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.

Water Conservation in the West: What's your Take?

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

FlyTalk
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

March 27, 2012

Water Conservation in the West: What's your Take?

By Tim Romano

Here in the west water is a huge, huge deal no matter what you use it for and there's only going to be less as time goes on. With a growing population base and drier and warmer winters I've certainly noticed watersheds changing here in my home state of Colorado over the last 10+ years. Things just aren't like they used to be. Our namesake river is one of the most diverted and abused rivers in the world. Heck, it doesn't even make it to the ocean any more.

Some of you might have seen this trailer of a movie called Watershed that was produced and narrated by Robert Redford.

In the full length movie you, "meet Jeff Ehlert, a fly fishing guide in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado rancher Dan James, Delta restoration worker Edith Santiago, Navajo Council member Glojean Todacheene, Rifle Colorado Mayor Keith Lambert, Los Angeles native Jimmy Lizama and a group of Outward Bound teens rafting down the Colorado River as they all reflect a compelling new water ethic—one that illuminates how letting go of the ways of old can lead to a path of coexisting with enough for all."

Personally it sickens me the way I see water being used here everyday. Saturating non-native grass for your front lawn and landscaping the sides of highways seem like an insane waste to me. Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't see it being a long term sustainable solution if we want to keep these rivers intact.

What about you? Is water conservation a big deal where you live? Have declining snowpacks and water levels effected your fisheries?

Comments (41)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I like the notion of conservation of water, and Western water rights for farmers sure don't address that issue, BUT, when you say, "we will have warmer, and drier Winters" you discredit yourself as falsfying science. There is no proof of any kind that we will continue to have "warmer, and drier" Winters." And water is a 100% renewable resource.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Where I live in Ohio and as far as I know nowhere in Ohio has a water issue other than farm runoff which we could discuss. We have from year to yearour droughts but for the most part we equal out throughout the year. Now for your problem, it is troubling but the problem is really you and those like yourself. Here me out, you live in a naturally semiarid region where water isn't plentiful so there are water shortage issues. The more people try to make it in areas of Colorado, Nevada, etc... the bigger the problem is going to become, but here is the delema these residents are in who gets to stay and who must go? We can sit here and argue until we are blue in the face but nothing is going to change unless there is a mass exodus out of arid regions and that is the harsh truth. Unless a miracle from GOD himself happens the arid region out west is always going to be just that. Diverting water for agricultural use is moronic at best, but the argument on having a large family could is just a valid. I don't know it's one of those darned if you do and darned if you don't, but this is the way I see it wrong or right.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Water is the new gold for the western states. If you have it, you are rich. Your land is worth more, your homes are worth more and water is the center of economic development for arid western regions.

Like gold, water makes people do absolutely stupid things for the love of money. Water has becomes the focus of political agendas and a bargaining chip for almost any need possible. It is scary that we put such a valuable resource solely in the hands of our politicians.

If you have ever seen the magnitude of the Colorado River
flowing through the western states, you should be completely dumbfounded by the thought that it never reaches the ocean.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Water is such an issue out west it's almost appalling. You can't setup rain collection barrels from your home's roof because you would be impeding the natural flow of water, which, BTW, is not your water, it belongs to people who have been here the longest, first in time, first in right. Kansas has successfully made Colorado drain a superb reservoir over water rights. Thankfully there is a system in place where monies from sportsman's purchases of license that has the state buying water rights so that we can hold more water in our reservoirs without being forced to let it all flow to other states.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sayfu,

I'm no scientist and don't claim to be one. I simply listen to people smarter than myself that study such things for a living.

There's plenty of solid science that backs this up. You can ignore it all you want.

From Scientific American,

"Snowpack in the northern Rocky Mountains has shrunk at an unusually rapid pace during the past 30 years, according to a new study.

The decline is "almost unprecedented" over the past 800 years, say researchers who used tree rings to reconstruct a centuries-long record of snowpack throughout the entire Rocky Mountain range.

Their work, published yesterday in the journal Science, suggests that the plummeting snowpack could have serious consequences for more than 70 million people who depend on water from the runoff-fed Columbia, Colorado and Missouri rivers."

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rhythm Rider wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I won't debate climate science, because I'm not a climate scientist. I know the earth has a way of maintaining a balance, and we can debate all we want. Humans will be self seeking and ignorant all they want. The earth may be getting dryer, hotter, whatever, it's akin to the felt vs rubber argument. We can't even figure that one out.

I do know if you live in the west's arid regions, you shouldn't use a lot of water. Better farming practices should be employed to produce less water intensive crops, but the problem is people and lawyers with money. Common sense is difficult to find in this argument.

