Troutnut Forum > Fly Fishing Discussion > Global Warming and Flyfishing, Page 4

Shawnny3	August 21st, 2007, 9:28 am
Pleasant Gap, PA Posts: 594	Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful replies. I like particularly what Jason said about the response of non-experts looking at the data of experts. I hope that this non-expert is one asking 'Why?' as opposed to one saying 'Aha!'. I teach stuff closely related to this topic, so even though I am certainly no climate scientist, I would like to be able to give my students a little more to go on than just a passive acceptance of expert opinion as promulgated by the mass media. God knows they already passively accept too much stupid crap. I am really not skeptical for the sake of being contrary. I'm really trying to wrap my mind around what is going on. And I'm certainly not throwing up my hands and saying "It's too complicated, so I give up - I can't figure it out!!" Quite the opposite - I truly want to understand what's going on and how we should shape our policy. So I hope my skepticism is a healthy skepticism, not a skepticism that endangers our planet's future. That's why I appreciate the discussion we're having. I've already mentioned my biggest concern with global warming, and that is the potential impact of addressing it on the developing world. Currently, unspeakable tragedies are occurring in Africa, and while a million things need to be done to address the problems there, cheap and available energy is a precursor to all of them. Without it, the developing world is powerless to develop and will be mired in its poverty forever. Anything that makes energy significantly more expensive effectively signs the death warrant for the poorest areas of the world. Contrary to popular opinion, the U.N. projects the world's population to stabilize within the next 75 years, maybe the next 50 years. The reason cited in their report for such a drastic halt to population growth? Not environmental factors or the availability of food or water - it's the rampant spread of AIDS. A close friend of mine is moving his family this very week to Malawi to oversee a group of pastors trying to establish orphanages there, even though they know that their orphanages will only be able to house at most a few hundred of the million orphans in that tiny country of just over 10 million people. My friend's most chilling revelation when he first visited didn't come until he'd been there a few days, when he finally realized that he had yet to meet anyone over the age of 35. Problems like that seem far removed from global warming (and I realize many people forecast environmental doom and gloom for those people in global warming's wake), but they are critically linked. Make energy too expensive or discourage nations like that from using their own fossil fuels and you put them in an impossible situation. That's not to say that the long-reaching implications of global warming might not be even more dire for those people, but their immediate needs must be considered. The poorest people in the world have a pretty big vested interest in how we address the issue of global warming, so I'd like to know we're quite sure of what we're doing before we invest in a solution with such a high cost to people it is so easy to forget about. Understanding that cost is what drives me to ask hard questions of the experts and to expect some pretty good answers. I'm not just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Interesting points, Jason, about media bias. I've never considered it in that light - I'll have to pay more attention to the possibility you mention of the media artificially centrizing (if that's a word) their reporting to pander to the ignorant masses. You've certainly made a very logical argument. And Louis, I appreciate your sentiments. That statement of Jason's was very powerful to me, as well. And, of course, thanks for the reminder to keep things civil. This has been a pretty good discussion, hasn't it? I know that it has sharpened my own thinking on this important issue. And thanks to Jeff for his insights on home design - very informative. I'd already visited the geoexchange website, but I thought they were just trying to sell me something. I have, however, used a video of theirs in my classroom as an example of how such systems work. I'll have to check the energystar site as well. -Shawn
	Jewelry-Quality Artistic Salmon Flies, by Shawn Davis www.davisflydesigns.com
These advertisements will disappear if you register. Replies:
Jmd123	August 21st, 2007, 10:49 am
Posts: 152	Shawn, my humblest apologies to you, and to those Republicans who do care about protecting the environment. Of course they are out there, much in the same way as there are gay Repubs who oppose the anti-gay Bush agenda. However, as a PARTY, the Repubs are so overwhelmingly opposed to protecting the natural world that those few voices of reason are lost beneath the shouting. The actions of the Bush administration, as well as the two previous Republican administrations, demonstrated what can almost be called contempt for environmental protections (see my Reagan quote). The most frustrating thing about this is that the Republican party used to be THE party of environmental protection (remember Teddy Roosevelt)! After all, Richard Nixon happily signed the National Enviromental Policy Act (NEPA - I know it pretty well), the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act - no veto threats, no major objections. He and his fellow Repubs knew that these landmark pieces of legislation were good for our country and its citizens. Also, they were true to the spirit of conservatism, because they wanted to CONSERVE natural resources for future generations of Americans to enjoy - VERY Teddy Roosevelt, who was responsible for the creation of the National Forest system when he saw private timber lands being logged TO DEATH. Well, all of that seemed to change when Ronald Reagan moved into the White House. Suddenly, environmental concerns were put on the back burner (if not thrown out the back window) when building up the military and "reviving" the