 A
recent edition of the Albany, New York Times Union carried an
article entitled "We can act locally on the environment" by Paul
Bray, who identifies himself as the founder of the Albany
Roundtable. This is a civic lunch forum, the mission of which is
not noted, other that to eat lunch.
The piece begins with reference to an article in the New Yorker
by Elizabeth Kolbert. Kolbert stated that the recent election
was not about the environment, but the environment may suffer
the largest consequences. It should be evident right-off that
neither she or the Roundtable founder are politically aligned
with the Party that racked up smashing victories in the recent
national elections.
Kolbert continued, saying that the Bush administration, with
remarkable single-mindedness, had set about undoing 30 years of
work to protect the nation's air, water, and shrinking
wilderness. First off, what is her definition of
single-mindedness? According to Webster's the first is
guileless, singlehearted. Guile is defined as deceitful cunning
and President Bush is certainly less of this; and singlehearted
means having an honest heart. Is this what she meant? Whatever
the case, these are two of the qualities that are a refreshing
change over the previous occupant of the White House.
The second definition is having a single purpose. If Kolbert is
implying that Bush's objective is to effect the repeal of all of
the environmental legislation of the past 30 years, this is
sheer nonsense and is typical of the type of scare tactics
employed by the radical environmental movement to play on
people's emotions, and in the process, fill their coffers and
expand their power and control. There is no question, however,
that many existing rules and regulations need to be refined so
that they meet real needs, and more importantly make sense.
What the New Yorker writer meant by shrinking wilderness is
anybody's guess. The amount of land in U.S.A. designated as
wilderness has been increasing to a very striking degree for
more than 100 years. Add the vast acreage of farmland that was
abandoned during the mid-1880s and has reverted to a woodland
situation, similar to what existed prior to the American
Revolution. An example would be the entire Appalachian Plateau
of southern New York State. In respect to wilderness acreage,
the big questions that need to be resolved are how much is
enough and for what purposes. Unfortunately, the radical
environmentalists will say more, more, and more to satisfy their
insatiable appetites.
As to be expected, the next item mentioned was the devotion of
time to the defense of the nation to protect its citizens, which
should be the first and most important role of government. It is
stated that the war fever on the Potomac may give the President
and his friends a pass on what they want to do to the
environment. Is the Roundtable founder - it is assumed that he
is now doing the talking in the Times Union article - implying
that the war on terror and the hard stance on Iraq are a design
to further other agendas, such as the drilling for oil on the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? ANWR is as the name implies a
refuge for various species of wildlife and not a wilderness and,
from a common sense standpoint, any public lands should be used
for other purposes that do not pose a conflict. Do not these
people have any faith in the technology that this great nation
has at its disposal?
Bray doubts that the public wants such drilling, but it is more
a matter of liberal politicians not wanting it. Of course, they
are the saviors, when it comes to looking after the public's
interests. He says to watch for membership in the Sierra Club
and other environmental groups to spiral upward, as it did
during the Reagan administration. Credit should not be given to
this great figure, but rather to Sierra and others for their
slick campaigns; which pulled on a naive public's heartstrings
and pursestrings. Speaking of the Sierra, it's interesting to
note that Pope's reaction to the rifts developing in various
chapters over the prospects of a war with Iraq. Pope is in a
quandary, since he undoubtedly does not want his organization
exposed for what it is; namely an ultra-liberal group interested
in control over people's lives and property.
The remainder of the "act locally" article deals with community
efforts to protect environmental quality, which in itself is a
very vague term. It refers to the first round of
environmentalism beginning with Earth Day more than 30 years
ago. This, of course, is erroneous and insulting to pioneers in
the field of ecology, such as Aldo Leopld, who made major
contributions. And, for years there have been many very
successful resolutions of conflicts between man's use of the
land and critical elements of the environment long before Earth
Day was even a dream. Unfortunately, these did not necessarily
get the attention they deserved, probably because they were
handled in such a courteous manner.
Then the article seems to start to make some sense. Bray, either
consciously or unconsciously, is aware that the bulk of the
environmental destruction occurs, or has occurred, in the
paved-over urban areas and associated sprawl. Talk about drastic
changes in ecosystems. Most of the replacement array of flora
and fauna is detested by the populace, and they go to great
lengths to destroy them with insecticides, pesticides, poison,
traps, disinfectants, demolition of prime habitats, among other
lethal means. The urban-suburban dwellers pull weeds from their
lawns, use manufactured fertilizer, and regularly mow them so
that trees do not stand a chance. They exhibit a lack of respect
for Mother Nature and yet many call themselves
environmentalists. Please note that a sense of humor is
necessary when dealing with them.
So how should we act locally on the environment in areas where
the masses of people reside, which incidentally constitute an
extremely small percent of the vast U.S.A. ? Chances are Paul
Bray might become a little frustrated with the facts and
resulting dilemma, which he probably would choose to ignore.
Could there be a guilt feeling amongst the urbanites and
suburbanites, which they try to make up for by penalizing those
who reside in the rural and wild places? What appears to be
totally lacking in this discussion is an appreciation of the
undeniable fact that throughout the world the only societies
that are capable of effectively addressing environmental
problems, and also taking care of their needy, are those that
are free, foster capitalism and free enterprise with a minimum
of government interference, and strictly enforce private
property rights.
He does state that his area is not a complete slacker when it
comes to environmental stewardship. One of the gems he offers is
the new DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) building
which, in conformance with the natural setting sits on the banks
of the Hudson River smack dab in the middle of Albany. It has
the distinction of receiving the Green Buildings Council award
for its environmentally conscious design. It is not stated what
makes this edifice more attractive than the natural setting that
existed.
A minor question that was not addressed was why the DEC needed a
new building, since a good case could be made that this
power-hungry agency was already horrible over-staffed. Of course
the ultra-green environmentalists demanded more and more bodies
to effect the desired harassment of private property owners with
non-sensical designations of wetlands and threatened or
endangered flora and fauna, preparation of wish lists of
properties to add to their kingdom, and the social engineering
of the Adirondacks, among numerous other noble undertakings.
Bray identifies the Tivoli preserve and the Albany Pine Bush as
outstanding urban projects. Tivoli was created to serve as a
model urban park some time ago. A survey was subsequently
conducted to monitor use. A question still exists as to the
findings, which would give some idea of the benefits to costs.
The Pine Bush is a sorry commentary on bureaucratic stewardship.
Incidentally, this scrub oak-pitch pine community has been there
for eons, and prior to effective fire suppression extended much
further to the north. Periodic fires are necessarily to maintain
the existing flora and fauna, and DEC has a poor record in
conducting the required controlled burns. Deer populations are
uncontrolled with resulting devastation of shrubbery and gardens
on private properties and the virtual elimination of pitch pine
reproduction essential for perpetuation of the Bush.
At times it is very difficult to ascertain just what is on the
minds of the environmental leaders. They sure think differently
than those on the right side.
December 19, 2002 Nate Dickinson
Common Sense Wildlife Management
|
