Jump to content

Bush Did What?


Weekend_Climberz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah...it's almost as remote as ANWR, and just as devoid of fauna.

 

Neither place is even close to being devoid of fauna. ANWR is home to one of the largest caribou herds in the world, moose, muskox, grizzly bears, wolves, all sorts of birds, etc.

The waters where this new monument was created host one of the most intact marine ecosystems in the world including lots of sharks!!

 

I think this is really cool. As far as I'm concerned, credit should be given where credit is due.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is really cool. As far as I'm concerned, credit should be given where credit is due.

 

So credit should be given to the environmental lobbyists who pressured the administration to give lipservice to conservation by "protecting" an ecosystem that wasn't under threat (well, actually they are going to let fishing continue for 10 years, but after THAT it will be "protected")? I agree.

 

I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this area really is threatened and this designation will make a difference. But why are they allowing fishing to continue for the next 10 years if the area really is threatened? If they continue to allow fishing, what is the point of this designation except to make Bush look good?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creation of the largest national monument in history isn't lip servive. And who cares why he did it, obviously it was for political reasons. Its not like Bush himself personally actually cares about the environment. It may be very well true that Bush did this so he could get away with other environmental atrocities like drilling ANWR, but nevertheless, its still a victory for conservation and environmental protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think based on the facts I know about the place thus far (a rare, delicate, and rich ecosystem is being designated as a new National Monument) it sounds really cool, but what does the designation mean and was the area really under threat? From what I've read, it doesn't sound like anyone ever went to this place, including fishing vessels*(see edit below), so will this designation really change the prospects of this ecosystem flourishing in the future?

 

A variation of the tree falling in the forest epithet, "If a place that no one ever vists gets designated as wilderness, does it really matter"?

 

I'd be curious to hear how much fishing/mining/etc went on out there and how that will change now.

 

edit: "According to Hawaii officials, nine bottomfishers now work the area, using weighted, baited fishing lines to catch about $1.5 million worth of snappers and sea bass."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with DH on this one - whatever his motives might be, there's little to be gained by crapping all over someone who finally did something you agree with, no matter how much you despise the person. Protecting this area is a good thing for GW to do, and that should be acknowledged gracefully.

 

As for the fishing, it's possible they decided to allow existing fishing licences in the area to expire, rather than pay compensation for revoking them. Just speculating, but I think it's a plausible explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think based on the facts I know about the place thus far (a rare, delicate, and rich ecosystem is being designated as a new National Monument) it sounds really cool, but what does the designation mean and was the area really under threat? From what I've read, it doesn't sound like anyone ever went to this place, including fishing vessels*(see edit below), so will this designation really change the prospects of this ecosystem flourishing in the future?

 

A variation of the tree falling in the forest epithet, "If a place that no one ever vists gets designated as wilderness, does it really matter"?

 

I'd be curious to hear how much fishing/mining/etc went on out there and how that will change now.

 

edit: "According to Hawaii officials, nine bottomfishers now work the area, using weighted, baited fishing lines to catch about $1.5 million worth of snappers and sea bass."

 

You make a good point, Pax. I doubt bush would have done this had there was much economic benefit, like natural resouce extraction, that could be derived from this place besides some fishing. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well maybe I'm just a "gol' durn' librul cynic", but GWB ain't no conservationist/environmentalist, and I ain't givin' him credit for such.

 

This place was already designated as an "ecosystem reserve" and there was only a small, token amount of regulated fishing going on, so I don't think this is going to make a huge difference in the health of the ecosystem there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with DH on this one - whatever his motives might be, there's little to be gained by crapping all over someone who finally did something you agree with, no matter how much you despise the person. Protecting this area is a good thing for GW to do, and that should be acknowledged gracefully.

 

I don't think positive reinforcement should really apply to the Neo-Conservatives. snaf.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...