I'll keep fishing wherever I can, and let those 'smarter' than me waste their energy debating. Good thing I've got an interest in carp....cause they may soon be native to the Colorado.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

tim...Then you listen to the wrong people. Liberals have created lots of bogus science out there. Global warming, man induced has been an embarrassing scam. The implimentation of the carbon tax that liberals wanted to impose would have been catasrophic to an already fragile economy, and had nothing to do with correcting any global warming. It was all about directing taxes to liberal causes. At one time awhile back, over 600 govt scientists who now no longer worked for the govts of Europe, and the USA signed on saying it was a scam...poor scientific data was intentionally collected, and bogus computor models were used to create bogus data. Emails were intercepted indicating it was a scam. It ain't easy "listening to those more knowledgable than you" but you undoubtably are getting bogus info.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Rhythm rider..."crops that are less water intensive". How about the subsidy for ethonal in our gas!!!!!!!!!! Crops that use tons of water like corn to produce that crap. I bought a new car that got 26 mph, and now my station, and all stations where I am at, have included ethonal, and now I just did the math this morning, and I got 19.6 MPH! If water is a problem knock off the subsidy for ethonal, and we will save lots of water.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Well, as the old saying goes, whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over.
Regardless of global warming, or not, the population of the west is growing at a pace that can't sustain things like pools and green lawns and golf courses and parks and farms and trout without something having to give. Or someone having to give in. And, being from an upstream state, the downstreamers seem to only want to have it their way, be it for lake levels or barge traffic or flood control or golf course irrigation.
When this whole mess will finally come to a very real head is when the upstream states say, screw it, it's our water first, and shut off the tap.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rhythm Rider wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sayfu....when I talk about lawyers and money that includes ethanol and corn (Cargill, AGP, Monsanto, large agribusiness etc). I grew up in NE and IA, and think ethanol is a boondoggle and corn and soy can be an unhealthy waste.

What I'm saying is I agree with you, and less water intensive ag includes corn and soybean being grown in eastern CO, WY, western NE, etc.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I agree, and look at the rising cost of food it causes besides being a subsidy that produces lousy results in your tank! Why anyone besides those that depend on Big Govt want bigger, and bigger more intrusive govt. is beyond me.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from badsmerf wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

This water issue is going to be an issue in future generations. The abuse that humans have done will come back around.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Eric368 wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sayfu, while I do agree that water is a renewable resource I would like to point out that it appears as if you have incorrectly restated the original statement. You said '"we will have warmer, and drier Winters,"' however the author does not say that so I'm not sure who you have quoted. The statement in the article say "With a growing population base and drier and warmer winters I've certainly noticed watersheds changing here in my home state of Colorado over the last 10+ years." The author is simply stating a pattern that he has noticed over a good number of years. Nowhere does he outright say that the years to come will get "warmer and drier" he does however infer that a ten year pattern holds its weight in an argument (as opposed to the past 1-2 years which would provide a misleading model. I'm not arguing either side, just pointing out that it seems you have unfairly altered the statement to fit your position. Additionally could you make it known to the F&S populous the link that will provide us with the article about these "scientists" unveiling said climate conspiracy.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Water conservation in Ohio is not the same as water conservation in Colorado. In Ohio we worry about toxins and pollutants coming from run-off and acid rain. All of Ohio's waters are currently under some sort of an advisory due to different levels of pollution. On some waters it is recommended you do not wet wade. On all waters it is advised to limit fish consumption.

Aside from pollution, Ohio has a serious issue with silt. We lost most buffers around river systems years ago to farming and timber and have very limited natural reproduction due to the high volume of silt choking our streams.

Aside from water quality, the quantity of water in Ohio has decreased. The water table is lower than it was 100 years ago and the streams are warmer as a result.

Growing up in the late 60's and early 70's I can recall catching tremendous smallmouth from the local rivers. Some Ohio streams were nationally known as smallmouth fisheries. Since then we have had the formation of the CWA, CAA and the EPA. Despite volumes of legislation and a lot of back slapping, Ohio has continued to falter into a dismal array of toxic streams and rivers. Save only Lake Erie.

