Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

AnswersASK YOUR QUESTION

Answers

Q:
The founding fathers believed that governments are instituted among men for the sole purpose of protecting human rights. Therefore, the ONLY actions the government is permitted to take are ones intended to protect our rights. So, here is my question: Do we have the RIGHT to a healthy environment the same way we have a right to free speech or to bear arms? If so, Is the government failing to protect this right? if not, are we sportsmen prepared to abolish all environmental protections and live with the consequences?

Question by ken.mcloud. Uploaded on May 10, 2009

Answers (62)

Top Rated
All Answers
from Nick Jensen wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Interesting thoughts Mr. Mcloud. I think we, along with every other living thing on this planet has the right to a healthy environment. I think government needs to step in to protect us from the tragedy of the commons. It's unfortunate but that's how it is. We have a prime example here in North East Wisconsin. For decades paper companies along the Fox river dumped PCB's into the river. Why, because it was cheaper than to properly dispose of the waste and these companies made huge profits at our expense. Now we as tax payers are paying to clean it up and as sportsmen we can't eat the fish that come out of this waterway. Not to mention all the fish, ducks, and other wildlife that has been poisoned because some paper companies wanted to make a bigger profit. When you don't have oversight and regulations this is what happens.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Yes yes no.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

golfing sportsman-

EXCELLENT literary reference with "Tragedy of the Commons"!

This topic has always been a rigorous metal exercise for me because you can't have it both ways.

Either it is a right, the government is seriously neglecting its duties, and needs to take more action whether we like it or not.

Or it is not a right, the government has overstepped its bounds, a bunch of laws need to repealed, and we are all doomed to repeat the tragedy of the commons.

Neither scenario is ideal, but you can't have it both ways, either its a basic right, or its not.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nick Jensen wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken, I believe it is a basic right for all living things to have clean water and fresh air. I agree very strongly with the Native American sentiment that the world does not belong to us, we are merely borrowing it from our children. And it isn't just our rights we need to be concerned with but theirs also. I want my children and grandchildren to be able to swim in the rivers and lakes, and eat the fish they catch in those rivers and lakes, and drink the water from those rivers and lakes. It's not just our rights that we need to be concerned with but the rights of all those that come after us.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
-Theodore Roosevelt

“We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
-Abraham Lincoln

“I'll rule this country by executive order if Congress won't adopt my agenda.”
-Bill Clinton, 1998-Jul-4

“I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution.”
-President Clinton, March 10, 1997

“The president has kept all of the promises he intended to keep.”
-Clinton aide George Stephanopolous speaking on “Larry King Live.”

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
-Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776

What part of history you just don’t understand!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan Gersbach wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

To have limited government,in scope and size,necessary to regulate,as needed ,to prevent abuse of the environment is warranted as common sense dictates.We can have limited gov. and clean environment---the trouble today is we don't have a limited gov. anymore.The gov. doesn't have a corner on wisedom-we don't need a"nanny state". Excellent comments/ref.---Clay Cooper

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

As usual you have succeeded in citing many interesting quotes that bear no clear connection to the issue at hand.

Perhaps I simply lack the necessary insight to decode your posts.

Could you please EXPLICITLY state whether or not you believe that we have a right to a healthy environment?

Or perhaps you disagree that governments are instituted among men in order to protect our rights? In this case I will refer you to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

The constitution does not explicitly state a right to a healthy environment. In whose opinion is the environment healthy enough? What is the optimum number of x species in place y? What should be the penalty if the optimum is not met and who should pay it? What time period do we need to measure in?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador -

All great points.

I'm not saying that I have the answer to them. Though for what its worth I would define healthy ecosystem as one that functions the way it did before we mucked it up.

I'm not even saying that its a right, I'm posing the question.

Though, should rights really be decided on the basis of how easy they would be to protect?

There are similar problems with all rights. Who decides what's free speech and what's obscenity? Who decides what's searches and seizures are justified?

For better or for worse, under our system the answer is mostly judges.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken

Who's we? Native Americans had a tremendous effect on the North American environment. The recovery of beaver numbers is having a real impact in my neck of the woods. Watching a beaver pond go from brook trout filled to large mouth bass over time,decades, is a lesson in humility. When a dam on a big pond goes it can wash out roads, scour the creek and redistribute fish species for miles.

Who's at fault? Is the man who owns the property the beaver builds the dam on responsible for the bridge repair? Is it an act of God or nature? Every species interacts with every other species. Beavers deny habitat to one species and bring habitat to another. Which habitat deserves to be maintained? Who's we? Are beavers we? Are native americans we? Is it only we who are alive now who qualify as we?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I have to agree labrador12. What will be our gauge?
I will cite one example in which the government has set a standard for tolerance with no historical record of basis. This standard has influenced communities across the country under enforcement of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) guidelines. That standard is for coliform bacteria levels in streams. I have done routine sampling in wilderness streams with no agricultural or human influence and found levels on a routine basis 5 times over the level of the EPA standard. When asked about the basis of the standard, EPA officials reported that it was arbitrarily made up!

Coliform bacteria come largely from the gut of warm blooded animals and are transferred to streams in the form of fecal material. In my area alone three historical species woodland bison, Eastern Elk and passenger pigeon would have added greatly to stream born coliform levels. It is stated that hundreds of thousands of passenger pigeons would have roosted over creek and river bottoms in one flock alone! Add to this the indigenous human population of pre-Columbian times that made their homes on the stream banks and I could imagine streams rife with coliform bacteria. If historical riparian mammal populations such as those of the afore mentioned beaver are added I suspect the EPA would be astounded ….

While I do not approve of sewage and industrial waste being pumped into streams, we must be careful in what we ask the government to protect us from. The protective might be worse than the problem.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

My closing sentence should read: The protective legislation might be worse than the problem.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

So since the lines are fuzzy and there is no way to gauge it exactly we should just do nothing, let it go, and not worry about it?

To compare the overall effect that Native Americans and beavers have on the environment to what "we" have done is a bit of a stretch.

Beavers build dams and make more wetlands and ruin a stream or two, "we" drain every wetland we can get our hands on and build a stripmall, and we dump all kinds of crap in all kinds of waterways.

Native Americans killed what game they needed and used every last bit of what they killed, and they tilled up some land to grow crops. "We" came and practically wiped out the Bison leaving thousands of skinned carcasses lying around, and we have giant factory farms that displace an unbelievable amount of habitat.

Not much of a comparison, huh?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador and beekeeper-

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are many bs regulations, and that drafting good bills in the age of the lobbyist is incredibly difficult.