economy became top priorities. Suddenly we were more concerned about kicking some Soviet a**, finding every possible source of oil, and logging the hell out of our National Forests than we were about our own air, water, and wildlife. These trends continued right on through Bush 41, were rudely interrupted during the Clinton years, and came right back into vogue when Bush 43 took power. In fact, it was shortly after 9/11 that the Bushies began quietly rolling back environmental protections under the pretense of "national security" - I heard this on NPR around November of 2001. So, what exactly happened? Absolutely no clue here, unless it was simply a change in the composition of Republican Party. I mean, the Repubs used to be considered the "liberals" (guys like Edwin Musky - GREAT last name, huh?), and the Democrats largely "conservative". This had been the legacy of the Civil War, when Republicans under their original hero Abraham Lincoln wanted to change the country, and the Democrats wanted to leave the south alone and let them go about their business. The Democratic side of things began to change with FDR, JFK, and LBJ - especially LBJs "Great Society" and the civil rights era. In any case, keep up your thoughtful insights, and feel free to keep me in check when my passions run high on this issue. I have an old friend and prior boss who has been bombarding me with so-called "evidence" against human-caused global climate change, and it's especially irritating since he is an environemtnal scientist who DOES care about the environment, in spite of the fact that he is a Republican. Other scientists he has sent these messages to have taken him to task over the legitimacy of this so-called "evidence". He is also one of those "gotcha" people with regards to the likes of Al Gore and his followers. Hey, if you don't like the message, just kill the messenger and the problem will just go away... Keep that bias to a minimum, my fellow scientist! Jonathon :oD
Chris_3g	August 21st, 2007, 11:29 am
Ithaca, NY Posts: 42	Hey everyone. I really did not intend to start a war! I almost said nothing, because one of the characteristics that I appreciate about the forums on this website is that everyone is very accepting, offers constructive criticism, etc. - I should know as I've asked some seemingly idiotic questions of you guys, about fly fishing. Anyway, I knew that spouting off about a controversial topic like this would open the flood gates, so to speak, so I figured I would be the sacrificial lamb for the topic. Flood gates open? CHECK! Since everyone else is stating their credentials, I am not a biologist. My interest in this field of science began and ended during my high school biology course, and with the exception of genetics, the field just never really turned my crank. Some very compelling points have been made throughout this discussion, which some may have upgraded to an argument, and it has forced me to re-evaluate my stance on this topic as a whole. That doesn't mean I'm not a skeptic, but all of the postings have made me think more, and I guess that's the goal of any such discussion / argument. I'd like to respond to a few comments that have been made though, just to clarify my attitude. First, I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't care about the environment. That's far from the truth. I try to do my part. I use these highly touted fluorescent bulbs in nearly all of my lighting fixtures. I try to only turn on lights, electric appliances, etc. when it's necessary. I prefer a cooler apartment and typically open my windows vs. cranking up the AC or the heat. I make use of mass transit and / or walk when I can, my wife and I have only one car, and it's a Corolla that gets ~40 mpg - this is in spite of my intense desire to own a Tacoma. We recycle, and I even try to resist the urge to spray CFC ridden aerosols into the atmosphere for no reason - please take note that I'm being sarcastic. I adore nature, and I really can't get enough of the outdoors. I'm not a tree-hugging hippie who powers my organically grown car on dreams and starlights, but the point is that I try to do my part. Second, I absolutely do not believe that we have no impact on our environment. We pollute at excessive rates, we clear huge portions of land for various reasons, and in the process of all of this pollution and land-clearing, we kill off species - species that we know exist and plenty that we don't. The list goes on, and it's not hard to see that we're the cause of a lot of bad things that have happened on this planet. Jason, I liked what you said about modeling large-scale problems, i.e. climate change vs. small-scale problems, i.e. tomorrow's weather. One could offer the counter-argument to your physics example that a particular rock on the "hill of model-validation" could be positioned in such a way that the ball comes to rest prior to reaching the bottom of the hill. I also didn't say that the human adaptation would be easy. If the worst-case scenario does occur, human adaptation will be tested to the limits. It will be a global catastrophe, period. I stated a couple of times in my post that if global warming is the cause that gets everyone to start paying attention, then go global warming. I agree with what a lot of people have stated on here. If we're wrong, then the worst we've done is we've cleaned up our environment, and if we're right, then the worst we've done is we've cleaned up our environment. It's a win-win situation, and regardless of our attitudes, we should all do our part, and I absolutely believe that! In the end, there is no disputing the fact that we should reduce our impact on the environment. We should have been paying attention from the get-go, but hindsight is 20-20, and the best we can do now is work toward reducing, or in the least, stabilizing our impact. I don't want to perpetuate the argument. I just wanted to set the records straight that I actually do care about the environment, I try to do what I can to preserve it, and I hope it stays the way it is for a long time. Chris. P.S. - Who wants to go fishing?
