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: "Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2011, 03:21:41 PM »
What's even the point of killing anything (and restocking) if the original fish are doing quite well a little way upstream?
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: "Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2011, 03:38:11 PM »
What's even the point of killing anything (and restocking) if the original fish are doing quite well a little way upstream?

I don't even know if there is a point. There may not be. I'm just saying I'm not against it. (Being kind of flip with the "fine idea" comment, as in, it's no big deal)

(I think) we've had a discussion about game species management before. I've been raised on the notion that stewardship over animal resources is a proactive endeavor that requires direct intervention that benefits both the game species population and the recreational users of the resource. I've enjoyed the benefits of living in a state that takes the notion very seriously, and I support it. So, if someone demonstrates that the events leading to the eradication of a game species from their traditional forage area and introduction to another area happened in a way that was detrimental to the species OR the recreational use of the species, I'm open to proactive solutions. I'm even open to local/state elected officials directing tax dollars under the banner of public good.

My problem with it is as I defined above - the ridiculousness to which the process has devolved. It doesn't have to involve so much hand-wringing; cost so much money; pit people against each other; direct so many resources away from the solutions into the hands of lawyers and bureaucrats. At that point - when the burden of doing anything becomes so egregious - why bother doing anything?

Which is of course, the Leftist goal. Stand in the way of all progress, overload the system, enrich and enlarge the government, and pay the lawyers.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: "Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2011, 04:05:44 PM »
What's even the point of killing anything (and restocking) if the original fish are doing quite well a little way upstream?

I don't even know if there is a point. There may not be. I'm just saying I'm not against it. (Being kind of flip with the "fine idea" comment, as in, it's no big deal)

(I think) we've had a discussion about game species management before. I've been raised on the notion that stewardship over animal resources is a proactive endeavor that requires direct intervention that benefits both the game species population and the recreational users of the resource. I've enjoyed the benefits of living in a state that takes the notion very seriously, and I support it. So, if someone demonstrates that the events leading to the eradication of a game species from their traditional forage area and introduction to another area happened in a way that was detrimental to the species OR the recreational use of the species, I'm open to proactive solutions. I'm even open to local/state elected officials directing tax dollars under the banner of public good.

My problem with it is as I defined above - the ridiculousness to which the process has devolved. It doesn't have to involve so much hand-wringing; cost so much money; pit people against each other; direct so many resources away from the solutions into the hands of lawyers and bureaucrats. At that point - when the burden of doing anything becomes so egregious - why bother doing anything?

Which is of course, the Leftist goal. Stand in the way of all progress, overload the system, enrich and enlarge the government, and pay the lawyers.

I agree and that was sort of the author's point as well when he highlighted the fallen Sequoia.  All the hand-wringing, consulting and "process" creates inertia.

And Obama speechifying about why 'we can't do these things anymore'.

More to my point of "why do anything" is the fact that the government caused the problem in the first place.  I can understand your point about proactive stewardship, but that would depend on who's doing the defining and the acting, I'd say.

The "experts" are always sure of what to do, until what they've done is proven near-catastrophic or worse.  Then, they're long gone and new proactive solutions are proposed, but to what effect?

We had a discussion about deer-conservation in NC; you approached it from MN's and your point of view, but I must have missed your response to my last post in rebuttal.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: "Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2011, 04:21:52 PM »
What's even the point of killing anything (and restocking) if the original fish are doing quite well a little way upstream?

I don't even know if there is a point. There may not be. I'm just saying I'm not against it. (Being kind of flip with the "fine idea" comment, as in, it's no big deal)

(I think) we've had a discussion about game species management before. I've been raised on the notion that stewardship over animal resources is a proactive endeavor that requires direct intervention that benefits both the game species population and the recreational users of the resource. I've enjoyed the benefits of living in a state that takes the notion very seriously, and I support it. So, if someone demonstrates that the events leading to the eradication of a game species from their traditional forage area and introduction to another area happened in a way that was detrimental to the species OR the recreational use of the species, I'm open to proactive solutions. I'm even open to local/state elected officials directing tax dollars under the banner of public good.

My problem with it is as I defined above - the ridiculousness to which the process has devolved. It doesn't have to involve so much hand-wringing; cost so much money; pit people against each other; direct so many resources away from the solutions into the hands of lawyers and bureaucrats. At that point - when the burden of doing anything becomes so egregious - why bother doing anything?

Which is of course, the Leftist goal. Stand in the way of all progress, overload the system, enrich and enlarge the government, and pay the lawyers.

I agree and that was sort of the author's point as well when he highlighted the fallen Sequoia.  All the hand-wringing, consulting and "process" creates inertia.

And Obama speechifying about why 'we can't do these things anymore'.

More to my point of "why do anything" is the fact that the government caused the problem in the first place.  I can understand your point about proactive stewardship, but that would depend on who's doing the defining and the acting, I'd say.

The "experts" are always sure of what to do, until what they've done is proven near-catastrophic or worse.  Then, they're long gone and new proactive solutions are proposed [*by another set of experts], but to what effect?

We had a discussion about deer-conservation in NC; you approached it from MN's and your point of view, but I must have missed your response to my last post in rebuttal.

Good points all.

Ah, yes, the deer discussion, that was it. Have you gone back to view my response? It wasn't a rebuttal so much as a clarification. http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,3333.msg37045.html#msg37045
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: "Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2011, 05:03:23 PM »
Oy and oops.  Yep, I did see it (thanks for the reminder).  What you didn't address was this:

Quote
If it was up to me, I'd see this be a function performed on privately owned preserves.  As it stands now, much of the nesting ground/forage and access lanes to the deer is already occurring on privately-owned land -- yes, that would be my garden/azaleas/ornamental trees and that of my neighbors.  The deer sleep in my tree-line, train the fawns where to come for food  ^^ and park them in backyard; last summer we had the Pandora Baby-Deer-Daycare going on back there.

So, the costs of this accrue to the individual property owners, the benefits accrue to the State which then parcels that out to the hunters.

If the fish were living on your property, in your water, and the State decided to "preserve" them from you, for you, maybe you'd see it differently.   ;)

As it stands, I generally wouldn't have as much of an issue with any of the conservation/preservation programs -- run by the States -- if the money for them came from user-fees, not out of general revenues.

At this point, I'm pretty far off-topic, though, as the issue is governmental malfeasance and purposeful inertia.  They've got the whole country so tied up in knots, it really does generate images of Gulliver. 
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63641
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: "Invertebrates aren't sexy megafauna"
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2011, 07:05:22 AM »
The Federal beast is a ravenous parasite, starving that beast and cutting it down to dwarf status is long past overdue.  State and local authorities are more than adequate to manage their own resources as their people see fit to authorize, the Fed's have too much direct or indirect (financial) impact upon local affairs...way beyond anything the Founders ever contemplated!  SSDD, won;t change till we change it!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.