However, isn't the difficulty in protecting a right a separate issue from whether or not something is a right?

Think of where we'd be if at the start of the civil rights movement the country had said "ya know, desegrating schools is going to be really hard, and messy, and is going to require some big government regulation, so, we'd better not move ahead with this whole civil rights thing"

(I am not saying that this is as clear cut as civil rights, just using that as an example to show that whether or not something is difficult is a separate issue from whether or not it is justified)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Shane

If 500,000 bison cross a river, does the sediment they disurb pollute? Is it only cows that can break down a riverbank? The sediment that carries aformentioned fecal matter is only bad if a certain species distributes it?

Native Americans drive herds of bison off a cliff...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Again, terrible example. Count the bison (that happen to be native and natural) that live in North America. Then count the cattle (that happen to be alien and introduced). Similar numbers? Not even close.

Sure, maybe they did. It wasn't until "we" showed up that they almost got wiped out, though. And whatever they killed, they used. They didn't just skin them, take a little meat, then leave the rest.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken

It's not just the lobbyist. Politicians brag about the numbers of the laws they pass, we have to live with the unintended consequences which include way too much regulation. Time is the real sleeper in this law happy environment. All change for good or ill takes time to occur.
It took me years to identify eagles and osprey in NY. I didn't believe that they existed in NY so when I would see one I would try to turn it into something else in my mind. An adult at closs range is impossible to deny but other situations are trickier. My eagle and osprey hobby horse is an attempt to raise awareness of the water quality increase that has occured over the last few decades. As an example, I went to an IDPA match 40 miles down interstate 90 on Sat. I saw 4 osprey nests and observed one adult bald eagle flying over a group of houses on the trip. Soon people aren't going to be able to ignore these critters. When you know that there are bald eagles nesting in your neighborhood it should be a little harder for politicians to scare you about the non-existent pollution, and the evil polluters that they need to pass this new law to save the world from.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

shane

By 1969 the bald eagle was extinct in NY. In 1975 the NY DEC did a historical nest site study to determine the numbers of bald eagles that had nested in NY. The DEC found that 72 pairs was the historical number of pairs of bald eagles that had nested in NY. In the year 2008 154 nest sites were active in NY. A really amazing stat is that in 2006 60 pairs of eagles fledged three chicks. Do you understand how rare it is to have eagles fledge three chicks? Do you understand how good the habitat has to be to raise three chicks? In most of the range of the bald eagle one chick is the avg. In particularly good years some birds raise two. To have a population which historicaly numbered 72, have 60 pairs fledge three chicks is flabbergasting!! How good does that habitat have to be? We have turned the corner on water quality in vast swathes of North America. Time, and awareness of former poor practices and the ending of most of the pollution, has brought us to a fabulous situation. Fine tuning and observation should be the order of the day.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Yes eagles are a success and that is a good sign that we have been doing much better lately, but there is still much progress to be made.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador12-

Have you ever considered a career as a politician?

You are extremely skilled at taking a direct question, then rambling for three paragraphs, and not even address the question being asked.

So I ask again, "Do we have the RIGHT to a healthy environment the same way we have a right to free speech or to bear arms? If so, Is the government failing to protect this right? if not, are we sportsmen prepared to abolish all environmental protections and live with the consequences?"

Though if you follow your previous pattern, you will rant about politicians taking questions instead of just directly answering the question.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

The American Indian trusted the Government and look where it got them!

and

The Blacks Government trusted the Government and look where it got them!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

First off, what is a "blacks government"?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

ken.mcloud

Key word: "TRUSTED"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Sir ken
Does the word reservation come to mind?

And how does it apply today

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

OOPS I MOOSED UP!!

Try this again

The American Indian trusted the Government and look where it got them!

And

The Blacks trusted the Government and look where it got them!

But

The Orientals didn’t trust the Government, they self educated themselves and they moved up into society and rely on no one!

Man, when you’re tired and haven’t eaten all day really gets to ya!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken

I believe I answered your direct question above, re the Constitution does not mention a explict right to a healthy environment.

My posts have been to illustrate the current state of the environment. The first Earth Day used the poster critters of the national bird, the bald eagle, and the worlds fastest bird, the peregrine falcon as signs of impending collapse. I worked as a biologist to gather usefull data to help those species. Now that both these canary in the coal mine images have recovered their populations your point is what? You need to get out more.

I'm not saying that the North American environment is a pristene, untainted, uninterrupted scene of bliss. I'm saying step back, look at where the environment was heading in 1970. Look at the indicator species of 1970. Look where we are today. Things could be a lot worse. It has been a lot worse. I think the perception that we are in a war to save what's left is incorrect. Environmental groups, ie Big Green, are not your friend. More stories, more reporting needs to be done on the sucesses since 1970. When people see the disasters that have been cleaned up, they know the future will continue to be a place where they want to enjoy. The big picture has never looked better. In 1970 when I was 19 everything was on a one way road to hell. We've taken a U-turn. Now we have problems that can be solved. We don't have to sing "The Last Lonely Eagle" anymore.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador12-

You still haven't answered the question, I didn't ask if the right was in the constitution, we all know that it isn't, I asked if it is a right?

Certainly, our rights are not strictly limited to the ones spelled out in the constitution. Women and minorities didn't have voting rights under the constitution until recently. Another example is the right to privacy, it is often cited in court cases, but is present nowhere in the constitution.

(some people will say that it is inferred by the 4th amendment, but that amendment protects from illegal search and seizure by the government, not by private parties where privacy rights are often applied)

Clay-

Same thing, you still haven't answered the question, I didn't ask if the government should be trusted. I asked if we have a right to a healthy environment?, and if not are we willing to live with the consequences?

I guess you could reject the premise of my question, say that the declaration was wrong, and say that the purpose of government is not to protect our rights.

(notice I used the word "purpose" I'm talking about what they should do, not what they actually do)

...though I'd be interested to hear what you think the purpose of government is.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

another great point,

The founding fathers said "all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"

So, if you agree with the founding fathers, (and I do) the constitution has nothing to do with our rights, our rights are NOT given to us by a government. Our rights our given to us by our creator. In other words, they are intrinsic to what it means to be human.

they even used the qualifier "Chief among these are" before they listed their top three: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ok then, we do not have a "right" to a healthy environment. A healthy environment is a opinion. My idea of a healthy environment differs from yours. I consider cities a unhealthy environment for me. Should cities then be banned from the US? If you are going to phrase it that way it's total BS.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

The purpose of government is to expand the liberty, freedom, of the individual.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken what is in your own words the definition of healthy environment?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

check this out!

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/anwar.htm

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay

Have you ever been to Prudhoe Bay? I drove up in 1996. I was stunned by the nesting waterfowl everywhere. I could have killed a dozen white-fronted geese with rocks from the road. The oil companies have done an amazing job of getting the oil with much less damage than I would have expected. Alaska has built alot of new schools since the oil money started to roll in. The place is ugly, but those guys have done a hell of a job up there.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador-

Government cannot expand the liberty, freedom of the individual.

It can only modulate the extent to which it infringes on liberty. Any act the government takes infringes on someones liberty.

Therefore, if the purpose of a government is to expand liberty, its logical end is to abolish itself. This is the only way it can prevent it self from taking any actions and thereby limiting liberty.

I then take it that you are an anarchist?

You certainly have a rather fundamental disagreement with the founding fathers.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Government can reduce taxes and regulations that it has imposed. Government can simplify and ease travel and commerce between the several states and internationally. It can act as the constitution allows it to act.

What is your definition of a "healthy environment".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

You still haven't answered the question!

I already defined a healthy environment above:
"I would define healthy ecosystem as one that functions the way it did before we mucked it up."

Labrador12 then asked how I defined "we". I would define "we" as the species homo sapiens, and yes, that includes Native Americans.

So again, I ask:

Do we have a right to a healthy environment?, and if not are we willing to live with the consequences?

You could reject the premise of my question, say that the declaration was wrong, and say that the purpose of government is not to protect our rights.

Though, in this case, I would like to hear your definition of the purpose of government.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I would like to see cities banned. LOL. I wouldn't complain.

So since we don't technically have a right to a healthy environment, and since opinions vary on what that is, we should just stick with an unhealthy one to be safe?

Is this seriously turning into an anti-healthy environment sentiment post?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Keep in mind, the is a separate issue from:

-whether or not Al Gore is a scum bag

-whether or not big environmentalist firms are corrupt

-whether or not you think that protecting this right would be easy or clean cut.

etc...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12-

Organizations (like a government) exist so that they can fulfill their purpose to the greatest extent possible.

If a government's purpose is to maximize personal liberty then it must do everything it can to minimize infringement on personal liberties.

If that is the purpose of government then reducing taxes and regulation are merely steps along the road to eliminating government. Since this is the only way that liberty can be maximized.

This is known as Anarchy, It is a legitimate political philosophy, though most historians would also call it a flawed one. The founding fathers would agree with the historians.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

We have given you a constitutional republic, if you can keep it Ben Franklin

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Here's a quote that actually pertains to the purpose of government and the definition of rights:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

-Thomas Jefferson et. al.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Organizations, like a government, expand to the greatest extent possible. A citizens duty is to keep government serving the citizen not itself.

I consider myself a libertarian, not a anarchist.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12

Got a call on my HAM Radio from one the guys at work, about 10 miles north oft the Artic circle and had to go back for an emergency at work, all hell broke lose!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken you said, have a right to free speech ""or"" to bear arms.

Key word is “OR”!

Were do you get ""OR""!!!

“The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.”
-Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, 2002-May-8 (http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/P...)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison

“We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
-Abraham Lincoln

What part of this you just don’t understand!!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Bottom line

Kin you don’t even understand your very own question.

So how do you know you have an answer if you don't understand your very own question!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

The lengths you will go to in order to avoid answering this question are astonishing!

You know damn well that my post was not meant to imply that on must choose between the 1st amendment or the second. The word "or" can also be used in lists. for instance some one says "whats the NFL", you say "Its a league that football teams play in, like the Dallas Cowboys OR the NY Giants" Obviously, that statement does not imply that only the cowboys or the Giants could play at any one time.

...but I think we both know that you knew that before you posted.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

should read "that one must choose"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

This is your SOP when someone disagrees with you. You cite lists of quotes that bear little to no clear connection to the topic at hand. These quotes almost never string together to form a coherent thought, or make a point. Then you finish with a condescending sentence fragment.

Please explain your point to me. In sentences, paragraphs even. I am apparently not smart or educated enough to be able to string the quotes together.

as for your quotes-

the Schumer quote-
Schumer is a scum bag, but that is a particularly well phrased and powerful quote. That being said it has nothing to do with a clean environment.

the Madison quote-
again, a great quote. But how am I taking the constitution out of context? It is quite clear that rights exist that were not included in the original document. Why else would an amendment process be the last section of the constitution.

the Lincoln quote-
when did I ever suggest that the power of the government is NOT derived from the consent of the governed?

"What part of this you just don’t understand!!!!"
Everything!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken
What is your definition of a clean environment? You don't get to use a time machine. You have to admit whether things are getting better, big picture, or are getting worse. You have to remember, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

ken.mcloud

KEN YOU IDIOT

I’M NOT GIVING UP ETHER ONE!

The 1’st protects the second and the second enforces the first!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

clay,

Did you even read my post before you wrote that?

I said:
"You know damn well that my post was ****!!NOT!!**** meant to imply that one must choose between the 1st amendment or the second"

-emphasis added

please read my posts before responding to them, and certianly before calling me an idiot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

clay,

Did you even read my post before you wrote that?

I said:
"You know damn well that my post was ****!!NOT!!**** meant to imply that one must choose between the 1st amendment or the second"

-emphasis added

please read my posts before responding to them, and certianly before calling me an idiot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

As for the Constitution and protection of the United States, I have what is called the 1000 yard rule.

A very simple rule,

YOU IN RANGE!

THE SPIRIT OF 1776!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken

If there is twice as many eagles as the historical record indicates than you must admit that the environment is better than before "we mucked it up."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

You talk about invasive species, you mean like brown trout, honey bees, night crawlers, ringneck pheasants, or Hungarian partridge? Or are you talking about steelhead or rainbow trout on the east coast? Black bass in the Great Lakes? Mallard ducks on the east coast? What are you talking about Ken?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

clay-

forgive my ignorance, but did you just threaten to shoot me because I have a political opinion that [slightly] differs from your own?

The spirit of 1776 is exactly what I am talking about.

at least answer one of my questions.

Do you agree with the declaration as to the purpose of government?

How do you define a right?

PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Once again
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison

Now if you don’t understand this, you will never will!

As far as wildlife, thanks to the Sportsmen, today wildlife is in better health and in locations never been such as deer in Pennsylvania and occasionally, I will see an Eagle flying over town.

But as far as giving anything up?

NOT!

As for “but did you just threaten to shoot me because I have a political opinion that [slightly] differs from your own?”

Get real, you know better than that!!!

Have a nice day; I got better things to do!

By the way, how old are you?!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I agree with Clay, Ken you seem overly urbanized or immature. How old are you?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

My question has nothing to do with the constitution!

I asked if it was a right.

I never even said that it was a right. I'm not sure whether or not it is. I put the question up for debate.

I then subsequently asked about the purpose of government. This is discussed the the Declaration, NOT the Constitution.

Whats the matter? are you afraid to have a debate if you can't hide behind your quotes?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

How about alalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and potatoes Ken. Wheat, oats and other food? I guess somebody must have to decide whether, all things considered, we are on the cleaner track today or whether the government gets to mandate all things to all people. With help from the Chicago Machine and our friends at the Environmental Defense Fund.

I don't like the term Sportsman, because I've always considered the food I harvest to be the best food availible. I don't consider it sport, but I do enjoy the harvest. How old are you?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12

Leave the boy alone, he’s looking for somebody to scrap with

Have you noticed the unconservative minded individuals (the far left) think they have all the answers, yet they are the ones with all the problems!

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicide, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”
-Ceasare Beccaria, 18th century criminologist, in On Crimes and Punishments

I love it when a lefty has a melt down!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

“the purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people”
-Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

In NY after WWII Cornell U. estimated that less than 500 whitetail deer existed in NY State. Today over 200,000 are legally harvested. Is that a increase in the quality of the environment? Over 500,000 Canada geese are raised in NY every year, that's up from 0 for over 50 years. Are these signs of an increase in environmental quality?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12

THAT'S NO JOKE!

I remember see hundreds of deer on the hill side going to and from NY!

That is a increase in the quality of the environment!

YA"BUDY!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Well Ken, Whether or not the gov has a duty to provide a "clean environment", we have shown that the environment is cleaner than it has been for 100 years or more. It is on a path to become even better. We have also illustrated That the gov can be the problem, not the solution. Groups favored by the gov, such as Big E can be shown to be a hazard to individual rights. How old are you Ken.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

OK Boys, lets review.

I asked if we had a right to a healthy environment, I did not state that we did. My very first post even said I often have mental debates with myself on this issue. Being that I strongly believe in a limited limited government, this question has some rather profound implications.

Then I tried to get you guys to debate the actual question by pointing out that things like whether or not it is in the constitution or whether or not it is easy to define are separate issues for whether or not something is a right. This is because our rights are not given to us by the government, they are given to us by our creator.

I also tried to get clay to explain himself in full sentences and paragraphs, I make this futile attempt often, with a very low success rate.

I read back through my posts and the ONLY thing that I firmly asserted is that the purpose of government is to protect our rights. I then cited the Declaration of Independence as my source for this assertion. Whether or not you agree, it is certianly not an outlandish assertion.

After all that, do I get the stimulating, intellectual debate I was looking for? No, I get called an "IDIOT", "urbanized", "immature", "unconservative", "far left" and "lefty". On top of that, my posts are either not read, or are intentionally misrepresented.

I think if we could actually talk about the government's role in the environment, we would have fairly similar opinions (though I could be wrong). Can we have that debate?

and by the way, how old someone is, their political label, or where they live have zero impact on how valid their arguments are.

I'm sure there are some young, bleeding heart liberals in Manhattan who think that murder is wrong, it seems to me that their argument is perfectly valid

but for the record:
I strongly believe in limited government, which is not to say that I think EVERYTHING the government does is bad. As for me being urbanized, my house is the only one on a 4 mile long road, I called in and grilled a decent size tom on Sunday, and I caught a nice brown trout before work this morning, ... So you must have a very different definition of "urbanized" from the one that I use. As for my age, I'll tell you that I am old enough to have finished Grad school, but I am not yet old enough to draw social security.

So how old are you?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador-

I have now defined "healthy environment" several times.

So no, excessive deer populations, invasive species, etc.. would not be included in my definition.

Also, I never said a word about "Big E". I do not belong to these groups for the same reason I do not subscribe to any particular political party. They are typically bloated, love fear mongering, are prone to corruption, and are rather ineffective at accomplishing their stated goals.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I'm old enough to have gone to Alaska the first time in 1970 as a 19 yr old. I'm old enough to have grown up in an environment in which bald eaqles were extinct. I'm old enough to have grown up in a time in which turkeys were extinct, seeing a deer track was rare, human turds floated down the river on a regular basis, and kids carried jack knives in school without it being a felony offense. I'm old enough to know that the physical environment is way better than it has been for way over 100 years, but the political environment is the worst in ???

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I agree that things are much better now than they were in the past.

However, isn't this a separate issue from whether or not we have a right to a healthy environment?

I'll admit the question is more a philosophical one than a pragmatic one. Though philosophical questions are the ones that underpin nearly all of our important decisions.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

This has gotten really stupid.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

shane

NO JOKE!

ken.mcloud still hasn't defined what is a healthy environment? Of course to some, a healthy environment is watching Opra from the safety of their recliner and a trip to the refrigerator is an adventure of its own. The result is becoming handicapped and being put on Welfare for carpal tunnel syndrome using their TV remote!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay-

I have defined "healthy environment" at least three times. You clearly are either not reading my posts or are trying to taunt me with some kind of childish game.

one last time for posterity:
Healthy Environment: An ecosystem that functions the way it did before we mucked it up.

by "we" I mean homo sapiens, including Native Americans

And yes, that includes invasive species.

I agree with shane, this has gotten REALLY stupid, the argument has degraded into whether or not I said something... That I clearly said three times.

Maybe I'll start a new thread and see if I can get some people to actually debate the question.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

One of the biggest mistakes is Kaibab, the Government screwed it up and they fixed it up.

If you have read it in my past posts, you would have known this!

Now if this isn’t good for you, HAVE A NICE DAY KEN!

GREAT GOBS OF GOOSE GREASE, WHAT WILL THIS BOY THINK UP NEXT>> LOL!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

So the only heathy environment is one that precedes humanity in North America. Your goal is a pre last ice age environment and you think the government, or the Creator assures you that right?? That is the way you define " a healthy environment"???? Un******ing real!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12

PRETTY GOOD YOUNG MAN, HAD TO GIVE YA A +1 !

The best White Tail area I ever knew is now a housing area, just because they can!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

By the way, that housing area is complaining of deer and other critters causing problems.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from meagel wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Yes....

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rudyglove27 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

This has been an interesting post to read!!!!!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Panfry101 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

Clay you ask those questions just to get us fired up!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Panfry101 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

Clay you ask those questions just to get us fired up!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Panfry101 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

Clay you ask those questions just to get us fired up!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Panfry101 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

Clay you ask those questions just to get us fired up!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post an Answer

from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
-Theodore Roosevelt

“We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
-Abraham Lincoln

“I'll rule this country by executive order if Congress won't adopt my agenda.”
-Bill Clinton, 1998-Jul-4

“I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution.”
-President Clinton, March 10, 1997

“The president has kept all of the promises he intended to keep.”
-Clinton aide George Stephanopolous speaking on “Larry King Live.”

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
-Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776

What part of history you just don’t understand!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I have to agree labrador12. What will be our gauge?
I will cite one example in which the government has set a standard for tolerance with no historical record of basis. This standard has influenced communities across the country under enforcement of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) guidelines. That standard is for coliform bacteria levels in streams. I have done routine sampling in wilderness streams with no agricultural or human influence and found levels on a routine basis 5 times over the level of the EPA standard. When asked about the basis of the standard, EPA officials reported that it was arbitrarily made up!

Coliform bacteria come largely from the gut of warm blooded animals and are transferred to streams in the form of fecal material. In my area alone three historical species woodland bison, Eastern Elk and passenger pigeon would have added greatly to stream born coliform levels. It is stated that hundreds of thousands of passenger pigeons would have roosted over creek and river bottoms in one flock alone! Add to this the indigenous human population of pre-Columbian times that made their homes on the stream banks and I could imagine streams rife with coliform bacteria. If historical riparian mammal populations such as those of the afore mentioned beaver are added I suspect the EPA would be astounded ….

While I do not approve of sewage and industrial waste being pumped into streams, we must be careful in what we ask the government to protect us from. The protective might be worse than the problem.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador and beekeeper-

I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are many bs regulations, and that drafting good bills in the age of the lobbyist is incredibly difficult.

However, isn't the difficulty in protecting a right a separate issue from whether or not something is a right?

Think of where we'd be if at the start of the civil rights movement the country had said "ya know, desegrating schools is going to be really hard, and messy, and is going to require some big government regulation, so, we'd better not move ahead with this whole civil rights thing"

(I am not saying that this is as clear cut as civil rights, just using that as an example to show that whether or not something is difficult is a separate issue from whether or not it is justified)

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

ken.mcloud

KEN YOU IDIOT

I’M NOT GIVING UP ETHER ONE!

The 1’st protects the second and the second enforces the first!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

As for the Constitution and protection of the United States, I have what is called the 1000 yard rule.

A very simple rule,

YOU IN RANGE!

THE SPIRIT OF 1776!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

How about alalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and potatoes Ken. Wheat, oats and other food? I guess somebody must have to decide whether, all things considered, we are on the cleaner track today or whether the government gets to mandate all things to all people. With help from the Chicago Machine and our friends at the Environmental Defense Fund.

I don't like the term Sportsman, because I've always considered the food I harvest to be the best food availible. I don't consider it sport, but I do enjoy the harvest. How old are you?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12

Leave the boy alone, he’s looking for somebody to scrap with

Have you noticed the unconservative minded individuals (the far left) think they have all the answers, yet they are the ones with all the problems!

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicide, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”
-Ceasare Beccaria, 18th century criminologist, in On Crimes and Punishments

I love it when a lefty has a melt down!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

“the purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people”
-Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

So the only heathy environment is one that precedes humanity in North America. Your goal is a pre last ice age environment and you think the government, or the Creator assures you that right?? That is the way you define " a healthy environment"???? Un******ing real!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from meagel wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Yes....

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nick Jensen wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Interesting thoughts Mr. Mcloud. I think we, along with every other living thing on this planet has the right to a healthy environment. I think government needs to step in to protect us from the tragedy of the commons. It's unfortunate but that's how it is. We have a prime example here in North East Wisconsin. For decades paper companies along the Fox river dumped PCB's into the river. Why, because it was cheaper than to properly dispose of the waste and these companies made huge profits at our expense. Now we as tax payers are paying to clean it up and as sportsmen we can't eat the fish that come out of this waterway. Not to mention all the fish, ducks, and other wildlife that has been poisoned because some paper companies wanted to make a bigger profit. When you don't have oversight and regulations this is what happens.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Yes yes no.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

golfing sportsman-

EXCELLENT literary reference with "Tragedy of the Commons"!

This topic has always been a rigorous metal exercise for me because you can't have it both ways.

Either it is a right, the government is seriously neglecting its duties, and needs to take more action whether we like it or not.

Or it is not a right, the government has overstepped its bounds, a bunch of laws need to repealed, and we are all doomed to repeat the tragedy of the commons.

Neither scenario is ideal, but you can't have it both ways, either its a basic right, or its not.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nick Jensen wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken, I believe it is a basic right for all living things to have clean water and fresh air. I agree very strongly with the Native American sentiment that the world does not belong to us, we are merely borrowing it from our children. And it isn't just our rights we need to be concerned with but theirs also. I want my children and grandchildren to be able to swim in the rivers and lakes, and eat the fish they catch in those rivers and lakes, and drink the water from those rivers and lakes. It's not just our rights that we need to be concerned with but the rights of all those that come after us.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan Gersbach wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

To have limited government,in scope and size,necessary to regulate,as needed ,to prevent abuse of the environment is warranted as common sense dictates.We can have limited gov. and clean environment---the trouble today is we don't have a limited gov. anymore.The gov. doesn't have a corner on wisedom-we don't need a"nanny state". Excellent comments/ref.---Clay Cooper

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

As usual you have succeeded in citing many interesting quotes that bear no clear connection to the issue at hand.

Perhaps I simply lack the necessary insight to decode your posts.

Could you please EXPLICITLY state whether or not you believe that we have a right to a healthy environment?

Or perhaps you disagree that governments are instituted among men in order to protect our rights? In this case I will refer you to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

The constitution does not explicitly state a right to a healthy environment. In whose opinion is the environment healthy enough? What is the optimum number of x species in place y? What should be the penalty if the optimum is not met and who should pay it? What time period do we need to measure in?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador -

All great points.

I'm not saying that I have the answer to them. Though for what its worth I would define healthy ecosystem as one that functions the way it did before we mucked it up.

I'm not even saying that its a right, I'm posing the question.

Though, should rights really be decided on the basis of how easy they would be to protect?

There are similar problems with all rights. Who decides what's free speech and what's obscenity? Who decides what's searches and seizures are justified?

For better or for worse, under our system the answer is mostly judges.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken

Who's we? Native Americans had a tremendous effect on the North American environment. The recovery of beaver numbers is having a real impact in my neck of the woods. Watching a beaver pond go from brook trout filled to large mouth bass over time,decades, is a lesson in humility. When a dam on a big pond goes it can wash out roads, scour the creek and redistribute fish species for miles.

Who's at fault? Is the man who owns the property the beaver builds the dam on responsible for the bridge repair? Is it an act of God or nature? Every species interacts with every other species. Beavers deny habitat to one species and bring habitat to another. Which habitat deserves to be maintained? Who's we? Are beavers we? Are native americans we? Is it only we who are alive now who qualify as we?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

My closing sentence should read: The protective legislation might be worse than the problem.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

So since the lines are fuzzy and there is no way to gauge it exactly we should just do nothing, let it go, and not worry about it?

To compare the overall effect that Native Americans and beavers have on the environment to what "we" have done is a bit of a stretch.

Beavers build dams and make more wetlands and ruin a stream or two, "we" drain every wetland we can get our hands on and build a stripmall, and we dump all kinds of crap in all kinds of waterways.

Native Americans killed what game they needed and used every last bit of what they killed, and they tilled up some land to grow crops. "We" came and practically wiped out the Bison leaving thousands of skinned carcasses lying around, and we have giant factory farms that displace an unbelievable amount of habitat.

Not much of a comparison, huh?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Shane

If 500,000 bison cross a river, does the sediment they disurb pollute? Is it only cows that can break down a riverbank? The sediment that carries aformentioned fecal matter is only bad if a certain species distributes it?

Native Americans drive herds of bison off a cliff...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Again, terrible example. Count the bison (that happen to be native and natural) that live in North America. Then count the cattle (that happen to be alien and introduced). Similar numbers? Not even close.

Sure, maybe they did. It wasn't until "we" showed up that they almost got wiped out, though. And whatever they killed, they used. They didn't just skin them, take a little meat, then leave the rest.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken

It's not just the lobbyist. Politicians brag about the numbers of the laws they pass, we have to live with the unintended consequences which include way too much regulation. Time is the real sleeper in this law happy environment. All change for good or ill takes time to occur.
It took me years to identify eagles and osprey in NY. I didn't believe that they existed in NY so when I would see one I would try to turn it into something else in my mind. An adult at closs range is impossible to deny but other situations are trickier. My eagle and osprey hobby horse is an attempt to raise awareness of the water quality increase that has occured over the last few decades. As an example, I went to an IDPA match 40 miles down interstate 90 on Sat. I saw 4 osprey nests and observed one adult bald eagle flying over a group of houses on the trip. Soon people aren't going to be able to ignore these critters. When you know that there are bald eagles nesting in your neighborhood it should be a little harder for politicians to scare you about the non-existent pollution, and the evil polluters that they need to pass this new law to save the world from.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

shane

By 1969 the bald eagle was extinct in NY. In 1975 the NY DEC did a historical nest site study to determine the numbers of bald eagles that had nested in NY. The DEC found that 72 pairs was the historical number of pairs of bald eagles that had nested in NY. In the year 2008 154 nest sites were active in NY. A really amazing stat is that in 2006 60 pairs of eagles fledged three chicks. Do you understand how rare it is to have eagles fledge three chicks? Do you understand how good the habitat has to be to raise three chicks? In most of the range of the bald eagle one chick is the avg. In particularly good years some birds raise two. To have a population which historicaly numbered 72, have 60 pairs fledge three chicks is flabbergasting!! How good does that habitat have to be? We have turned the corner on water quality in vast swathes of North America. Time, and awareness of former poor practices and the ending of most of the pollution, has brought us to a fabulous situation. Fine tuning and observation should be the order of the day.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Yes eagles are a success and that is a good sign that we have been doing much better lately, but there is still much progress to be made.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador12-

Have you ever considered a career as a politician?

You are extremely skilled at taking a direct question, then rambling for three paragraphs, and not even address the question being asked.

So I ask again, "Do we have the RIGHT to a healthy environment the same way we have a right to free speech or to bear arms? If so, Is the government failing to protect this right? if not, are we sportsmen prepared to abolish all environmental protections and live with the consequences?"

Though if you follow your previous pattern, you will rant about politicians taking questions instead of just directly answering the question.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

The American Indian trusted the Government and look where it got them!

and

The Blacks Government trusted the Government and look where it got them!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

First off, what is a "blacks government"?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

ken.mcloud

Key word: "TRUSTED"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Sir ken
Does the word reservation come to mind?

And how does it apply today

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

OOPS I MOOSED UP!!

Try this again

The American Indian trusted the Government and look where it got them!

And

The Blacks trusted the Government and look where it got them!

But

The Orientals didn’t trust the Government, they self educated themselves and they moved up into society and rely on no one!

Man, when you’re tired and haven’t eaten all day really gets to ya!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken

I believe I answered your direct question above, re the Constitution does not mention a explict right to a healthy environment.

My posts have been to illustrate the current state of the environment. The first Earth Day used the poster critters of the national bird, the bald eagle, and the worlds fastest bird, the peregrine falcon as signs of impending collapse. I worked as a biologist to gather usefull data to help those species. Now that both these canary in the coal mine images have recovered their populations your point is what? You need to get out more.

I'm not saying that the North American environment is a pristene, untainted, uninterrupted scene of bliss. I'm saying step back, look at where the environment was heading in 1970. Look at the indicator species of 1970. Look where we are today. Things could be a lot worse. It has been a lot worse. I think the perception that we are in a war to save what's left is incorrect. Environmental groups, ie Big Green, are not your friend. More stories, more reporting needs to be done on the sucesses since 1970. When people see the disasters that have been cleaned up, they know the future will continue to be a place where they want to enjoy. The big picture has never looked better. In 1970 when I was 19 everything was on a one way road to hell. We've taken a U-turn. Now we have problems that can be solved. We don't have to sing "The Last Lonely Eagle" anymore.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador12-

You still haven't answered the question, I didn't ask if the right was in the constitution, we all know that it isn't, I asked if it is a right?

Certainly, our rights are not strictly limited to the ones spelled out in the constitution. Women and minorities didn't have voting rights under the constitution until recently. Another example is the right to privacy, it is often cited in court cases, but is present nowhere in the constitution.

(some people will say that it is inferred by the 4th amendment, but that amendment protects from illegal search and seizure by the government, not by private parties where privacy rights are often applied)

Clay-

Same thing, you still haven't answered the question, I didn't ask if the government should be trusted. I asked if we have a right to a healthy environment?, and if not are we willing to live with the consequences?

I guess you could reject the premise of my question, say that the declaration was wrong, and say that the purpose of government is not to protect our rights.

(notice I used the word "purpose" I'm talking about what they should do, not what they actually do)

...though I'd be interested to hear what you think the purpose of government is.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

another great point,

The founding fathers said "all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"

So, if you agree with the founding fathers, (and I do) the constitution has nothing to do with our rights, our rights are NOT given to us by a government. Our rights our given to us by our creator. In other words, they are intrinsic to what it means to be human.

they even used the qualifier "Chief among these are" before they listed their top three: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ok then, we do not have a "right" to a healthy environment. A healthy environment is a opinion. My idea of a healthy environment differs from yours. I consider cities a unhealthy environment for me. Should cities then be banned from the US? If you are going to phrase it that way it's total BS.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

The purpose of government is to expand the liberty, freedom, of the individual.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken what is in your own words the definition of healthy environment?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

check this out!

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/anwar.htm

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay

Have you ever been to Prudhoe Bay? I drove up in 1996. I was stunned by the nesting waterfowl everywhere. I could have killed a dozen white-fronted geese with rocks from the road. The oil companies have done an amazing job of getting the oil with much less damage than I would have expected. Alaska has built alot of new schools since the oil money started to roll in. The place is ugly, but those guys have done a hell of a job up there.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador-

Government cannot expand the liberty, freedom of the individual.

It can only modulate the extent to which it infringes on liberty. Any act the government takes infringes on someones liberty.

Therefore, if the purpose of a government is to expand liberty, its logical end is to abolish itself. This is the only way it can prevent it self from taking any actions and thereby limiting liberty.

I then take it that you are an anarchist?

You certainly have a rather fundamental disagreement with the founding fathers.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Government can reduce taxes and regulations that it has imposed. Government can simplify and ease travel and commerce between the several states and internationally. It can act as the constitution allows it to act.

What is your definition of a "healthy environment".

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

You still haven't answered the question!

I already defined a healthy environment above:
"I would define healthy ecosystem as one that functions the way it did before we mucked it up."

Labrador12 then asked how I defined "we". I would define "we" as the species homo sapiens, and yes, that includes Native Americans.

So again, I ask:

Do we have a right to a healthy environment?, and if not are we willing to live with the consequences?

You could reject the premise of my question, say that the declaration was wrong, and say that the purpose of government is not to protect our rights.

Though, in this case, I would like to hear your definition of the purpose of government.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I would like to see cities banned. LOL. I wouldn't complain.

So since we don't technically have a right to a healthy environment, and since opinions vary on what that is, we should just stick with an unhealthy one to be safe?

Is this seriously turning into an anti-healthy environment sentiment post?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Keep in mind, the is a separate issue from:

-whether or not Al Gore is a scum bag

-whether or not big environmentalist firms are corrupt

-whether or not you think that protecting this right would be easy or clean cut.

etc...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12-

Organizations (like a government) exist so that they can fulfill their purpose to the greatest extent possible.

If a government's purpose is to maximize personal liberty then it must do everything it can to minimize infringement on personal liberties.

If that is the purpose of government then reducing taxes and regulation are merely steps along the road to eliminating government. Since this is the only way that liberty can be maximized.

This is known as Anarchy, It is a legitimate political philosophy, though most historians would also call it a flawed one. The founding fathers would agree with the historians.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

We have given you a constitutional republic, if you can keep it Ben Franklin

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Here's a quote that actually pertains to the purpose of government and the definition of rights:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

-Thomas Jefferson et. al.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Organizations, like a government, expand to the greatest extent possible. A citizens duty is to keep government serving the citizen not itself.

I consider myself a libertarian, not a anarchist.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12

Got a call on my HAM Radio from one the guys at work, about 10 miles north oft the Artic circle and had to go back for an emergency at work, all hell broke lose!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken you said, have a right to free speech ""or"" to bear arms.

Key word is “OR”!

Were do you get ""OR""!!!

“The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.”
-Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, 2002-May-8 (http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/P...)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison

“We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
-Abraham Lincoln

What part of this you just don’t understand!!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Bottom line

Kin you don’t even understand your very own question.

So how do you know you have an answer if you don't understand your very own question!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

should read "that one must choose"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken
What is your definition of a clean environment? You don't get to use a time machine. You have to admit whether things are getting better, big picture, or are getting worse. You have to remember, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

clay,

Did you even read my post before you wrote that?

I said:
"You know damn well that my post was ****!!NOT!!**** meant to imply that one must choose between the 1st amendment or the second"

-emphasis added

please read my posts before responding to them, and certianly before calling me an idiot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

clay,

Did you even read my post before you wrote that?

I said:
"You know damn well that my post was ****!!NOT!!**** meant to imply that one must choose between the 1st amendment or the second"

-emphasis added

please read my posts before responding to them, and certianly before calling me an idiot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Ken

If there is twice as many eagles as the historical record indicates than you must admit that the environment is better than before "we mucked it up."

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

You talk about invasive species, you mean like brown trout, honey bees, night crawlers, ringneck pheasants, or Hungarian partridge? Or are you talking about steelhead or rainbow trout on the east coast? Black bass in the Great Lakes? Mallard ducks on the east coast? What are you talking about Ken?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

clay-

forgive my ignorance, but did you just threaten to shoot me because I have a political opinion that [slightly] differs from your own?

The spirit of 1776 is exactly what I am talking about.

at least answer one of my questions.

Do you agree with the declaration as to the purpose of government?

How do you define a right?

PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Once again
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison

Now if you don’t understand this, you will never will!

As far as wildlife, thanks to the Sportsmen, today wildlife is in better health and in locations never been such as deer in Pennsylvania and occasionally, I will see an Eagle flying over town.

But as far as giving anything up?

NOT!

As for “but did you just threaten to shoot me because I have a political opinion that [slightly] differs from your own?”

Get real, you know better than that!!!

Have a nice day; I got better things to do!

By the way, how old are you?!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I agree with Clay, Ken you seem overly urbanized or immature. How old are you?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

In NY after WWII Cornell U. estimated that less than 500 whitetail deer existed in NY State. Today over 200,000 are legally harvested. Is that a increase in the quality of the environment? Over 500,000 Canada geese are raised in NY every year, that's up from 0 for over 50 years. Are these signs of an increase in environmental quality?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12

THAT'S NO JOKE!

I remember see hundreds of deer on the hill side going to and from NY!

That is a increase in the quality of the environment!

YA"BUDY!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Well Ken, Whether or not the gov has a duty to provide a "clean environment", we have shown that the environment is cleaner than it has been for 100 years or more. It is on a path to become even better. We have also illustrated That the gov can be the problem, not the solution. Groups favored by the gov, such as Big E can be shown to be a hazard to individual rights. How old are you Ken.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

OK Boys, lets review.

I asked if we had a right to a healthy environment, I did not state that we did. My very first post even said I often have mental debates with myself on this issue. Being that I strongly believe in a limited limited government, this question has some rather profound implications.

Then I tried to get you guys to debate the actual question by pointing out that things like whether or not it is in the constitution or whether or not it is easy to define are separate issues for whether or not something is a right. This is because our rights are not given to us by the government, they are given to us by our creator.

I also tried to get clay to explain himself in full sentences and paragraphs, I make this futile attempt often, with a very low success rate.

I read back through my posts and the ONLY thing that I firmly asserted is that the purpose of government is to protect our rights. I then cited the Declaration of Independence as my source for this assertion. Whether or not you agree, it is certianly not an outlandish assertion.

After all that, do I get the stimulating, intellectual debate I was looking for? No, I get called an "IDIOT", "urbanized", "immature", "unconservative", "far left" and "lefty". On top of that, my posts are either not read, or are intentionally misrepresented.

I think if we could actually talk about the government's role in the environment, we would have fairly similar opinions (though I could be wrong). Can we have that debate?

and by the way, how old someone is, their political label, or where they live have zero impact on how valid their arguments are.

I'm sure there are some young, bleeding heart liberals in Manhattan who think that murder is wrong, it seems to me that their argument is perfectly valid

but for the record:
I strongly believe in limited government, which is not to say that I think EVERYTHING the government does is bad. As for me being urbanized, my house is the only one on a 4 mile long road, I called in and grilled a decent size tom on Sunday, and I caught a nice brown trout before work this morning, ... So you must have a very different definition of "urbanized" from the one that I use. As for my age, I'll tell you that I am old enough to have finished Grad school, but I am not yet old enough to draw social security.

So how old are you?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Labrador-

I have now defined "healthy environment" several times.

So no, excessive deer populations, invasive species, etc.. would not be included in my definition.

Also, I never said a word about "Big E". I do not belong to these groups for the same reason I do not subscribe to any particular political party. They are typically bloated, love fear mongering, are prone to corruption, and are rather ineffective at accomplishing their stated goals.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I'm old enough to have gone to Alaska the first time in 1970 as a 19 yr old. I'm old enough to have grown up in an environment in which bald eaqles were extinct. I'm old enough to have grown up in a time in which turkeys were extinct, seeing a deer track was rare, human turds floated down the river on a regular basis, and kids carried jack knives in school without it being a felony offense. I'm old enough to know that the physical environment is way better than it has been for way over 100 years, but the political environment is the worst in ???

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

I agree that things are much better now than they were in the past.

However, isn't this a separate issue from whether or not we have a right to a healthy environment?

I'll admit the question is more a philosophical one than a pragmatic one. Though philosophical questions are the ones that underpin nearly all of our important decisions.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

This has gotten really stupid.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

shane

NO JOKE!

ken.mcloud still hasn't defined what is a healthy environment? Of course to some, a healthy environment is watching Opra from the safety of their recliner and a trip to the refrigerator is an adventure of its own. The result is becoming handicapped and being put on Welfare for carpal tunnel syndrome using their TV remote!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay-

I have defined "healthy environment" at least three times. You clearly are either not reading my posts or are trying to taunt me with some kind of childish game.

one last time for posterity:
Healthy Environment: An ecosystem that functions the way it did before we mucked it up.

by "we" I mean homo sapiens, including Native Americans

And yes, that includes invasive species.

I agree with shane, this has gotten REALLY stupid, the argument has degraded into whether or not I said something... That I clearly said three times.

Maybe I'll start a new thread and see if I can get some people to actually debate the question.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

One of the biggest mistakes is Kaibab, the Government screwed it up and they fixed it up.

If you have read it in my past posts, you would have known this!

Now if this isn’t good for you, HAVE A NICE DAY KEN!

GREAT GOBS OF GOOSE GREASE, WHAT WILL THIS BOY THINK UP NEXT>> LOL!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

labrador12

PRETTY GOOD YOUNG MAN, HAD TO GIVE YA A +1 !

The best White Tail area I ever knew is now a housing area, just because they can!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

By the way, that housing area is complaining of deer and other critters causing problems.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rudyglove27 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

This has been an interesting post to read!!!!!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

The lengths you will go to in order to avoid answering this question are astonishing!

You know damn well that my post was not meant to imply that on must choose between the 1st amendment or the second. The word "or" can also be used in lists. for instance some one says "whats the NFL", you say "Its a league that football teams play in, like the Dallas Cowboys OR the NY Giants" Obviously, that statement does not imply that only the cowboys or the Giants could play at any one time.

...but I think we both know that you knew that before you posted.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

Clay,

This is your SOP when someone disagrees with you. You cite lists of quotes that bear little to no clear connection to the topic at hand. These quotes almost never string together to form a coherent thought, or make a point. Then you finish with a condescending sentence fragment.

Please explain your point to me. In sentences, paragraphs even. I am apparently not smart or educated enough to be able to string the quotes together.

as for your quotes-

the Schumer quote-
Schumer is a scum bag, but that is a particularly well phrased and powerful quote. That being said it has nothing to do with a clean environment.

the Madison quote-
again, a great quote. But how am I taking the constitution out of context? It is quite clear that rights exist that were not included in the original document. Why else would an amendment process be the last section of the constitution.

the Lincoln quote-
when did I ever suggest that the power of the government is NOT derived from the consent of the governed?

"What part of this you just don’t understand!!!!"
Everything!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Panfry101 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

Clay you ask those questions just to get us fired up!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Panfry101 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

Clay you ask those questions just to get us fired up!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Panfry101 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

Clay you ask those questions just to get us fired up!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Panfry101 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

Clay you ask those questions just to get us fired up!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 49 weeks ago

My question has nothing to do with the constitution!

I asked if it was a right.

I never even said that it was a right. I'm not sure whether or not it is. I put the question up for debate.

I then subsequently asked about the purpose of government. This is discussed the the Declaration, NOT the Constitution.

Whats the matter? are you afraid to have a debate if you can't hide behind your quotes?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post an Answer