In my lifetime I have witnessed, first hand, the near total destruction of a fishery. Much like the residents of Colorado are witnessing with the Colorado River. If you have faith that the government will do the right thing when it needs to be done, come to Ohio and see what 40 years of worth of war between conservation and growth has done to the watershed.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

"with a growing population base, and warmer and drier Winters"...you don't interpret that to mean our Winters will get warmer as the population grows? I did. I see what you mean though. Maybe he doesn't mean the pattern should be expected to continue. The scientists that voiced their oppostion to the man induced climate change theory was debated on the internet and links were provided as to the number of scientist defectors over time. As the numbers continued to increase new links to that fact were posted. I don't have any means to retrieve those links. What appeared to be happening was the fact that govts demanded a concensus of scientists must support the theory for these govts to receive financial reward via the carbon tax. A scientist who declined to join the consensus knew their job would not last long. As govt debt grew, and scientists were laid off, more joined the defection ranks. Al Gore was predicted to become the first billionaire created by the global warming movement. Where is Al now? I haven't heard from him in over a year now. Al kinds of unscientific approaches were reported/documented to have been used to get the desired results the movement wanted.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Water is a renewable resource? 2/3's of the Colorado River is diverted and is now dependent upon millions as a water supply. Tell the folks down stream they are getting their river back and I'll believe water is renewable.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

buckhunter. Understand what I said from a science standpoint. We live in a "closed system" That is 8th grade science. WE have the same amount of water as we had ions ago. How we use the water is another thing. But it isn't like it disappears however we use it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jmshackelfo@aol.com wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I live in Hotchkiss Co. and I have to say looking at the Elk mountains this year I have to worry about the snow pack. Unfoutanantly I don't think the people who are watering their lawns will stop. I have to think the sulution is for those of us who do care to show it and try to conserve water. I also think that we need more resurvors to hold and retain what water we do have. They were planing a dam on the Gunnison between Delta and Grand Junction. I don't know what happened to those plans or why they haven't done it. I wish more people cared enough to make a change.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

jmshackelfo...Do you know the organized effort to not build dams, and to take remove them? It can take years of obstructionist litigation, permits after permits, studies that need to be done like we all are aware of on this Keystone Pipeline issue.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bberg7794 wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Take Las Vegas as an example, where I was once sent to work on a helicopter for several days. I found it unbelievable that we fill huge pools of water around all the casinos for no reason other than they are nice to look at and then aerate that water in all the fountains to speed it on its way back to the atmosphere as vapor. I thought it was a perfect example of irresponsible water use. Vegas is an environment where around 4" of rain fall in a year and the open water evaporation rate is approximately 80" per year. What a waste in the name of making money. I'll choose trout over golf courses and backyard swimming pools any day. If you live in the desert, or anywhere for that matter, you need to think really carefully about responsible water usage. The farmers/ranchers need it more than you need a nice lawn and the trout need it more than anyone.

While it is theoretically true that water is not created nor destroyed, molecules of pollution that are released by us and attach themselves to once-clean water are equally real. It takes a lot more energy and money to purify water than it does to not pollute it in the first place.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Renegade1 wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

For a long time now, I have been telling anyone who will listen, that water will be the new currency in the future. Here in Michigan, we are surrounded by fresh water, and believe it or not, some of us conserve it. Every few years, there is a proposal from someone out west to pipe Great Lakes water to the west. The Great Lake states and Canada have an agreement to protect the Great Lakes water. I have always said, that anyone who wants Michigan's water can have it, as long as they move to Michigan and pay taxes like all of us who enjoy and value our water. If you want abundant water; don't move to a place where the is a shortage of water.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Eric368 wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sayfu, I had not heard of that before although it does seem quite plausible that the Government and various groups/individuals could have altered the data to their liking (although it would be silly to say that it had not been changed by both sides of the arguments at times). Renegade1, I currently live in the West and always have and would have to say that I fully agree with you that Midwestern water should not be diverted out west. Remember though that it is not all of the West that is sucking up this water. It's primarily Arizona and Southern California (not Northern California). Southern California has been trying for years and years to get us (Northern California) to dam and divert more and more of our rivers, streams and pristine fisheries (including the Sacramento Delta) so that they can continue their existance in a desert by watering their golf courses and frontyards.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