Jmd123	August 21st, 2007, 11:57 am
Posts: 152	Amen, Chris, amen. My spleen is shrivelling from too much venting on my part, and I bet others feel the same way too. So, back to fishing talk! So, any questions for the Michigander here? We have thousands of miles of trout water in my home state, and if I haven't fished the ones you are interested in, I can probably point you to a better source of information. If any of you folks out there plan on coming this way, let me know and I might just be able to show you in person. Salmon and steelhead runs are due to begin shortly, and the rest of the fishing always picks up with cooler weather in the fall - especially warmwaters. FISH ON (and on and on and on...) Jonathon :oD
Davez	August 21st, 2007, 12:42 pm
Pennsylvania Posts: 59	Unlike most of us here, a friend of mine is actually doing something with green or renewable energy. he owns a dairy farm with a methane digester. Basically, farmers lease the land and milking staiton to bring their cows there. My friend steals their poop via a scraper and pumping station. The poo is put into a giant covered container where it is heated to the magic temperature to speed up decomposition. The result is methane gas in which they burn off on two 100kW/h generators. they power their farm with it, sell electricity back to the grid, and power a small factory. this is of course tightly controlled and monitored continuously. The dried waste is then used as fertilizers on their grounds, where they grow high dollar organic crops. They also take in waste from a cheese factory- they can't just flush this stuff, so they pay the farm to take it and use it as fuel in the digester. There are a few of these operations around the country, and in europe. so they complete the cycle. its a pretty cool thing. so cows aren't all that bad.
Jmd123	August 21st, 2007, 12:52 pm
Posts: 152	As I said, Dave, it's all about how you manage them. It sure sounds like your friend is getting the most out of his! Kudos for him for his use of cutting-edge technology to provide him with an almost free energy source, and keeping the poop out of local streams. I've seen what cow pies can do... Jonathon
Gene	August 21st, 2007, 3:04 pm
Posts: 106	Gentlemen: It seems as usual this topic of Global Warming "burns up the internet." There are many points of interest here but there are some undercurrents that do not go away no matter what the political ramifications may be. Whether you like it or not here are some of the problems: 1) The Bush and this Republican Administration are anti-scientific (these people are not really Republicans or Conservatives, unfortunately they go by those terms). It has suppressed scientific data and scientists. It has changed reports and studies to their extreme right-wing political and religious beliefs. It has placed administrators in power for the EPA and Dept. of Interior that are nothing more than industry representatives and have destroyed the morale and the scientific research of many branches of these departments. A simple example is that of the Utah mining disaster. The federal inspector is nothing more than George Bush appointee from industry who is so bad even Republicans voted against him. I could be wrong but I believe he was appointed during the recess of Congress by Bush..one of those great deals! For analysis of how the mining industry owns America you might be interested in my little blog (http://www.enviroweb.blogspot.com/) where I comment on this situation. 2)Global Warming is not the hockey stick graph or any other individual set of data. It's the cumulative and synergistic effects of all that is going on. The Rush Limbaughs of the world (now there's a real scientist)love to try and find some little piece of nothing that they purport that refutes global warming. These people couldn't pass any basic science test yet they can analyze the myriad of data that goes into global warming. 3) The extreme right-wing think tanks funded by Exxon and others have more money and power than any university scientist and get their disinformation message out because they literally own the media. Americans are fearful they won't be able to drive their pick up truck just like they are fearful that their guns will be taken. 4) People like Gore and Robert Kennedy Jr. are actually hypocrites on many things and fall right into the traps set by these extremists on the right. Kennedy Jr. in particular with his hypocrisy on the wind mills of the cape (try reading a book called Cape Wind). These people cause the American populace to second guess the real science because they fly in private jets while telling you not to use an SUV! 5)It may not be polite but H.L. Mencken said it best a long time ago: "Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Whether we like it or not we aren't a very intelligent nation. However, we think we are smarter than we are. I know I'll upset a lot of people with this statement but I really don't care at this point in my life. Our Congress is made up with two majority degrees: Law and Poly Sci (government). These are the easiest degrees to get (even a Phd) and require the least amount of critical thinking skill--analysis and comprehension! These people all think alike and thus are present state of affairs, and seldom can think outside of the box. We are trapped by a myopic thinking condition that cannot solve the problems of our society because these people cannot comprehend in any real terms the complexity of the issues and