20 total posts
If anyone is taking bets
I'll put my money on the farmers and USDA to win this one.
Actually there aren't any others
Only other right-wing sites quoting the Fox story or referring to it.
Your link is to Michelle Malkin waxing conspiratorial, which is what she does. The actual story of the release of this information is linked from that article:
That story states (and remember, this is Fox News) that the information was provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and was not "leaked." The problem was that too much information was provided, not that the information was released at all.
left leaning news sites aren't bothering to report on this and because 'too much info' was provided, that makes it all okay? You KNOW what radical environmentalists will do with all that information, don't you? The same thing they do with any commercial industry they want to sink their teeth into and the EPA just gave them all that ammo and calls it a 'clerical error'.....get real here for a change, Josh.
News sites that don't lean at all didn't report it either
In fact, most right-leaning news sites didn't report it. Only Fox. And again, it wasn't a leak. The information was requested through legal channels and then provided. And no, the fact that the EPA provided more information than was requested does not "make it all OK." It also doesn't make it part of some conspiracy.
Let's give it a few months
and watch how many groups crawl out of the woodwork going after farmers for various issues, Josh....maybe then it will be newsworthy enough for you and other liberals. They've already cut off water to thousands of acres of southern CA farmland over a two inch fish, were a direct cause in genetically altered seed, etc. and PETA will, I'm sure, find reasons for livestock issues, just to name a few things that will or have already been impacted by those groups.
I don't care how many times you try to accuse me of 'conspiracy theories', Josh......far too many of my predictions from five years ago have been happening. I'll just keep pointing them out to you as they come up.
I didn't accuse you (this time)
Michelle Malkin pitched the conspiracy theory. You just linked to it and mistakenly called this a "leak" when it wasn't.
And hopefully you understand that most environmental groups are not "radical."
How would you describe
the Sierra Club? Radical? Or not?
Not, though they've had their moments
From time to time there have been people within the organization who wanted to take it in directions that most of the membership would not have wanted it to go in. That doesn't make them, as a body, radical. You also have to look at the full scope of what they do and have done for over a hundred years, and put things in context.
The ELF is a radical group. The Sierra Club is not.
Because you say so?
No wonder you like our leader.......he uses the same messaging........
It's my opinion
You're entitled to yours. And if Obama's "messaging" is about conservation that hardly makes him a radical. Well, maybe to you.
You call it conservation
I've been calling it illegal eminent domain when the Federal Government can swipe your land and water away from you not to mention your livelihood and the ability to make a living anymore. Turtles needing a tunnel to pass through under a road driving costs up.....lumber contracts shut down because of a spotted owl that actually gets eaten as a food source by other birds anyhow.......Keystone that has been held up since day one with BO for studies that had already been done for five years and now it's five years later, with a new approved route, and we're still waiting for him to decide between Unions and environmentalists because both love Dems so much....I'd be willing to bet money that no decision again will be made until after the elections next year and Canada will not be willing to wait much longer, so the hackers of our secret technology gets the oil that BO doesn't want here anyhow and he'll blame Canada for not having any patience......because heaven knows, BO can't take the blame or responsibility for anything; it's always somebody else's fault.
Um....regarding that spotted owl....
.....if we kill them or drive them away, then they cease to be a food source and whatever was eating them probably dies. As does whatever was eating THEM. And THEM....
but those are rights of the "king"
Done for centuries in England.
Eliminating one species
can have ramifications down the road. Like eliminating wolves and other predators means that their prey breed out of control and strip our forest and grasslands and cause erosion and animals starving to death and having them invade neighborhoods and being a problem.
Just like introducing a new species in an environment where it doesn't have any predators.
Wolves since you brought it up
were reintroduced to Yellowstone.....and they have gotten very aggressive and fight among themselves for food because they are infested with an internal parasite that causes their fur to fall out from scratching so badly, and that causes 'hot spots' on their bodies that wind up cooling down too quickly in the winter. As they lose the ability to stay warm, they have to hunt more often to keep their stamina up....thus the aggressive in-fighting.
What good does it do to interfere with nature when you aren't keeping an eye on the results you end up with?
We've had species not only die out as they probably should, but many have gone thru their own evolution cycle and revamped/morphed into species that can now survive and flourish.......that has been going on since day one and will continue to do so.
However, there are many times when environmentalists take things too far at the expense of human beings that also have to survive here, Diana.......we have not only our own in the USA to protect and feed but we keep allowing millions of others to come in here and compete for jobs and food......and the environmentalists are hurting that ability to continue to feed them all by shutting down farmland and having the Feds pay certain farmers to NOT grow crops because it isn't conducive to their agendas (both parties have done this) forcing us to purchase at higher and higher prices because of shortages when it isn't necessary and buying from overseas as well where their standards of growing and producing food products is far from healthy.
I agree that some environmentalists
go too far but it isn't them that came up with the government payments to not grow crops. That was the government during the Depression to keep the price of crops up. Now it is a form of Socialism that the Republicans love because some of them on the Agriculture Committee get this money.
Hadn't heard about the mange problem in the wolves but on Yellowstone's website, the severity of it is declining and pups are still being born. I have heard that the Elk population is healthier than before. One thing the wolves do is to take down the sick or old. Mostly they eat mice.
Your own words, Toni
"What good does it do to interfere with nature when you aren't keeping an eye on the results you end up with?"
That's exactly why we shouldn't be dismissing the effect our actions have on species like those spotted owls.
we interfered with trying to keep the spotted owls only to watch them now become prey....so what did we accomplish by taking away the ability to use the lumber and provide jobs? The same has happened with wind turbines.....which is why so many wind farms are now being rejected by numerous areas who originally thought they would be a good idea.
Prey animals are required as well
I remember reading about a tiny fish (think it was anchovies) that was being overfished. Turns out they were being eaten by another fish that we also eat and that fish is becoming scarce.