The world wide data that was evidenced was vastly tainted, embarrassingly unscientific. They put thermo records next to cement structures, computor models were rigged to produce the desired results. The European emails that were actually stolen evidenced govt scientists very worried that their computer models were not going to produce the results that they wanted, and what should they do about it. "The other side?" The other side never has thought man has induced global warming, and influenced the temperature of the sun. A concrete finding validated sun spots contributed to a period of time of global warming. There have been many, many periods of time that exhibited global warming. If you trace the money, there were billions of dollars at stake in the transfer of wealth from the USA to foreign countries via the carbon tax.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Eric, Sayfu is correct and this is widely known to those who don't realy on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, PBC, etc... for news They are an intentional propagandist wing of the left and believe in socialism and I would go as far as saying communism. They emails where released on other sites and reported by other news organizations. All this seems a little too elaborate and it is but don't think for a second this crap doesn't happen all the time in every political spectrum in every country around the world. When money is involved people do some wildly crazy things, and there is never a shortage of sheeple to follow, look a Nazi Germany, USSR, China, N. Korea, Africa, ect.... I suggest you to go to Taco Bell and read their slogan and "think outside the box" you can't believe everything you here anywhere but you can take bits and pieces from everywhere to put the puzzle together. Finally I'm 30yrs old and have have seen now looking back several weather phases. In the late 80's-early 90's it was cooler and winters were cold w/ alot of snow, then from mid 90's to early 00's it was hot w/ warmer than normal winters and the last 5years (2010,2009,2008,2007,2006) the winters and summer temps were cooler than normal with record breaking snow falls blizzards and blah,blah,blah. So when it was getting warmer in the 90's they blamed it on global warming but when it started getting cooler they blamed it on climate change which is AKA for global warming and couldn't be taken seriously if you blame the colder weather and massive amounts of snow fall. They convienetly change names to make it work for their purpose. I could go on and on and on but I will not, because it is pointless if you as many others here on this site do faithfully believe in global warming and the progressive way.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chet Tokarsky wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

I think that water concservation will always be looked upon for ways we can improve but in terms of real issue, its overall demand of water, water isn't renewable simple because things like population and agriculture are increasing every single day, straining water resources, especially in the west.
In the future the real war or 2012 scenario is that war for water rights will be inevitable in the future. It really is the key resource when it comes to life on this planet.
That's my two cents..

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Water in the West has always been an issue. John Wesley Powell identified water rights as being more important than land rights long before the West was settled. If you read Bernard DeVoto or Wallace Stegner, they list numerous others who accurately predicted where we now are. The observations about the long-term consequences of a highly populated and irrigated desert region are obviously valid concerns. As much as this concerns me, though, I'm more disturbed by another trend....

I love the outdoors, and I love pristine nature as much as anyone, but I'm deeply troubled by what I see as a seismic shift in how humans are viewed. Conservationists of old tied into the Judao-Christian teaching of man as being unique: created in the image of God, intended to be stewards of Creation. Even those of a non-religious nature tended to look at the world through those eyes. Pollution and destruction of natural resources could be quite soundly condemned on the grounds that it was bad stewardship of the resources that we'd inherited--the resources that we would pass on to the next generation.

But now? I teach high school social studies classes, and it disturbs me how many textbooks present humans as parasites. Has anyone noticed how many environmentalists look upon humans as "overpopulated," etc.? Is that not implying that we would be better off getting rid of a bunch of us? Common sense says that we don't need to have large families, but the trend is that this has been self-correcting as societies prosper. Whenever I hear someone talking about the earth being overpopulated, I wonder which people they want to kill off? When people like Ted Turner say that the earth should only support 1 billion people, and others nod their heads in agreement, I wonder how long until someone starts devicing means for killing off the "surplus" billions?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Jan thank God for teachers like you that look past the BS taught to the kids these days. As for Ted Turner he is a waste just as is his son Beau, I'm sure they wouldn't sacrifice themselves or family in the name of conservation. Also I believe the overpopulation thing is more than just that, it is resources & power the elite could gain should a limited number of people be allowed to exist.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from split484 wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

hey ssayfu,

with you understanding of 8th grade science, I suppose you get it that energy is neither lost or created - it just changes form, right?

Like when water runs through a turbine and suddenly your internet connection is back up.
Or when we dig up some dinosaur bones and refine it into fuel to ship all the cool fishing gear we have all across this planet's closed system.

You really have some brilliant comments and then you go off on water being 100% renewable.
better to be thought a fool than to type away and remove all doubt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

To the climate change deniers out there, I'll say yep, "When money is involved people do some wildly crazy things, and there is never a shortage of sheeple to follow." Like the petroleum industry's money. In case anybody hasn't noticed, we don't have any trees in our forests anymore, at least living trees. Nope, they're almost all dead. Lodgepole pines, ponderosas, etc. Why? Because our winters aren't cold enough to inhibit bark beetles. In fact our winters are so mild that these beetles are breeding two generations a year! For the last 15 years, these beetles have been killing our forests. But no, it must be normal cyclical warming, right? Like burning millions of tons of carbon has no impact on our environment, right? Did you ever see the brown cloud in Denver before we cleaned up our wood-burning and engine emissions? And these 80 degree days and forest fires in Colorado in March are just my imagination. Nope, nope, even though I can see it, smell it, and touch it, I'm gonna guess it's all just a leftist, commie plot to make us all socialists. God forbid the thought that it's the holy and divine virgin-birthed institution of international corporate monopolistic capitalism that might somehow be responsible for killing our planet.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Merkincrab said, "God forbid the thought that it's the holy and divine virgin-birthed institution of international corporate monopolistic capitalism that might somehow be responsible for killing our planet."