thus rely on what they did before and nothing changes! Compare these people to Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison just to mention a few and you realize what dummies we have running this country (by the way did you know Jefferson wanted to be a biologist. He wrote a discourse on the Fishes of Allegheny River Systems or something to that effect if I remember correctly. He decided he couldn't make a living at it! Well he was right). That's not to say that these people didn't have their political problems but they never sacrificed the country for their own self gain. Now what does this have to do with trout streams? Well unfortunately for many fly anglers----nothing, and that's our problem. Trout streams do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in the real world. All of the political decisions that effect environmental conditions end up in our trout streams whether we like it or not. The failure of the EPA to enforce what is left of the Clean Water Act. The failure of the states to adhere to the same act and the failure of the EPA to monitor and force the states to take care of their streams is just one small example of what I'm talking about. If the administrators in the EPA and Dept. of the Interior that are working for industry how do you expect your streams to survive? The idea that I'm not a political fly fishermen is an oxymoron! Trout streams are the most precious of systems and they can't exist in indifference whether it's the effects of Global Warming, Acid Mine Drainage, or other pollution. If you can't see this then you perhaps you just don't deserve to call yourself a fly fisherman because it is in the noble birthplace of this great avocation that we are all riverkeepers and part of the journey on this earth is to pass these most precious systems to the next generation. gene macri aquatic and environmental scientist www.riverandgamekeeper.org
Shawnny3	August 21st, 2007, 6:04 pm
Pleasant Gap, PA Posts: 594	Thank you, Jon and Gene, for those poignant commentaries on the political climate. Being too young to remember a Republican president before Reagan, it was nice to read what Jon wrote about the sabotaging of Republican values - I know the parties used to be quite different, but never in my personal experience. I am a Republican according to my voter registration card, but I really couldn't care less how people label me. I've been put in the same unfortunate position of a lot of people like me - as a social conservative who likes the environment, I am always forced to make the same decision come election time: Vote for a Republican who at least on paper shares my social values but is in bed with every big company in the country, or vote for a Democrat whose social values I dislike but at least on paper likes the environment. What's one to do? I vote the social issues because I think they're of more immediate importance. But I really wish we'd get some nature-loving Republicans or pro-life Democrats on the ticket - I'd vote for either one of those in a second. A few years ago, there was a really great Republican candidate (can't remember his name) running against Arlen Specter, a guy who is the worst of both worlds in my mind - a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Guess who Bush endorsed - freaking Specter, and Specter won the primary by an eyelash. Why? Because he was a valuable crony who stood a better chance of winning the general election. I hate that crap. If that's the way things are done, how's anything ever to change? This upcoming presidential race is one I'm really not looking forward to - man, are the Republicans slimy (with the exception of Brownback, a guy who, because I like him, has no chance of winning the nomination). And if Hillary wins the Democratic primary, well, shoot, I'm sure not voting for her. The most likely ticket, Rudy/Hillary, might just make me jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. I'm from New York, but that doesn't mean I have to like its politicians, does it? Gives me the creepy-crawlies just thinking about it - 50 little New Yorks out there. Almost as bad as 50 little Texases. Anyway, I just want to thank you guys for your insights. Nice critiques. -Shawn
	Jewelry-Quality Artistic Salmon Flies, by Shawn Davis www.davisflydesigns.com
Jmd123	August 21st, 2007, 10:35 pm
Posts: 152	Shawn, PLEASE don't jump off any bridges, unless it's to get to better waters and you plan to SURVIVE. If anything, perhaps YOU should get more involved in your political party so that you may have some influence in its direction. I think most people, Demos and Repubs alike, think the party needs a NEW direction, since the Bush/Cheney/Rove regime has been an unmitigated disaster that has turned your party into a mean-spirited, profit-motivated political machine that can't stand any kind of dissent. That seems awfully un-democratic (small D for democracy, NOT the party) to me - this country is FOUNDED upon the principle that we can all speak our minds AND be heard. The Constitution is a truly remarkable document and I recommend that EVERY American should read AND understand it at least once a year. I do! (The World Almanac has the complete text and some historical background to boot.) Besides, if you jump off that bridge, you'll never be able to fly-fish again, and who the hell is gonna whip your students' butts when they throw away their negative results?? I have a lot of problems with Hillary - I'm starting to think that she might just be another member of the "Washington establishment", i.e. politics as usual. And don't EVEN get me started on Giuliani! Unfortunately, the only people who gain political power in our society are those that not only desperately crave it but will do ANYTHING to get it! Cynicism and despair are only logical byproducts of this tyranny. But, that sure doesn't mean we should give up trying! There are a few good folks out there, and we have to throw our backing behind them, whether they can win or not. Frustrating as it may be, we should always vote with our consciences. If it all gets too frustrating, just let me know and we'll plan a fishing trip somewhere to soothe our souls. And by the way, you're most welcome for the history of the Republican party. Though my B.S. is in botany, I actually completed all the requirements for a Political Science degree, so technically I have a B.S. in that too (strange, but true!). History is also one of my interests. Sometimes I think I have too many interests! But these things keep my stimulus-hungry brain happy (maybe I have ADD?) and make for an interesting life. Tight lines and heavy hatches, man! Jonathon "Endeavor to persevere!" - Indian Chief from The Outlaw Josey Wales, supposedly quoting Abraham Lincoln (the ORIGINAL Republican!)
Troutnut	August 22nd, 2007, 4:22 am
Fairbanks, AK Posts: 1138	with the exception of Brownback, a guy who, because I like him, has no chance of winning the nomination Not to risk a dangerous change of topics, but how can you reconcile being a science teacher with liking Brownback? He's worked harder than anyone else in the Senate to undermine the foundations of biology.
	Jason Neuswanger The Troutnut
Jmd123	August 22nd, 2007, 8:33 am
Posts: 152	Hey Shawn, I lived in San Marcos, TX for 2 1/2 years, and I have to say that Texas isn't just BUSH COUNTRY. Go hang with the hippie folk musician crowd in Austin, or the students at TX State in San Marcos, and you'll get this impression pretty quickly. A friend of mine in GA, where I lived before I went "West, young man", asked my why the hell I would ever want to live in TX, as he had nothing but bad impressions of the state. Well, in '97 I attended the North American Benthological Society annual meetings in San Marcos and I just fell in love with the place, so when I was offered a job in Austin I knew where I was going to live. And it's not just pancake-flat cattle ranches as far as the eye can see, especially not in the Hill Country, the Big Thicket area, or in the Davis Mountains - all spectacularly beautiful. There is also a VERY STRONG Democratic party down there to balance out the political scene. Besides, Bush himself has changed while in office, moving much farther to the right than he was while governor of TX to get and stay elected (his father did the very same thing - former moderate who leaned FAR to the right because he thought that what what he needed to do to get into national office). On top of that all, there's some fabulous fly fishing down there! Jonathon
Shawnny3	August 22nd, 2007, 9:24 am
Pleasant Gap, PA Posts: 594	"If it all gets too frustrating, just let me know and we'll plan a fishing trip somewhere to soothe our souls." - Fishing sure sounds good to me, Jon. And I should temper my remarks about Texas, having never lived there. I have two brothers in Austin who married Texans, and one of my bros is pretty vocal about his distaste for Texas and Texans, but he has a tendency to find the bad in things. I have other extended family down there as well, some of the Democrats you mentioned. It's certainly not the number of rednecks that bothers me - we've got plenty of them here in PA, and we get along just fine. It's probably the climate more than anything, and the tendency of Texans to think Texas is the world's greatest sovereign nation. That's a little annoying. And my apologies in advance for this next part - I don't wish to hijack this wonderful discussion with my personal political views. I probably should have never brought them up in the first place. Just disregard it if you so choose. Jason, with regard to Brownback, he is from Kansas, so I'm under no illusions about his approach to science. On the other hand, I think he actually holds true social conservative values (rather than just hypocritically pretending to), he's not afraid to think outside the box and take a new approach to problems (he made some pilot legislation, for example, to give tax credits for newlyweds who buy a first home, trying to combat the anti-marriage financial incentives in a lot of social legislation that leads to a lot of single moms and deadbeat dads on welfare), and he has been more responsible than anyone else I know for bringing awareness to Washington of the problems in the developing world (he was outspoken about the crisis in Sudan way before it became big news, for example). So he's not a cookie-cutter Republican by any means. I saw him recently on the Catholic channel speaking alongside Chris Dodd, and I left with a much greater respect for both of them. Two smart guys with divergent views coming together to have a civil conversation about the thorniest of issues - how rare and refreshing is that? -Shawn
	Jewelry-Quality Artistic Salmon Flies, by Shawn Davis www.davisflydesigns.com
Softhackle	August 22nd, 2007, 1:12 pm
