A "balanced" ecosystem. How much are you willing to pay?

[haus]

I would like to get some of your thoughts regarding my perspective of land conservation and wildlife management....

Quite often in discussions regarding land management, predator management and wildlife management in general, the word 'balance' creeps into the discussion. The big question is, what in the hell does balance really mean in environmental terms? It seems that anyone who formulates their views of the natural world around the basis of balance in nature tends to have their own individual perspective. Though a core theme tends to emerge, balance=the environment without human intervention.

Here's my perspective. We are part of the the environment, you can't take humans out of the equation because we are the basis of the the equation. I do not view us as being bad for the environment, though we are certainly capable of causing unrecoverable damage.
.............
Now obviously if you've read this far you've no doubt disagreed with some portion of what I've already said, or maybe all of it    .....but guess what, I DON'T CARE! 
Why? Well that would be my reasoning for making this topic. While the above subject has been discussed and often argued 100,000,000,000 times......there is one important priority that gets left out 99.9% of the time.

WE HAVE A COUNTRY TO RUN!!!! Last I checked our country was and still is numero uno, we are the top dog or big fat king sitting at his throne, depending on how you want to look at it. 

So how does this relate to how we view the natural world and manage our land? Because we have to make money, this land made us rich...er we made this land make us rich. Yet today what are we doing? Discussing the expansion of wilderness areas, expanding predators such as wolves, letting nature balance itself, increasing regulations on farmers, ranchers, and timber companies. All on the basis of the less land we touch=the right direction for the environment.

Did you ever ask yourself....can we afford it? Can we afford to sit and stare at our land? Can we afford to have predators 'balancing' the environment? Can we afford to encase massive tracts of land into highly restrictive wilderness areas? Can we afford to restrict our renewable resource industries on the basis of 'don't touch don't harm'?

Obviously not. Though it is clear that many Americans think we can, including many of the people on this forum. Apparently you all must be rolling in cash, or maybe you prefer our federal government using the Chinese bank account to keep our nation running?

We can't afford the environmental impact of sucking the land dry such as we were rather aggressively doing up to the early 90's(my basis of the shift being the increase in environmental regulations around that time). In turn we can't financially afford to sit back and watch our land 'balance' itself, which seems to be the present theme dominating our country today.

Yes I want to protect the environment just like anyone else does, but for gods sakes we have to do it in a manner that is beneficial to our countries economic well being. Yes I do view our land and our wildlife with through $$$. In my view each bear, deer, elk, bird, tree, river, lake, and each chunk of dirt within the borders of our nation has economic value and how we choose to manage it dictates that value.

So when someone asks me whether I'm for or against, baiting, hound hunting, expanding predator populations(ie. wolves), open range ranching on public land, logging, etc. My answer is.... we must have several means by which to control predator populations therefore I support baiting and hound hunting so long as it is regulated in an economically beneficial manner. I don't think wolves are bad, but we can't ****'ing afford them without allowing the public to strictly regulate their populations. As for ranching....last I checked that's our food supply so any limitation in ranching just increases our dependency on foreign nations for food. As for timber harvest......just imagine if we harvested timber in a manner that focused on diversifying habitat for the promotion of game populations.....now that's just crazy talk       

Alright I'm done, I hope you enjoyed this......

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01086/wdfw01086.pdf

[Special T]

You bring up the most important question...COST For everything that we do, or even not choose to do there is a cost.. Most people fail to recognise the "Cost" of choice or indecision if the price tag is not readily available... I believe the environmental movement has made us better stewards of the land... That said the land is here for our mutual benefit and as such things like logging, mining and construction should be done in a way that is sustainable... Large companies like Warehouser have been around for a long time and will continue to because they have adapted practices that will keep them going for decades to come... Our DNR and USFS lands should be treated the same way..not just a park where nothing is touched..... 

[whacker1]

Both comments I can agree with so far. 

[Cougeyes]

So how does this relate to how we view the natural world and manage our land? Because we have to make money, this land made us rich...er we made this land make us rich. Yet today what are we doing? Discussing the expansion of wilderness areas, expanding predators such as wolves, letting nature balance itself, increasing regulations on farmers, ranchers, and timber companies. All on the basis of the less land we touch=the right direction for the environment.

Did you ever ask yourself....can we afford it? Can we afford to sit and stare at our land? Can we afford to have predators 'balancing' the environment? Can we afford to encase massive tracts of land into highly restrictive wilderness areas? Can we afford to restrict our renewable resource industries on the basis of 'don't touch don't harm'?

Obviously not.

I disagree to some extent.  Yes, we do have to make money and you are right, this land has made us money and our lives depend on it.  However, I think we can sit back and afford to stare at our land when in the context of vast restrictive wilderness areas.  How will or would wilderness areas bring revenue to us?  Timber harvest, most likely, mining?  Maybe.  But the revenue generated in my opinion would not offset the destruction of the wilderness areas which we all love to enjoy.  People still make money off them, but not much (e.g. outfitters).  That is why we have places like weyerhaeuser and other timber companies who manage for high turnover rates in tree extraction.  We face a change in the world today that is often replacing materials that so often relied upon that this land produced.  So can we sit back and afford to stare....maybe.  

Can we afford to have predators balance the environment, I say no, only because humans are still in the equation and we are a predator.  Hunting is a management tool used to bring or attempt to bring "balance" to the natural environment. If humans are removed would natural predation balance the environment, I would have to say potentially.  Can we afford to sit back and let that happen...no, i rely on harvesting animals to feed myself.  In all reality it may be cheaper to go to the store and buy beef but i like free ranging wild game and I can't afford to give that up.  

[Special T]

Have any of you been to the Silver Mt Id area? That area was stripped mined bare... By today's standard we shouldn't let that kind of stuff happen... Funny thing is tho that the process of strip-mining hills creates lots of benches on hill sides... When i was there skiing several years ago i talked to a Grouse hunter that said the old strip-mined hill sides held tons of grouse.... I think just like a clear cut is ugly right after the cut, the affects are soon covered up by nature....  I think today's practices of logging and mining are so much more conscious of the environment that is would have little affect on it. 

[haus]

So how does this relate to how we view the natural world and manage our land? Because we have to make money, this land made us rich...er we made this land make us rich. Yet today what are we doing? Discussing the expansion of wilderness areas, expanding predators such as wolves, letting nature balance itself, increasing regulations on farmers, ranchers, and timber companies. All on the basis of the less land we touch=the right direction for the environment.

Did you ever ask yourself....can we afford it? Can we afford to sit and stare at our land? Can we afford to have predators 'balancing' the environment? Can we afford to encase massive tracts of land into highly restrictive wilderness areas? Can we afford to restrict our renewable resource industries on the basis of 'don't touch don't harm'?

Obviously not.

I disagree to some extent.  Yes, we do have to make money and you are right, this land has made us money and our lives depend on it.  However, I think we can sit back and afford to stare at our land when in the context of vast restrictive wilderness areas.  How will or would wilderness areas bring revenue to us?  Timber harvest, most likely, mining?  Maybe.  But the revenue generated in my opinion would not offset the destruction of the wilderness areas which we all love to enjoy.  People still make money off them, but not much (e.g. outfitters).  That is why we have places like weyerhaeuser and other timber companies who manage for high turnover rates in tree extraction.  We face a change in the world today that is often replacing materials that so often relied upon that this land produced.  So can we sit back and afford to stare....maybe.  

Can we afford to have predators balance the environment, I say no, only because humans are still in the equation and we are a predator.  Hunting is a management tool used to bring or attempt to bring "balance" to the natural environment. If humans are removed would natural predation balance the environment, I would have to potentially.  Can we afford to sit back and let that happen...no, i rely on harvesting animals to feed myself.  In all reality it may be cheaper to go to the store and buy beef but i like free ranging wild game and I can't afford to give that up.  

I'm not against wilderness areas. Guess I should have expanded that point.....
In many cases environmental groups such as the sierra club are pushing for expanding wilderness areas within land that is already held by a federal or state agency. Their primary and alternative goals for this are usually to prevent logging in the area, vehicle use, specifically motorized off-road recreation such as snowmobiling and atv'ing. Sierra club tends to refer to it as motorized 'wreckreation'. To sell it to their supporters and us hunters they make it sound like the land in question is in some kind of doomsday peril and the only way to save it is by making it a wilderness area. In reality they just want to cut out activities that they don't approve of, activities that collectively support the local economy and to a lesser extent the national economy. They befriend one form of outdoor activity in order to shut down another. Sort of like getting one tribe to take out another so that you only have one left to fight.  

ex. http://www.sierraclub.org/sierrasportsmen/greatburn/

The biggest threat to the Great Burn is the recent increase in motorized "wreckreation." Fish Lake just off the Bitterroot crest on the Idaho side is an off-road vehicle (ORV) playground. This beautiful subalpine lake six miles inside the roadless area has been severely damaged. Developments at the lake include three port-a-potties, two docks, and ORV parking areas. ORV intrusions are also occurring in the Goose Creek, Blacklead Mountain, and Granite Pass areas. In addition; snowmobilers penetrate deep into the backcountry on newer, more powerful machines. The Lolo National Forest and the Clearwater National Forest have conflicting snowmobile policies. The Lolo has closed nearly all of it's portion of the burn to snowmobiles. The Clearwater National Forest has kept its side wide-open. The conflicting policies along the Bitterroot divide result in brazen violations on the Montana side. During annual fly-overs, citizen volunteers discover snowmobile tracks on nearly every lake on the closed Montana side, with particularly heavy use around Heart Lake. Critical lynx and wolverine habitat is being compromised. The entire Burn should be closed to ALL forms of motorize use and adoption of a good travel management plan by the Clearwater National Forest would accomplish this - comment on the Draft EIS before October 2, 2009!

[Cougeyes]

Expanding wilderness areas from land already obtained by state or federal gov isn't a great idea.  I am a firm believer that there has to be a balance among all stakeholders of the land.  We shouldn't have 3/4 of our land hypothetically speaking in wilderness area that most people will never be able to use or even see for that matter.

[docsven]

Big topic; I have noticed that the bad press that comes from such moves usually is coming from hunters.  People who are denied access to areas that have been set aside for "the public good" don't seem to directly benefit "the public", which is another word for "the people". (a term commonly thrown around a lot in socialist countries) This leads to a discussion of who really benefits from the natural resources which are owned by states or the Federal Gvt. This debate has been going on since The Tea Pot Dome scandal. 
I think it is really at it's core an argument about what the states or Fed Gvt does with the revenue generated by the natural resources. Roosevelt became an environmentalist who set aside large amounts of land to preserve for future generations, but I think it was a move against industrialism.  He was an avid outdoorsman, remember.  The other side of the argument is, what good is the land set aside for public use if no one uses it.  Back to your original post; who pays for it?  So far, the majority of the payment come from people who pay the most in fees. Do they have a right to have more of a say in the management of these lands? Unfortunately, they don't have more say. 
I support setting aside enough for the needs of those who manage and support wild lands with their fees.  Ithink there is an agenda to remove man from the ecological equation, which I am against, since the game wouldn't even be here now if not for man making it happen.  I'm back to the conclusion that there are too many people with too many opinions and not enough of them putting their money into the equasion.   

[Kain]

I see "balance" more as "sustainability".  Most hunting is for the surplus animals that would die anyways.  Once a species has reached its carrying capacity it is not only the surplus that will die but many others as well. 

I have seen it explained like this: If you have enough acreage to support 10 cows, through winter, that is the carrying capacity.  If you add five cows to that you will not loose just five cows come winter because resources were taken from every cow.  It is more likely that you will loose almost every cow and the ones that do survive will be less healthy.
 
We have the ability to take all the surplus animals out of competition for resources, which in turn makes the species stronger.  In unmanaged or "natural" balance you will see huge populations swings due to starvation and disease.  If we do not manage wolves they will grow in number until they have depleted the food source.  Then they will starve, kill each other, become unhealthy, be more susceptible to disease and have more human conflicts.  Once their population dwindles their prey source will begin to recover.  Once they recover wolves will begin to expand again.   It is an incredibly harsh and nasty "balance" that takes decades to cycle.

Our other natural resources are pretty much the same.  Trees can be blown down or burned up so why not use them for the benefits of human but also the other animals.  I have heard that there are more deer and elk now than when European settlers arrived due to logging.  If you have spent much time in any old stand of trees you will know there is very little for animals to eat.  Young trees also produce more oxygen and filter more carbon than old trees so the enviro's should be happy about logging.  Of course they dont care about facts like that so they will use animals like the spotted owl to push their hands-off agenda.

Strip mining looks very destructive and is an eyesore to most people but not any more than a landslide or flood.  In the end, nature will reclaim the area and can be helped along by humans.

In a perfect world we can continue to better manage our resources, for maximum sustainability, to the benefit of everyone: Humans, animals and the environment.   Too many self interest groups to allow that though.  Lots of people who have a hands off, lock it up attitude on both sides.

[Little Dave]

There is balance in the natural world but it doesn't happen fast enough for our short attention, there is no such thing as a static happy state of this population versus that one.  All populations, even ours, adapt to change in habitat.

We can temper the population swings to suit our needs just as we can modify river channels to reduce flood risk.  Letting the natural processes take place without management, as some may wish to do with the predators, is much like removing the dams on the Columbia and expecting there to be no problem at Portland.  The concept is simple but careless.

Our best bet is to have a self-sustaining management process that both suits our needs and ensures the resources are also available for future generations.  Our efforts towards this goal are more adaptation rather than balance.

[Bofire]

 :)I do not beleive there is or ever has been any "balance" in nature, instead there is a constant cycle of change and adaptation.
Carl

[luvtohnt]

I agree with bofire there is no balance. Everything in nature is cyclical. Now while some of you are right with the nature reclaiming itself, that is correct. However take strip mining for instance, it may be an eyesore and that is why many people dislike it. There are other ecological implications though. Strip mining is notorious for using acids to help extract the ore. The enviromet CAN NOT handle the sudden influx of acid. This is what makes strip mining destructive. You can look at clear cutting to, when you expose the dirt it silts in creeks, and leaches essential elements out of the soil. There are better methods for doing both, however they carry a greater cost, and since large corporations are all about maximizing profits they would rather fight it in court to save money down the line. If these large companies would implement better practices the financial implications would balance out faster than having to pay for these massive lawsuits.  I think we should have some areas to sit and stare at our land but we need to also manage our lands in a way that benefits all people. Managing our country in an economical way is not out of reach, if companies would worry less about profit and more about sustainability then it can be acheived. Besides what is the difference between 1 billion and 900 million in profits???

Brandon

[Special T]

Its kinda hard to "Select Cut" timber that is on a 60degree slope... Now there has been big gains in tech with the feller bunchers for use in the industry now JD has one that can self level on a 27 degree slope and level side to  side 10 degree...They can already do it kinda by shovel logging... using a how to throw the trees down the hill after they have been dropped by a saw...
I guess its all about compromise right? If you didn't log any steep sections that are mostly require clear cutting how much more timber do you think you'd have to harvest? Probably a lot... I know in our area the "Trash timber" scraps and such are chipped and hauled to the mill to fire boiler and power the timber mill....

I guess when i brought up the Silver mountain area i wasn't saying we should do more strip mining, but rather take a destructive way of mining and see how nature has healed itself.... So with current better mining practices, why do we fight it so much?

[luvtohnt]

Heli logging!! It is expensive but it works. But it comes back to overall cost. I don't know what are your thoughts on that.

Brandon

[Special T]

In our area it rains so much that i doubt heli logging would be able to make it pay for itself let alone make money for the state or the logging operation... I know in some places of SE alaska all they do is heli logging for downed or cut old growth... Were talking big money timber and its still hard to make money doing it...