"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and
environmental"
-David Foreman, founder of Earth First! and co-founder of the
Wildlands Project of which the
California Wilderness Campaign
is a part of
"It is probably a healthy exercise, when considering the extinction of
species in this age, to remember that many thousands of life forms have
ceased to exist from wholly natural causes -- dinosaurs spring invariably to
mind. And further that some organisms -- especially primitive forms, which,
as it were, are 'past their prime' -- will pass into oblivion both without
human assistance and in spite of it."
-From The Birdwatcher's Companion, page 229, authored by Christopher Leahy of
the Massachusetts Audubon Society, 1982.
Which statement is supported by the historical record? Would the removal of
the human race keep nature in a static state? Is the environmental
movement's hatred of mankind an ideology we should embrace?
As the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) campaigns to
close off our forests to protect endangered species by advocating their
Alternative 6 - is their view of preservation historically and empirically
valid? Should preservation be our primary concern? Does their view of
preservation, which views nature as being in a "static state," proven by the
historical record?
If you missed our past Forest Plan Updates:
What's at Stake Part I (fire management)
What's at Stake Part II (roads/Access)
What's at Stake Part III (mountain biking)
What's at Stake Part IV (Vision)
What's at Stake Part V (The Wildlands Project)
What's at Stake Part VI (Ideology - Economic/Political)
you can view them on our web site by clicking on drop down list at the top of this page
The Sierra Club and the CBD seeks to create a state of preservation, a
"static state," when the historical record shows empirically that no such
"static state" ever existed. Over millions of years the earth has gone
through major and mini ice ages and climate changes that have killed off
thousands of species, as well as natural disasters that wiped out hundreds
of square miles. One recent example is Mt. St. Helens.
"What was once the 9th highest peak in Washington State was suddenly reduced
to the 30th highest peak. The intense high pressure/high temperature steam
that escaped instantly turned more than 70% of the snow and glacial ice on
the mountain to water. This massive movement of rock, ash, water and downed
trees swept into Spirit Lake and down the north fork of the Toutle River
Valley at speeds in excess of 175 miles per hour.
As the north face slid away it let loose the trapped gases like a cork
removed from a well shaken bottle of champagne... In only three minutes the
blast flattened 230 square miles of old growth forest in a fan shape north
of the mountain.
Mt. St. Helens is on an ocean-continent subduction boundary (the Juan de
Fuca plate is subducting under the N. American plate)... No one knows
enough about the volcano to predict when it will erupt again or what kind of
volcanic activity the next eruption might bring."
http://www.olywa.net/radu/valerie/mshduring.html
There are other active volcanoes along the Pacific Northwest, Mt.
Rainier for example, which are capable of the same, if not far more
catastrophic eruptions; eruptions that some scientists believe would destroy
hundreds of square miles of forest as well as destroy major cities such as
Seattle. Seismic activity in Yellowstone National Park, the site of a
caldera volcano (that had one of the most powerful cataclysmic eruptions in
ancient times) has also caused some concern.
When Krakatau (on the Indonesian island of Rakata) exploded on August 27,
1883, about 75% of the land area disappeared. It was the most violent
volcanic eruption in recorded history and left more than 30,000 dead.
What if Rainier or the caldera volcano in Yellowstone was going to have a
cataclysmic eruption and we had the technology to stop it. Would the
environmental movement support "interfering" with nature? They are against
active management in preventing these devastating fires we've been
experiencing, fires that have destroyed over 19 million acres and killed
thousands of species since 2000. Would they prefer hundreds of square miles
be destroyed by a volcano rather than have us "interfere" with nature if it
were possible to do so? What effect would a cataclysmic eruption, some of
which the historical record has shown to be more devastating than that of
Mount St. Helens, have on the environment hundreds of miles away? What about
endangered species found only in the immediate area of the blast? Major
blasts have been known to lower world wide temperatures, yet the
environmental movement seems to put the responsibility on world wide
temperatures on man.
What about the theory of a massive meteor strike (evidence of which is in
the Gulf of Mexico) that killed off life on earth thousands if not millions
of years ago? What if nature in its wisdom decided to shoot a massive meteor
into earth and we had the power to stop it. Would the environmental movement
approve of "interfering" with the wisdom of nature as it decides to reshape
our known world as it has for eons?
Does nature crave a static state? As the environmentalists and the
government seek to protect an endangered fox in the Channel Islands, they
are being challenged, not by man in this attempt, but by eagles who are
competing with the fox for food, and maybe eating fox pups or adult fox's
themselves. Will we play "God" and interfere with nature to kill these
eagles to save the fox? Is nature seeking a static state of preservation, or
is man?
Even nature proves that this ideology of a "static" state, a constant state
of preservation, unsupportable. If the historical record shows unstoppable
and constant change, how can they stop it? Is the environmental movement God
or do they believe by their policies they can become God and change the
rules of nature? I am amazed at their belief in their human omnipotence; it
is no wonder their ideology has more of a basis in faith than in reason.
If nature promises no species eternal existence, to what extent should we?
The environmental movement's attempts to make nature fit into its "static"
state of preservation by use of the endangered species act has resulted in
all other concerns, such as private property rights, recreation, economic
growth, the protection of property and lives - being treated as an
afterthought.
We should make every attempt to conserve our public lands and their many
uses for future generations, but not at the expense of future generations.
The environmental movement believes itself to be God, powerful enough to
change the very nature of Nature. The environmental movement's ideology that
views man as preventing their "static" state of preservation discounts the
historical record showing that nature has done what no man has ever done,
destroyed whole ecosystems of species many times since the beginning of
time.
The environmental movement has also developed another weapon to limit access
- invasive species legislation. An invasive species is anything not "native"
to the environment such as noxious weeds and animals. I can understand
attempts to control invasive species that have a detrimental economic
effect, but in many cases this has proven to be nearly impossible.
Historically, how has nature addressed invasive species? Where do you think
the term "survival of the fittest" came from?
There is one "invasive" species, a species introduced by Europeans that some
would have considered a new "technology" that revolutionarily changed the
life of the Native Americans, allowing them a more efficient way to live and
improved their standard of living. This "invasive" species was native to the
America's millions of years ago before it disappeared with thousands of
others, including camels and mammoths - and nature was the cause - not man.
What was this invasive species?
The horse.
It seems almost comical that the horse, an important part of the history of
the United States, is viewed as an invasive species. Currently, there are
some who are pushing to ban the use of horses in crowd control in our
nation's capital, Washington D.C. They claim that the horse's waste, even
thought cleaned up by city crews, is a dishonor on our capital; yet for
almost 150 years of America's history a horse's waste was a more than a
common sight. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a Native American Senator from
Colorado ( http://campbell.senate.gov/ ), defended the use of horses by
Washington D.C. police by stating one horse is equal to 10 police officers.
I know another invasive species that came to North America around 10,000 to
25,000 years ago, probably with other "invasive" species. I wonder if
environmentalists could go back in time to "Protect and Restore our
Forests!" would they kill off this invasive species? What is this species
name?
Man.
Does the ideology and policies of the environmental movement have its basis
on the historical record and empirical evidence - or in faith? Only a fool
would believe he can become as God and change the very essence of nature in
which only the strong survive. No species survival is guaranteed in this
world, not even humans, all we can do is use mankind's technology to make
our world as sustainable as possible for those that will come after us. But
nature may have other plans as the historical record has shown.
We must accept the realization that we are not God and despite our Disney
shaped view of nature, as the historical record has shown, nature can be as
destructive - if not more destructive - than man.
The environmental movement would be more effective if it used reason and
science to conserve our public lands for future generations rather than the
faith based ideology that denies the historical record provided by the earth
and nature.
Nature proves their current faith based ideology wrong.
You are being given the opportunity to protect your freedom to access your
public lands by commenting on the future of your forests; please take this
responsibility seriously.
We will be evaluating and commenting on the forest plans before the comment
period ends in August. We will be releasing these comments to our supporters
to evaluate with an email address to the Forest Planning Team so you can
comment too. Please do your part to protect your access by visiting our web
site for this information or sign up on our email list to be kept informed
on the forest plans.
 |
Copyright© The Warrior's Society® |
|