Wellsville, NY Posts: 158	Gentlemen, This will be my last post in this thread on this subject. I can not profess to have a degree in biology or math, but I graduated college, and during my study I took courses in General Bio., Botany, Zoology, and Anatomy and Physiology and Chemistry, too. In the service, I was trained as a Petroleum Analyst, so I know a little, but I can not rival the comments or insights made here in some of these posts. I understand what we do in our environment affects the conditions within that environment. It's very similar to taking care of a single room. Don't clean it; throw things around; deficate and urinate on the floor, and what do you have? I can, however say that as an observer of man and nature I can understand the difficulty people in general have in trying to understand this very complex subject of Global Warming. Right here, in this thread, the diversity of opnions and ideas are varied and at odds with each other. I also believe that people, in general are concerned, but they have difficulty deciding who to turn to for the answers. Any answers given however, must be given in a manner to educate people in all there is to know. The delivery must be one as to not talk down to people, but to show people whatever evidence or lack of evidence there is. In this small group of us, here, that have been discussing this topic, the two sides of the coin are quite obvious. It is my opinion, however, that even if global warming is not true or real, we do know harm to ourselves or our environment by doing things that may, in fact, reduce the progress of its occurance. What is and what isn't politically correct really has no place regarding this even though politics affects these things. It has more to do with what is ecologically correct and morally correct. Despite what we think, science does not have all the answers always. Many times the answer just lies in the realm of doing what's right. To me taking care of where we live is what's right, and if there are some signs that what we are doing is wrong, we'd better take stock of those signs whether or not they are scientifically substantiated. I've said it in other places and I'll say it here-we are the keeper of the keys. Lets not drop them and not be able to find them again. Enough said by me, Mark
	"I have the highest respect for the skilled wet-fly fisherman, as he has mastered an art of very great difficulty." Edward R. Hewitt Flymphs, Soft-hackles and Spiders
Shawnny3	September 13th, 2007, 7:20 am
Pleasant Gap, PA Posts: 594	http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_sc/eating_less_meat It will be interesting to see how this one develops. -Shawn
	Jewelry-Quality Artistic Salmon Flies, by Shawn Davis www.davisflydesigns.com
Taxon	September 13th, 2007, 12:27 pm
Mercer Island, WA Posts: 515	Well Shawn, for my part, I hereby pledge to immediately discontinue further ordering of Big N Tasty burgers, and will start ordering Filet Of Fish burgers in their place. This is my personal plan for reduction of atmospheric methane attributable to avoidable beef production. However, I must admit some concern over the associated risk of contributing to groundfish extinction. Am I actually serious, not only about this commitment, but also about my concern? Yes, on both counts.
	Roger Rohrbeck www.FlyfishingEntomology.com
Softhackle	September 13th, 2007, 1:46 pm
Wellsville, NY Posts: 158	Hi Shawn, I saw some info about this on TV. The chairman and founder of PETA presented this information to viewers. A friend of mine sent this to me recently. Thought it might be interesting. There IS two sides to every story. Mark http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
	"I have the highest respect for the skilled wet-fly fisherman, as he has mastered an art of very great difficulty." Edward R. Hewitt Flymphs, Soft-hackles and Spiders
Gene	September 13th, 2007, 1:55 pm
Posts: 106	Gentlemen and ladies if present: This study may or not be true. I haven't seen the data...has anyone else? But there are many caveots in such work that were not mentioned. This unfortuantely falls into the catergory of what are the consequences! Contrary to popular belief our oceans are not limitless supplies of fish and other food sources. Would this put more strain on these resources (like what so called ethanol and biofuels are starting to do in these areas)? Many of our fish are so tainted with mercury and other toxins (such as swordfish and even canned tuna)that they should be limited in their consumption. Aquaculture is adding more pollutants to our waters and in some areas threaten native species. The environmental rapists of the Bush administration are saying that salmon in the hatchery are the same as wild salmon. What would more aquaculture do? There are no simple answers to these problems. The truth of the matter is that we have too many people for the way we wish to live. Overpopululation is a problem that no one wishes to address. When I taught college biology one of my first lectures would be when countries like China and India tried to reach our industrial capacity what would that do to the pollution of the world? Perhaps those students are now realizing what I was talking about! Other countries eat a lot of red meat too but their citizens exercise more and have less stress and better medical care than the US. Vegetarians have shoter life spans than ominivore humans in most studies. There is no easy way out of what we have done to this planet. And the Right Wing will jump on this story like flies to dung! The beef industry will immediately attack this study etc. because corporations own our governments. A little less red meat wouldn't hurt anyone but I am wondering how this would fit into the overall model on Global Warming. In the end we are the drivers of space ship earth and we are overcrowded and unprepared for this journey. gene macri aquatic and environmental scientist who is sorry to say we are losing the battle on planet earth
Shawnny3	September 13th, 2007, 9:19 pm
Pleasant Gap, PA Posts: 594	Sorry if I stirred this pot again unnecessarily - I really didn't mean to. I certainly didn't mean to depress Gene so much! It might not be all THAT bad, bud. Some of my thoughts about population growth and pollution: First, the U.S. population is growing primarily because of immigration. We don't, contrary to popular opinion, have a problem in this country with overpopulation. We dropped below 2.0 children per two adults long ago. In fact, the only reason our birth rate still exceeds our death rate in this country is because the Baby Boomer generation isn't dying yet. When they start retiring in earnest, we will be damned glad we have so many immigrants to help shoulder the load. I remember vividly Bill Clinton stating his concern over impending population declines in the U.S. during his presidency about 10 years ago, and I was shocked. Like most people, I had the false impression that our country was facing severe overpopulation. The same problem exists to an even greater level in Europe - they face a serious population vacuum in the near future and are currently well below replacement level. I recently had a very educated aunt of mine try to feed me this myth about population explosion, lamenting that "those wackos who have 12 kids so they can spread their religion are killing our environment... it's just IMMORAL." I was flabbergasted. She has never had children and has had instead a highly successful career that has left her with the means to spend her early retirement traveling the globe and lamenting from her ivory tower the plight of those in the countries she visits. Meanwhile, she seems never to have given thought to whom will care for her and the rest of the Baby Boomers when they're too old to do it themselves. I stopped short of stating the obvious probability that it would be that religious wacko's 12 kids who would be staffing her retirement home. I love my aunt and I know she means well, but I find that sort of thinking in educated people quite unsettling. Along those same lines, increases in life expectancy also contribute to population booms - people just don't die like they used to. U.S. life expectancy has climbed by about 10 years in the last 50 years. That's not a horrible problem to have, and I don't know how we're supposed to deal with it outside of a mandatory death age. We could, I suppose, refrain from indulging the dying in exorbitant health care (I can't recall the numbers with confidence, but I know that in this country we spend an incredible amount of money on people who are within 6 months of death). The only significant population growth occurring in the world today is in the southern hemisphere. As I stated before, the U.N. (not known for a conservative bias, even by Jason's standards) projects that growth in the southern hemisphere will stabilize within the next 30-50 years and that it is unlikely that we will see the world's population increase by more than another 50%. We would have no trouble feeding all those people if they didn't live so far from the food they require, but that's probably why they're poor in the first place. If the northern hemisphere finds itself in crippling population decline, though, maybe we could find room for some of them up here. With regard to industrialization of third-world countries: While industrialization may be associated with increased pollution over the short-term, industrialization also results in lower birth rates and population stabilization. Once an industrialized nation has matured, environmental awareness also matures and pollution problems generally improve over the long-term. After all, addressing environmental concerns is expensive and is the luxury of the wealthy. It is impossible to accomplish major environmental goals in an impoverished nation, which is why pollution problems in underdeveloped nations tend to be much worse (especially with regard to water quality) than in mature industrialized nations. Keeping countries from industrializing is not necessarily the best way to further environmental responsibility. Another popular misconception is that pollution is primarily the fault of big cities. An civil engineer once told me that New York City, for example, has a per capita waste rate and energy consumption rate much lower than those of your average small town. It makes sense if you think about it - when you have 1000 people living in one building, each with 200 sq-ft of living space adjoining each other's, it is many times more efficient to heat and cool than a suburban development with 1000 people living 3 or 4 to each 3,000 sq-ft, stand-alone structure. Now, obviously high concentrations of people can create major localized environmental problems, but on a global scale it is not those people who are mucking up everything for everyone else. The bottom line is that I don't think it is overpopulation per se that is responsible for pollution problems, rather it is the way our resources are managed (and wasted) that strains both planet and people. There are obviously people and places in bad shape right now, but I don't think it is because our planet is just too small for all of us. -Shawn
	Jewelry-Quality Artistic Salmon Flies, by Shawn Davis www.davisflydesigns.com
Jmd123	September 13th, 2007, 11:13 pm
Posts: 152	Hey Shawn, your latest post is certainly ripe for discussion, but for me, not tonight - I spent the day crawling around in some deep swamps and busting through some of the thorniest brush I've ever had to deal with. I don't understand this - I lived and did field work in Texas for over 2 years, and EVERYTHING has frickin' thorns down there. Yet, somehow I never got as scratched up as I have since I returned to Michigan! I fed a few too many mosquitos out there too - we got over 2 1/2 times as much rainfall in August as we normally do so they're WAY too abundant and hungry right now. Anyway, maybe this weekend I'll have the time and energy to thoughtfully respond...have a good evening! Jonathon
Gene	September 13th, 2007, 11:32 pm
Posts: 106	Shawn: It's ok to stir the pot don't apologize for that. However, I disagree with you entirely on that's it not overpopulation. Pure and simple the fewer people we have on the planet in certain areas especially where our trout and salmon rivers flow the less pollution and the less pollution we produce overall. The idea that it's immigration is immaterial; these people are still in our country and they are still having kids. Whether our own population has stabilized (which is true) is also immaterial because it's the way choose to live as a nation and people are not going to give up their lifestyle in America. We are nation of waste and that will not change. You are missing the point. If we bring the rest of the developing nations up to our level of so called living standards and they go through their industrial period what will the planet look like? We don't manufacturer much in the US anymore. It's made in China and other places. Our system of economics is based on temporary products and a throwaway lifestyle which is constantly cycling. The corporations that run this world want it just like that and our government lies in beds with them. This cycle must continue because if it doesn't the world's economies would crash. They now want a constant supply of cheap labor in this country to continue the service sector which is our only industry and thus the open borders concept as espoused by the Wall Street Journal. And this labor force must reproduce to do this cheap labor in our cycles because our so called population won't. When I was out West in 79 and 80 it was still in pretty good shape. What does it look like now! There is development everywhere! They are destroying the foot hills of the Rockies for energy development. What do you mean overpopulation doesn't have anything to do with it! If we had fewer people..fewer cars ...fewer demand for energy and oil etc. What does the Chesapeake Bay Area look like. They have built around it everywhere. It's worst now than it was 25 or 35 years ago. Our infrastructure in America is crumbling from lack of repair and overuse because these bridges and highways weren't built for the use they receive. If we choose to live in small homes and use small cars like they do in Japan would that help? Maybe--- but look around you, we aren't doing that and we never will. Trout and Salmon waters will not survive the present model of how we are living because they represent optima in systems when they are surrounded by minimal systems they degrade and there is no getting around that. And the biggest reason for their degradation is that we have too many people for how we live that produces too many perturbation inputs which negatively effect the systems. Trout and Salmon waters don't exist in a vacuum. Overpopulation always refers to the context in which it is delineated. If we would live in a more ecological way would it help? To a certain extent it would but we still have the onslaught of civilization destroying our watersheds for homes and development. According to the Right Wing the world is not overpopulated because they would like to see everything in concrete and cement (and I'm not referring to you in this group). Because they basically despise most of the natural world and see it as something to be conquered. Overpopulation is the biggest problem and is the mother of most our ecological problems on this earth. This was dramatized by the Dr. Eric Pianka, a world renowned zoologist at the University of Texas at Austin in a lecture not too long ago for saying exactly the same thing I am. Of course, the Fox Noise Broadcast went crazy and said that he wanted to kill everyone. I respect your opinion on these matters but I must entirely disagree with you. If we had 75 million less people in the US.....I think our streams would be in much better shape. And that's not some Draconian wish that these people would die but just what the data show when we have less people we have less pollution no matter how hard we try and minimize the pollution it always boils down to overpopulation. As far as civil engineers go I wouldn't put too much faith in anything they say. These were the guys in organic chemistry who were always trying to blow up the lab (I wish I could say I was kidding on this but I'm not). tight lines and may all your nymphs rise slowly to the surface so the trout get a good drift gene www.eugenemacri.com

Copyright © 2008 Jason Neuswanger (email Jason). See my FAQ for information about use of my images.
If you use an RSS newsreader, you can subscribe to this site's updates with this link: