PDA

View Full Version : Secretary of Interior Gale Norton classifies golf courses as wetlands


banyon
04-17-2006, 11:24 PM
You Call This a Wetland?
Conservation Editor Bob Marshall reveals that the Department of the Interior's new claim of wetlands growth holds no water.
by Bob Marshall

http://img.timeinc.net/fieldstream/images_large/waterhazard_lg.jpg


The Bush Administration announced last week that the nation is no longer losing wetlands--as long as you consider golf course water hazards to be wetlands.

Really.

Thursday (March 30), Interior Secretary Gale Norton called a press conference to claim our long nightmare of wetlands loss had finally come to an end due to unprecedented gains since 1997 (click hear to read the report she cites). However, she then admitted much of that gain has been in artificially created ponds, such as golf course water hazards and farm impoundments.

The sporting community--from Ducks Unlimited to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership--reacted quickly, and not favorably. Researchers long ago established that natural wetlands such as marshes, swamps and prairie potholes are far more productive than even the best-designed artificial wetlands. And sharp-edged water bodies like water hazards, farm ponds, and even reservoirs offer very little for wildlife. Putting man-made ponds in the same class as natural wetlands is like ranking pen-raised quail with wild coveys.

The boldness of Norton's claim was particularly galling given the Bush Administration's record on wetlands. President Bush, like other presidents before him, promised a policy of “no net loss” of wetlands, but his administration has consistently supported rollbacks of the Clean Water Act to satisfy industry and development.

In fact, at the same press conference, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported a continued loss of 523,500 acres of natural wetlands during the same time period. So how could the nation have come out ahead if it lost more than half a million acres? Norton didn't try to hide the truth: The 715,300-acre “gain” was mainly artificial ponds.

While saying the nation's wetlands picture remains “precarious,” Norton added that "even ponds that are not a high quality of wetlands are better than not having wetlands." Now there's ringing endorsement of the president's program.

Norton's announcement was likely an act of setting the table for more administration assaults on wetlands protections. It was probably no coincidence that three days earlier, the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations that encourage development of companies that build artificial wetlands used by industries that destroy the vital natural habitats. It's part of the wetlands mitigation banking concept--which gives companies permits to drain wetlands, as long as they produce “new” wetlands somewhere else.

Norton may think a water hazard is better than no wetlands but for fish, wildlife and sportsmen, but it may be even worse. That type of public policy provides an excuse for more permits to drain more natural and productive wetlands to be replaced by non-productive water hazards. Those might be good for real estate values along the 18th fairway, but for fish and wildlife that rely on wetlands ecosystems to survive, it's terrible.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,1179434,00.html#

jAZ
04-17-2006, 11:28 PM
More bullshit, fraud and manipulating scientific data to advance a political agenda. Shocking.

irishjayhawk
04-17-2006, 11:37 PM
ROFL

banyon
04-17-2006, 11:45 PM
More bullshit, fraud and manipulating scientific data to advance a political agenda. Shocking.

No, jAZ, you got it all wrong. It'll work...

Ugly Duck
04-18-2006, 01:49 AM
More bullshit, fraud and manipulating scientific data to advance a political agenda. Shocking.What about swimming pools? They're wet. And working at McDonalds is a manufacturing job because the burger must be assembled. Everything from the environment to the economy is looking up, just by redefining a little word, a coupla words there.....

the Talking Can
04-18-2006, 05:55 AM
comedy gold

NewChief
04-18-2006, 06:27 AM
Woohoo! I bet Duck Dog can get in some prime duck hunting at his local golf course. ROFL

Sportsmen for Bush indeed.

Amnorix
04-18-2006, 08:14 AM
More bullshit, fraud and manipulating scientific data to advance a political agenda. Shocking.

Word.

banyon
04-18-2006, 08:45 AM
Woohoo! I bet Duck Dog can get in some prime duck hunting at his local golf course. ROFL

Sportsmen for Bush indeed.

Yeah, this comes from left-wing political rag Field and Stream too.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 09:37 AM
More bullshit, fraud and manipulating scientific data to advance a political agenda. Shocking.

The article is very clear that Norton was completely transparent about what her report meant. There is more bullshit and fraud (and probably just as much manipulation of scientific data) in your post than in Norton's report.

banyon
04-18-2006, 09:46 AM
The article is very clear that Norton was completely transparent about what her report meant. There is more bullshit and fraud (and probably just as much manipulation of scientific data) in your post than in Norton's report.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton called a press conference to claim our long nightmare of wetlands loss had finally come to an end due to unprecedented gains since 1997

It's distortion of the data to fit the desired premise.

Just because she mentions the data later in her speech, doesn't change the emphasis on her conclusion at the beginning.

It's all in the same vein as "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forest" initiative.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 10:04 AM
It's distortion of the data to fit the desired premise.

Just because she mentions the data later in her speech, doesn't change the emphasis on her conclusion at the beginning.

It's all in the same vein as "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forest" initiative.

I disagree. The fact that she fully defines her terms is all that really matters here with respect to whether or not a fraud has been advanced, IMO.

But I'll play along just for fun. I think it was a fraudulent nod to environmentalists to describe what we've been through as a "long nightmare of wetlands loss." The real nightmare is the loss of private property rights to the state in the name of wetlands preservation.

banyon
04-18-2006, 10:39 AM
I disagree. The fact that she fully defines her terms is all that really matters here with respect to whether or not a fraud has been advanced, IMO.

But I'll play along just for fun. I think it was a fraudulent nod to environmentalists to describe what we've been through as a "long nightmare of wetlands loss." The real nightmare is the loss of private property rights to the state in the name of wetlands preservation.

Ok. as long as it is in the fine print. :)


DO I HAVE A DEAL FOR YOU!!!!
blah, blah, blah, blah,...
blah, blah, blah, blah,...
blah, blah, blah, blah,...
blah, blah, blah, blah,...
offer obligates patteeu to voluntary lobotomy.

Baby Lee
04-18-2006, 11:08 AM
offer obligates patteeu to voluntary lobotomy.
Anything to add to the liberal ranks, eh? :P ROFL

Amnorix
04-18-2006, 11:30 AM
I disagree. The fact that she fully defines her terms is all that really matters here with respect to whether or not a fraud has been advanced, IMO.

But I'll play along just for fun. I think it was a fraudulent nod to environmentalists to describe what we've been through as a "long nightmare of wetlands loss." The real nightmare is the loss of private property rights to the state in the name of wetlands preservation.

Set aside your disagreement regarding the propriety of wetlands preservation -- are you okay with the intellectual dishonesty involved here? That the conclusion of the report is just plain absurd? Whether or not the reason for the absurdy is dislosed, don't you think that the whole thing is just another round of BushCo smoke and mirrors?

Cochise
04-18-2006, 11:30 AM
Anything to add to the liberal ranks, eh? :P ROFL

owned ROFL

banyon
04-18-2006, 11:35 AM
Anything to add to the liberal ranks, eh? :P ROFL
pretty good.

I am sans comeback for the time being.

I need to go find a wit sharpening stone... :p

patteeu
04-18-2006, 11:52 AM
Set aside your disagreement regarding the propriety of wetlands preservation -- are you okay with the intellectual dishonesty involved here? That the conclusion of the report is just plain absurd? Whether or not the reason for the absurdy is dislosed, don't you think that the whole thing is just another round of BushCo smoke and mirrors?

This is intellectual dishonesty of about the same level as your post when you suggest that framing announcements in the best possible light is a BushCo thing instead of SOP for all politicians. This isn't smoke and mirrors and it doesn't even really qualify as fine print. Read the press release (http://www.doi.gov/news/06_News_Releases/060330.htm) instead of an environmentalist's take on her announcement and you will see that the explanation of how the results were achieved is prominently included in the 3rd sentence. That's not intellectual dishonesty. That's about as close to transparent government as you can hope to find.

If only you guys would hold your own politicians to the same standard that you want to hold the other guys.

go bowe
04-18-2006, 12:37 PM
guys vs. guys?

nttawwt... :D :D :D

Taco John
04-18-2006, 12:47 PM
The article is very clear that Norton was completely transparent about what her report meant. There is more bullshit and fraud (and probably just as much manipulation of scientific data) in your post than in Norton's report.



That's my big government buddy right there... Always protecting his government from being accountable! You gotta respect a guy with such dedication to making sure that big government is getting away with whatever they want to. If Democrats were anywhere near as dedicated to their party as patty is to protecting big government, they might actually win a few elections.

jspchief
04-18-2006, 12:54 PM
The sad thing is that the outrage in this thread isn't over the loss of wetlands, but rather over the way some politician talked about it.

Talk about microcosm of what's wrong with our politics...

Taco John
04-18-2006, 01:05 PM
The sad thing is that the outrage in this thread isn't over the loss of wetlands, but rather over the way some politician talked about it.

Talk about microcosm of what's wrong with our politics...



I disagree. I think it's a matter of accountability. When you change the definitions in order to snatch a public relations victory, what are you accomplishing for the American people?

Cochise
04-18-2006, 01:06 PM
The sad thing is that the outrage in this thread isn't over the loss of wetlands, but rather over the way some politician talked about it.

Talk about microcosm of what's wrong with our politics...

Nice post.

We argue about semantics until the cows come home - meanwhile, the actual problem remains unaddressed.

Taco John
04-18-2006, 01:10 PM
I didn't expect to see Cochise shed a tear for lost wetlands.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 01:14 PM
That's my big government buddy right there... Always protecting his government from being accountable! You gotta respect a guy with such dedication to making sure that big government is getting away with whatever they want to. If Democrats were anywhere near as dedicated to their party as patty is to protecting big government, they might actually win a few elections.

What big government principle am I defending? The big government principle that private property rights should trump the state's interest in preserving wetlands? What side are you on Socialist John?

patteeu
04-18-2006, 01:15 PM
I disagree. I think it's a matter of accountability. When you change the definitions in order to snatch a public relations victory, what are you accomplishing for the American people?

If there has been a change of definitions, it's not apparent in the OP article. Do you have a link?

banyon
04-18-2006, 01:16 PM
This is intellectual dishonesty of about the same level as your post when you suggest that framing announcements in the best possible light is a BushCo thing instead of SOP for all politicians. This isn't smoke and mirrors and it doesn't even really qualify as fine print. Read the press release (http://www.doi.gov/news/06_News_Releases/060330.htm) instead of an environmentalist's take on her announcement and you will see that the explanation of how the results were achieved is prominently included in the 3rd sentence. That's not intellectual dishonesty. That's about as close to transparent government as you can hope to find.

If only you guys would hold your own politicians to the same standard that you want to hold the other guys.

This is what Gale Norton actually had to say:

"This report, prepared as part of President Bush’s initiative to stem the loss of wetlands, is good news not only for biologists but for all of us. We all depend on wetlands as the nurseries of life,”

(from your post)

Gee thanks to President Bush's initiative everything is swell!
Why aren't all of the biologists on board like Norton says they should be?

jspchief
04-18-2006, 01:18 PM
I disagree. I think it's a matter of accountability. When you change the definitions in order to snatch a public relations victory, what are you accomplishing for the American people?Nothing.

But politicians have been spinning and smoke screening shit since the beginning of time. It will never change. Politicians are never going to be outright about issues that could cost them votes.

I just think it's become so much about partisan bickering that the real issues are suffering. Do you really give a shit about wetlands? Or are you just looking for another reason to bitch about the guy in office that you don't like? Someone actually suggested ignoring the issue of wetlands to concetrate on the way a slimy politician prsented it. That's sad to me.

Personally, I think there's something wrong when politics is more about waging war on the enemy party than addressing issues.

jspchief
04-18-2006, 01:21 PM
This is what Gale Norton actually had to say:

"This report, prepared as part of President Bush’s initiative to stem the loss of wetlands, is good news not only for biologists but for all of us. We all depend on wetlands as the nurseries of life,”

(from your post)

Gee thanks to President Bush's initiative everything is swell!
Why aren't all of the biologists on board like Norton says they should be?So what is Bush's wetlands initiative? Is it just pretending golf courses are wetlands, or is there more to it? Or do you even care?

go bowe
04-18-2006, 01:27 PM
wetlands are a lot like rain forests...

Duck Dog
04-18-2006, 01:34 PM
Woohoo! I bet Duck Dog can get in some prime duck hunting at his local golf course. ROFL

Sportsmen for Bush indeed.

Believe me, this BS doesn't sit well with me at all. It's my number one issue.

You can read what we are doing about it here (http://www.wetlandsrally.org/)

Both organizations I fund raise for are intensely involved. It's one of the few times you'll see tree huggers and duck hunters fighting for the same thing.

Duck Dog
04-18-2006, 01:35 PM
FWIW, I have hunted a golf course for geese before. I get to do it again this September.

Taco John
04-18-2006, 01:35 PM
What big government principle am I defending? The big government principle that private property rights should trump the state's interest in preserving wetlands? What side are you on Socialist John?



Bah. The state has a legitimate interest in preserving wetlands. But they shouldn't own the property. The government should designate that property and sell it to private groups with a mandate for maintaining and preserving the land.

Protecting the ecology of the nation is tantamount to protecting the people who live in it. Government has a legitimate role in this activity. But they should be working as a partner with private interests, and not as the be-all-end-all.

patteeu
04-18-2006, 01:37 PM
wetlands are a lot like rain forests...

Brazillian rain forests are shrinking, but there were zero Rainforest Cafes in 1993 and now there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 40, worldwide. If the food didn't suck so much, I'd say that we were making some progress on the rainforest front. :p

jspchief
04-18-2006, 01:39 PM
Bah. The state has a legitimate interest in preserving wetlands. But they shouldn't own the property. The government should designate that property and sell it to private groups with a mandate for maintaining and preserving the land.

Protecting the ecology of the nation is tantamount to protecting the people who live in it. Government has a legitimate role in this activity. But they should be working as a partner with private interests, and not as the be-all-end-all.What private organizations would be willing to take on such a task without somehow exploiting it for profit?

patteeu
04-18-2006, 01:40 PM
Bah. The state has a legitimate interest in preserving wetlands. But they shouldn't own the property. The government should designate that property and sell it to private groups with a mandate for maintaining and preserving the land.

Protecting the ecology of the nation is tantamount to protecting the people who live in it. Government has a legitimate role in this activity. But they should be working as a partner with private interests, and not as the be-all-end-all.

How very libertarian of you. :rolleyes:

I think you better put that big government card back in your pocket, comrade.

Duck Dog
04-18-2006, 02:00 PM
Bah. The state has a legitimate interest in preserving wetlands. But they shouldn't own the property. The government should designate that property and sell it to private groups with a mandate for maintaining and preserving the land.

Protecting the ecology of the nation is tantamount to protecting the people who live in it. Government has a legitimate role in this activity. But they should be working as a partner with private interests, and not as the be-all-end-all.


That's tough to do. For example look at Pheasants Forever or Ducks Unlimited. They purchase and restore wetlands and associated uplands but then the state DNR is responsible for maintaining the land (unless the land remained in private hands). Groups like DU and PF don't have the resources to maintain the property. They simply move on to the next.

What I'd like to see in Minnesota is civilian oversight on our duck stamp money, lottery money and all federal and private matching funds. I'd also like to see dedicated funding, 1/8 of one percent from the existing state tax just like Missouri does.

Right now we are fighting with the artsy fartsy crowd over some of the same money.

Taco John
04-18-2006, 02:10 PM
What private organizations would be willing to take on such a task without somehow exploiting it for profit?



Ones who are motivated to preserve wetlands. Who says they shouldn't profit?

NewChief
04-18-2006, 02:10 PM
FWIW, I have hunted a golf course for geese before. I get to do it again this September.

I'm surprised that they don't allow more of it. Geese are usually considered a total nuisance by golfers because they crap on the greens.

NewChief
04-18-2006, 02:11 PM
Believe me, this BS doesn't sit well with me at all. It's my number one issue.

You can read what we are doing about it here (http://www.wetlandsrally.org/)

Both organizations I fund raise for are intensely involved. It's one of the few times you'll see tree huggers and duck hunters fighting for the same thing.

I imagined that you were pretty involved in this. I know that the environment, and especially wetlands, is a cause you care about.

Taco John
04-18-2006, 02:12 PM
How very libertarian of you. :rolleyes:

I think you better put that big government card back in your pocket, comrade.


Which tenet of libertarianism did I break?

I think you'd better quit being such a shill for the biggest government in the history of the United States before you start criticizing others as comrades.

jspchief
04-18-2006, 02:15 PM
Ones who are motivated to preserve wetlands. Who says they shouldn't profit?I guess it depends on how they would profit on it.

How do you preserve a wetland and make the money to cover overhead? Without doing something that is a detriment to the wildlife/environment?

Duck Dog
04-18-2006, 03:18 PM
Ones who are motivated to preserve wetlands. Who says they shouldn't profit?

Those motivated and committed to preserve wetlands are non-profits. The only people who stand a chance at profit are the land owners or Corporations who buy large tracts of land, restore them and then charge to the highest bidder. Cabelas is in that market now. They are competing directly with the people who buy their products. They purchase land that should be public hunting and turn it into a pay for play area.

What we need is mandated state taxes and civilian oversight. DU and PF can't profit and besides them, the only other major players are the NRCS and the USFWS.

Boozer
04-18-2006, 06:40 PM
I'm surprised that they don't allow more of it. Geese are usually considered a total nuisance by golfers because they crap on the greens.

At some courses, the geese are so acclimated to humans that you could walk right up to point blank range and blow their asses away. I can't imagine it being very fun, much less sporting.

Probably the main reason there aren't more golf course hunts is that most golf courses run through neighborhoods. Most residents of golf communities would go apeshit at the suggestion that people fire guns in their back yards. Even if there aren't any legitimate safety issues, it's still a big NIMBY issue.

The Mad Crapper
03-07-2011, 12:52 PM
Awesome thread.