[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Brashears on Hanson



charliew wrote:
> 
> You have to realize that there is a fundamental problem here regarding
> where to draw the line.  Nature will support a certain population of
> "natural" animal species.  These species will urinate and poop where they
> see fit.  This excrement will have the same effect as what you are
> complaining about.  In fact, I have already read a posting (some months
> ago) about too many wild ducks congregating at a particular location, and
> fouling (no pun intended) the water supply of that location.  If such a
> natural activity occurs, and has occurred for eons, why can't the
> environmentalists get it through their heads that *nothing* should be done
> about it?  Or are you telling me that the ultimate aim of the
> environmentalists is to *control* what happens in nature, rather than let
> nature take its own course?  If the answer to this question is "yes", the
> enviros are more self deluded than even I imagined.
> 
> Have a nice day.

Natural populations of species are constrained by the carrying capacity
of their environment, and herbivore species never attain a permanent
population that would create pollution problems for the watershed, or
overgrazing problems for the watershed. The feetlots and farms are a
different situation entirely. They have food, in the form of cattle
feed, imported by the ton from other areas. Thus, the only constraint on
the population is the size of the farming operation. This population is
usually quite high, and cattle, being some of the most inefficient
metabolizers on earth, produce quite a bit of waste that can
eutrophicate a stream or pond until it is lifeless. This as not at all
"the same effect" as those of natural populations.
        Your ideas also display a logical error shown in many "it's not
our
fault" anti-environmental arguments. If something is taking place that
rapidly changes or diminishes something that should be rather permanent,
it cannot be of natural origin, because that change would have been
complete long ago, because the human existence represents
a small fraction of the earth's history. For example, natural sources of
chlorine cannot be responsible for ozone depletion, because assuming
that chlorine source has been constant throughout earth history, the
ozone layer would have been gone long ago. Similarly, the duck
population you are referring to must have recently jumped in
popluation,  or else that water body would have been lifeless long ago,
and likely filled with sediment and organic debris until it was
converted into land, and would not be here. It is quite likely that this
increase was caused by humans, as predator elimination has caused
populations of many herbivore species (those that can coexist with
humans in settled landscapes) to increase rapidly.



Follow-Ups: References: