- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should the government have confiscated land to save the ivory billed woodpecker?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:48 am to weagle99
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:48 am to weagle99
Any time power gets power it will be abused. Example, say Trump haf a large cattle farm, you dont think this government would find a species that may be in danger and sieze his land? You know that is most likely exactly what they would do. Then it would be your land they got next.
0
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:49 am to weagle99
I’m going to play devils advocate for a minute. If you take any science or biology class, adaptation is stressed over and over. The pressure to survive is the catalyst for creatures large and small to adapt. It’s a cornerstone of evolution… so with that in mind you simply cannot write off the possibility that the pressure to survive didn’t force the ivory billed woodpecker to adapt to its changing habitat. Perhaps they failed to adapt and went extinct. Perhaps through some miracle of nature they mated with another species and that species thrives today.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:50 am to weagle99
Some say there are some in HineybIsland Swamp. I believe there is a guy doing research in the English Bayou area off the east Pearl.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:51 am to coolpapaboze
quote:
Property rights are a fundamental pillar of a free society. If they're subordinated for a woodpecker, they'll be subordinated for anything and the slide toward tyranny begins.
But it can’t be good for us to be willing to sacrifice historical or culturally or environmentally important things or places at the alter of property rights.
I am annoyed at myself for typing that but that is increasingly how I feel and I see the way we trash nature.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:53 am to weagle99
quote:
Was extinction of the passenger pigeon a natural process? Serious question, not being rhetorical.
If you consider human beings part of the natural process it was.
quote:
I guess it depends on if mankind’s incredible stupidity and voracious appetite for comfort are parts of the normal course of nature.
You’ll get no argument from me that humans are often stupid, and wasteful, and callous to the needs of the world around them. But this kind of argument is very similar in ways to the treatment of native Americans. We are told to believe that if left alone, native Americans would have lived a peaceful life in complete harmony and balance with nature and their fellow natives. Which it utter bullshite, because we know they were at constant war, viciously killing, raping, capturing, and enslaving their fellow natives, and driving great herds of buffalo off of cliffs. They were nomadic because they killed every food source in their area.
Left alone, nature will allow some species To flourish to the exclusion and yes, extinction of others, and then typically to the point of overpopulation when starvation and or disease wipes out or very neatly wipes out that population. To even imagine government control of people’s private property could improve on nature in any way is the height of arrogance, given the results of government control of literally any other facet you’d like to examine.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:55 am to weagle99
quote:I thought the question in this thread was whether they could confiscate the land. If the government wants to buy it and build a Yellowstone Park then have at it. But if it wants to take already private lands from somebody they need to Pony up real money.
Does the preservation of certain things and places that benefit the planet as a whole supersede your right to build a firework stand
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:59 am to weagle99
quote:
Should the government have confiscated land to save the ivory billed woodpecker?
If the owners were offered a fair price by the Audubon society and rejected it, government would have had to pay more than market value for the land.
I would have gone a route of offering a conservation easement that allowed them to continue logging the land in phases while trying to maintain the bird’s habitat.
This post was edited on 11/5/22 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:02 pm to weagle99
Not confiscated but I do believe that is an issue where big gov needs to take action. They should work with the landowner to either relocate the species, or outline a plan to make the owner profit but also continue to allow the existence of species.
I believe man falls outside of the natural food chain here and should do our best to not overextend our hand.
The Earth has been supporting life for millions of years and will continue to do so even after we are gone. No need to speed extinction up imo
I believe man falls outside of the natural food chain here and should do our best to not overextend our hand.
The Earth has been supporting life for millions of years and will continue to do so even after we are gone. No need to speed extinction up imo
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:04 pm to troyt37
quote:
Thinking that the government should hold any kind of sway over anyone’s personal property of any kind is about as far as you can get from a right side political view.
You don’t believe in zoning? Laws against pollution?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:07 pm to weagle99
Species extinction is part of nature. There are far more extinct species than those that exist.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:07 pm to weagle99
I think it's fair to say that humans have throughout history been harsh on the environment. I also think it's fair to say we've gotten much better at moving society, commerce, etc forward with more care for the environment. At the end of the day though, man > animals. I get the concern for the extinction of a species etc, but it's also part of the cycle of life. How far are you willing to go to save a species? How do you decide where the line is? Who makes that decision? It's a slippery slope and it never turns out well.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:08 pm to weagle99
quote:
Answer this: What would Yellowstone be today without government? Or pick your park of choice.
I don’t know how to answer that, other than to say that it would very likely be much closer to what it was thousands of years ago, rather than a crowded, polluted tourist trap, with tens of thousands of cars and people clogging up the roads and landscape, so they can get a look at a geyser or a buffalo or a bear.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:08 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:
I would have gone a route of offering a conservation easement that allowed them to continue logging the land in phases while trying to maintain the bird’s habitat.
Or government might have worked with the property owner to offer a tax incentive, paid the property owner a conservation stipend, or something similar.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:12 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
man > animals
How many animals would you sacrifice for a single human life?
For instance, if I could save the life of a child molester by killing all the elephants on earth would you agree to that? How about all the elephants for the life of a single baby?
quote:
How far are you willing to go to save a species? How do you decide where the line is? Who makes that decision?
All good questions.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:18 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
Property rights > woodpecker all day every day everywhere forever.
Anyone who disagrees and/or down votes this either isn't a property owner or is a Marxist.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:20 pm to Flats
quote:
You don’t believe in zoning? Laws against pollution?
Two very different questions. Zoning? No. If what you want to do with your property isn’t illegal elsewhere, it shouldn’t be illegal for you. I believe that is equal protection under the law.
Pollution? Certainly. Because a person’s rights only extend to where they infringe on the rights of others. Both of these issues are very situational, but for the most part I believe that if the government can dictate what you can and can’t do with your property, you don’t own it.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:21 pm to samson73103
quote:
Anyone who disagrees and/or down votes this either isn't a property owner or is a Marxist.
This is the Angel Oak tree in Charleston. It is estimated to be almost 500 years old. If it were on private property and you rode by one day to see it chopped to pieces and gone to make way for a mobile home, would that really please you?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:21 pm to troyt37
quote:The Park contains 2.2 million acres. Only a fraction of it has been developed. 95% is backcountry.quote:I don’t know how to answer that, other than to say that it would very likely be much closer to what it was thousands of years ago, rather than a crowded, polluted tourist trap, with tens of thousands of cars and people clogging up the roads and landscape, so they can get a look at a geyser or a buffalo or a bear.
What would Yellowstone be today without government? Or pick your park of choice.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:28 pm to weagle99
quote:so your pleasure is more important than someone else's right to do with their own property what they want. Okay, we get it. Your a Marxist. Now you know why your conservative friends disagree with you.
This is the Angel Oak tree in Charleston. It is estimated to be almost 500 years old. If it were on private property and you rode by one day to see it chopped to pieces and gone to make way for a mobile home, would that really please you
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:30 pm to weagle99
quote:
What would Yellowstone be today without government? Or pick your park of choice.
88% of all land west of the Rockies is owned by a gooberment entity. Whether it is Yellowstone or any other gooberment owned parcel, land prices would certainly be more affordable. Less land available creates higher land prices which insure more real estate tax revenue to GOOBER MENT!!
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News