... And straw men are exploding into flames all over. I'm currently living in a former Soviet state. If you think capitalism is so bad, you should check out the alternatives.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Nope, JJ Mudder. Soviet style communism was an ecological disaster. I think capitalism is wonderful, as long as it's regulated. It's the purchase of government (and the media) by the oligarchs to defeat regulation that is what's so bad about capitalism. And the inability of small business to compete with megabusiness. If we could restore a little balance to our world and restrain the insane greed of the last thirty years, maybe we could recover our planet. But if Aaron Million keeps offering 1.4 billion dollars in profit to people who help him divert the waters of the Green to the Front range (Denver Post 4/5/2012), I guess the straw men will self-immolate.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

To JJ Mudder: Regarding your earlier post about overpopulation, I'd like to pass on a quote from the Gink and Gasoline blog:
"We are likely also stuck with over-fishing and diminishing fish numbers and size. I certainly don’t have the answer. I do, however feel pretty certain that the answer is not to be found in either ignorance or apathy. As the world population continues to skyrocket we need to start thinking hard about our decisions and how they impact the resources we enjoy and depend upon. We have to think about how we fish and what fish we eat. I’ll doubtless take some heat for saying this, but I’ve come to the conclusion that if you want better fishing the best thing you can do is use a condom! That’s the real issue. There are too many folks in this world for us to all make selfish choices."
I think it's great that you teach high school social studies. It sounds like you're in denial of high school science. Overpopulation throughout human history has caused resource depletion and the collapse of civilization. No serious conservationist is advocating homicide. But serious scientists have been advocating prudent reproductive practice for years. Recycling and driving Priuses don't do any good if you're having lots of progeny. Humans who limit their reproduction to two kids per adult will help balance our resource consumption and provide for sustainable life. No, I'm not advocating government mandate. But if the religious fundamentalists keep procreating like rabbits, it'll come to that sooner or later.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Merkincrab said, "Overpopulation throughout human history has caused resource depletion and the collapse of civilization."

Declining populations have even more often led to collapsing civilizations, and it often follows a logic pattern similar to what you're describing. The Romans were too busy having a good time to raise children, and they didn't like serving in the Roman army anymore. (Sound familiar?) The short-term solution was the Germans: they had lots of children, and they didn't mind serving in the military. Pretty soon, that which was Roman became German. Today, Germany (and Europe as a whole) is repeating history.

I'm not "in denial of high school science." Children are expensive, and the relative cost of raising a child correlates to income, so poor people can actually afford to have more children. Whether I have 1 child or 10, I'll raise each to be a good steward of nature, to provide for his family, and to be a good neighbor, though not in that order.

What I stated plainly, earlier--which you should investigate for yourself--is that high school and college textbooks give fairly positive coverage to China's one-child policy, and they frequently imply that humans are parasites on the planet. I'd much rather live in a city full of Duggers than with people like this because my experiences tell me that they don't value humanity, and they therefore make selfish neighbors ... or worse.

I'll add something else to those assertions: People who worry a lot about "overpopulation" tend to do so for self-centered, even self-absorbed reasons. If you think that the planet is crowded, by all means, have fewer children; however, if you think that you have some proprietary right to fish alone on your favorite stream, and the rest of the planet should procreate accordingly, the modern equivalent of the "German hordes" will disappoint you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 2 years 1 week ago

figures sayfu and dcast would try and change a post about water conservation into a debate about global warming

also all animal populations reach a limit to where they crash due to a limiting resource. i don't think humans will be an exception to the rule. i'm not saying people should die, but maybe people should start having 1-2 kids instead of 3-5

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

OK, Jan J Mudder. I'm not going to bother to refute your arguments. I'll just restate your last comments. You asserted that it's the people who worry about overpopulation (and presumably create fewer copies of themselves) who are the most self-centered and self-absorbed. You stated that poor people can afford to have more children. You implied that a culture that attempts to slow its population growth (China) doesn't value humanity.
Nope. I'm not going to argue with you. Because I'm guessing you also believe in supply-side economics, the Bernie Madoff theory of investment, and that real beauty of the nineteenth century, "the rain follows the plow." (the theory that cultivation of dry land will bring forth natural irrigation from the sky).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

And, once again, Merkincrab burns up an army of straw men. You're really good at refuting arguments that I never made.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Yo, JJM, Back at ya...I had to Google "Duggers", from your earlier post. I didn't know what the hell you were talking about when you said you'd rather live in a city full of them. Aha! You mean "Duggars", the family with 19 kids. Here's what an article says about them:

"Between laundry (there are 35 loads done each week) and dishes, housework is a never-ending cycle, Michelle says. But all of the kids, with the exception of baby Josie, have jobs. To divide chores, Michelle and Jim Bob split the children into teams with designated captains. Two teams of boys usually get put on dish duty.

What's most mind-boggling, though, is the Duggar grocery bill: $3,000 a month. In that time, the family goes through 5 dozen eggs and 48 boxes of cereal -- it's no wonder they use their garage as a pantry. To ensure that mealtime goes smoothly, Michelle says they plan ahead. For breakfast, they start preparing the night before. It's also helpful to finalize a menu prior to grocery shopping, she says. Then, when it's time to eat, everyone lines up and serves themselves buffet style."

Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about. Great stewards of the planet, Mr. and Mrs. Duggar, who are selfless and value humanity by doing 35 WASHLOADS a week and consuming $3000 of groceries. Looks more like unbelievable vanity...as if the world really needs 19 Duggars because they're so frickin' great. Hey, JJ, this is an article about water we're posting on, buddy. Get it? It takes a lot of water to do that much laundry and raise that much grain, produce, and meat.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

So, which of the Duggars should we kill?

I was NOT saying that anybody should have 19 children; I was saying that I choose them over those who choose to try and control how many children exist.

I've never watched the show nor do I care to. I suspect that you're not really familiar with what the one-child policy is, or else you're incredibly flippant about something so heinous. If you're not really familiar with the one-child policy, here's one recent example of what it looks like:

“In the hospital, a pregnant woman was dragged by several ruggedly muscular men into the operation room and did not relax their vigilance until she was injected with the drug. They said, ‘Another one accomplished.’ But that pregnant woman was near term! And her family did not even know she was kidnapped here. I later learned that she was captured when she was at a fair,” wrote the commentator."

(I'd post the link, but I don't think F&S allows it. Google the quote, or do a little research on your own. Bags of babies show up in the Pearl River--I'd guess that that damages the fishery, too.)

You talk about all of the above as though it's some sort of joke. I love fishing, and I love the outdoors, but there are things in life that are more important.

I could go through every other point-counter-point, if you wish, but I think that you only desire to feel clever. Prove to me that you're not wasting my time, and I'll respond to anything you ask.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

JJ, This is where we must part company. For me, nothing is more important than fishing and "the outdoors". So long, pal.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

I appreciate your bluntness. I think this world is temporary, and souls are eternal. We're never going to look at things the same way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 1 year 44 weeks ago

I thought of this conversation when I read this article, today: www.lifesitenews.com/news/funding-barbarity-the-wests-love-affair-with-c...

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from timromano wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sayfu,

I'm no scientist and don't claim to be one. I simply listen to people smarter than myself that study such things for a living.

There's plenty of solid science that backs this up. You can ignore it all you want.

From Scientific American,

"Snowpack in the northern Rocky Mountains has shrunk at an unusually rapid pace during the past 30 years, according to a new study.

The decline is "almost unprecedented" over the past 800 years, say researchers who used tree rings to reconstruct a centuries-long record of snowpack throughout the entire Rocky Mountain range.

Their work, published yesterday in the journal Science, suggests that the plummeting snowpack could have serious consequences for more than 70 million people who depend on water from the runoff-fed Columbia, Colorado and Missouri rivers."

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from Eric368 wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sayfu, while I do agree that water is a renewable resource I would like to point out that it appears as if you have incorrectly restated the original statement. You said '"we will have warmer, and drier Winters,"' however the author does not say that so I'm not sure who you have quoted. The statement in the article say "With a growing population base and drier and warmer winters I've certainly noticed watersheds changing here in my home state of Colorado over the last 10+ years." The author is simply stating a pattern that he has noticed over a good number of years. Nowhere does he outright say that the years to come will get "warmer and drier" he does however infer that a ten year pattern holds its weight in an argument (as opposed to the past 1-2 years which would provide a misleading model. I'm not arguing either side, just pointing out that it seems you have unfairly altered the statement to fit your position. Additionally could you make it known to the F&S populous the link that will provide us with the article about these "scientists" unveiling said climate conspiracy.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from bberg7794 wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Take Las Vegas as an example, where I was once sent to work on a helicopter for several days. I found it unbelievable that we fill huge pools of water around all the casinos for no reason other than they are nice to look at and then aerate that water in all the fountains to speed it on its way back to the atmosphere as vapor. I thought it was a perfect example of irresponsible water use. Vegas is an environment where around 4" of rain fall in a year and the open water evaporation rate is approximately 80" per year. What a waste in the name of making money. I'll choose trout over golf courses and backyard swimming pools any day. If you live in the desert, or anywhere for that matter, you need to think really carefully about responsible water usage. The farmers/ranchers need it more than you need a nice lawn and the trout need it more than anyone.

While it is theoretically true that water is not created nor destroyed, molecules of pollution that are released by us and attach themselves to once-clean water are equally real. It takes a lot more energy and money to purify water than it does to not pollute it in the first place.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Renegade1 wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

For a long time now, I have been telling anyone who will listen, that water will be the new currency in the future. Here in Michigan, we are surrounded by fresh water, and believe it or not, some of us conserve it. Every few years, there is a proposal from someone out west to pipe Great Lakes water to the west. The Great Lake states and Canada have an agreement to protect the Great Lakes water. I have always said, that anyone who wants Michigan's water can have it, as long as they move to Michigan and pay taxes like all of us who enjoy and value our water. If you want abundant water; don't move to a place where the is a shortage of water.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Water is the new gold for the western states. If you have it, you are rich. Your land is worth more, your homes are worth more and water is the center of economic development for arid western regions.

Like gold, water makes people do absolutely stupid things for the love of money. Water has becomes the focus of political agendas and a bargaining chip for almost any need possible. It is scary that we put such a valuable resource solely in the hands of our politicians.

If you have ever seen the magnitude of the Colorado River
flowing through the western states, you should be completely dumbfounded by the thought that it never reaches the ocean.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Water conservation in Ohio is not the same as water conservation in Colorado. In Ohio we worry about toxins and pollutants coming from run-off and acid rain. All of Ohio's waters are currently under some sort of an advisory due to different levels of pollution. On some waters it is recommended you do not wet wade. On all waters it is advised to limit fish consumption.

Aside from pollution, Ohio has a serious issue with silt. We lost most buffers around river systems years ago to farming and timber and have very limited natural reproduction due to the high volume of silt choking our streams.

Aside from water quality, the quantity of water in Ohio has decreased. The water table is lower than it was 100 years ago and the streams are warmer as a result.

Growing up in the late 60's and early 70's I can recall catching tremendous smallmouth from the local rivers. Some Ohio streams were nationally known as smallmouth fisheries. Since then we have had the formation of the CWA, CAA and the EPA. Despite volumes of legislation and a lot of back slapping, Ohio has continued to falter into a dismal array of toxic streams and rivers. Save only Lake Erie.

In my lifetime I have witnessed, first hand, the near total destruction of a fishery. Much like the residents of Colorado are witnessing with the Colorado River. If you have faith that the government will do the right thing when it needs to be done, come to Ohio and see what 40 years of worth of war between conservation and growth has done to the watershed.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Water in the West has always been an issue. John Wesley Powell identified water rights as being more important than land rights long before the West was settled. If you read Bernard DeVoto or Wallace Stegner, they list numerous others who accurately predicted where we now are. The observations about the long-term consequences of a highly populated and irrigated desert region are obviously valid concerns. As much as this concerns me, though, I'm more disturbed by another trend....

I love the outdoors, and I love pristine nature as much as anyone, but I'm deeply troubled by what I see as a seismic shift in how humans are viewed. Conservationists of old tied into the Judao-Christian teaching of man as being unique: created in the image of God, intended to be stewards of Creation. Even those of a non-religious nature tended to look at the world through those eyes. Pollution and destruction of natural resources could be quite soundly condemned on the grounds that it was bad stewardship of the resources that we'd inherited--the resources that we would pass on to the next generation.

But now? I teach high school social studies classes, and it disturbs me how many textbooks present humans as parasites. Has anyone noticed how many environmentalists look upon humans as "overpopulated," etc.? Is that not implying that we would be better off getting rid of a bunch of us? Common sense says that we don't need to have large families, but the trend is that this has been self-correcting as societies prosper. Whenever I hear someone talking about the earth being overpopulated, I wonder which people they want to kill off? When people like Ted Turner say that the earth should only support 1 billion people, and others nod their heads in agreement, I wonder how long until someone starts devicing means for killing off the "surplus" billions?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

To the climate change deniers out there, I'll say yep, "When money is involved people do some wildly crazy things, and there is never a shortage of sheeple to follow." Like the petroleum industry's money. In case anybody hasn't noticed, we don't have any trees in our forests anymore, at least living trees. Nope, they're almost all dead. Lodgepole pines, ponderosas, etc. Why? Because our winters aren't cold enough to inhibit bark beetles. In fact our winters are so mild that these beetles are breeding two generations a year! For the last 15 years, these beetles have been killing our forests. But no, it must be normal cyclical warming, right? Like burning millions of tons of carbon has no impact on our environment, right? Did you ever see the brown cloud in Denver before we cleaned up our wood-burning and engine emissions? And these 80 degree days and forest fires in Colorado in March are just my imagination. Nope, nope, even though I can see it, smell it, and touch it, I'm gonna guess it's all just a leftist, commie plot to make us all socialists. God forbid the thought that it's the holy and divine virgin-birthed institution of international corporate monopolistic capitalism that might somehow be responsible for killing our planet.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Water is such an issue out west it's almost appalling. You can't setup rain collection barrels from your home's roof because you would be impeding the natural flow of water, which, BTW, is not your water, it belongs to people who have been here the longest, first in time, first in right. Kansas has successfully made Colorado drain a superb reservoir over water rights. Thankfully there is a system in place where monies from sportsman's purchases of license that has the state buying water rights so that we can hold more water in our reservoirs without being forced to let it all flow to other states.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rhythm Rider wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I won't debate climate science, because I'm not a climate scientist. I know the earth has a way of maintaining a balance, and we can debate all we want. Humans will be self seeking and ignorant all they want. The earth may be getting dryer, hotter, whatever, it's akin to the felt vs rubber argument. We can't even figure that one out.

I do know if you live in the west's arid regions, you shouldn't use a lot of water. Better farming practices should be employed to produce less water intensive crops, but the problem is people and lawyers with money. Common sense is difficult to find in this argument.

I'll keep fishing wherever I can, and let those 'smarter' than me waste their energy debating. Good thing I've got an interest in carp....cause they may soon be native to the Colorado.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rhythm Rider wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sayfu....when I talk about lawyers and money that includes ethanol and corn (Cargill, AGP, Monsanto, large agribusiness etc). I grew up in NE and IA, and think ethanol is a boondoggle and corn and soy can be an unhealthy waste.

What I'm saying is I agree with you, and less water intensive ag includes corn and soybean being grown in eastern CO, WY, western NE, etc.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Water is a renewable resource? 2/3's of the Colorado River is diverted and is now dependent upon millions as a water supply. Tell the folks down stream they are getting their river back and I'll believe water is renewable.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jmshackelfo@aol.com wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I live in Hotchkiss Co. and I have to say looking at the Elk mountains this year I have to worry about the snow pack. Unfoutanantly I don't think the people who are watering their lawns will stop. I have to think the sulution is for those of us who do care to show it and try to conserve water. I also think that we need more resurvors to hold and retain what water we do have. They were planing a dam on the Gunnison between Delta and Grand Junction. I don't know what happened to those plans or why they haven't done it. I wish more people cared enough to make a change.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chet Tokarsky wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

I think that water concservation will always be looked upon for ways we can improve but in terms of real issue, its overall demand of water, water isn't renewable simple because things like population and agriculture are increasing every single day, straining water resources, especially in the west.
In the future the real war or 2012 scenario is that war for water rights will be inevitable in the future. It really is the key resource when it comes to life on this planet.
That's my two cents..

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from split484 wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

hey ssayfu,

with you understanding of 8th grade science, I suppose you get it that energy is neither lost or created - it just changes form, right?

Like when water runs through a turbine and suddenly your internet connection is back up.
Or when we dig up some dinosaur bones and refine it into fuel to ship all the cool fishing gear we have all across this planet's closed system.

You really have some brilliant comments and then you go off on water being 100% renewable.
better to be thought a fool than to type away and remove all doubt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I like the notion of conservation of water, and Western water rights for farmers sure don't address that issue, BUT, when you say, "we will have warmer, and drier Winters" you discredit yourself as falsfying science. There is no proof of any kind that we will continue to have "warmer, and drier" Winters." And water is a 100% renewable resource.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Where I live in Ohio and as far as I know nowhere in Ohio has a water issue other than farm runoff which we could discuss. We have from year to yearour droughts but for the most part we equal out throughout the year. Now for your problem, it is troubling but the problem is really you and those like yourself. Here me out, you live in a naturally semiarid region where water isn't plentiful so there are water shortage issues. The more people try to make it in areas of Colorado, Nevada, etc... the bigger the problem is going to become, but here is the delema these residents are in who gets to stay and who must go? We can sit here and argue until we are blue in the face but nothing is going to change unless there is a mass exodus out of arid regions and that is the harsh truth. Unless a miracle from GOD himself happens the arid region out west is always going to be just that. Diverting water for agricultural use is moronic at best, but the argument on having a large family could is just a valid. I don't know it's one of those darned if you do and darned if you don't, but this is the way I see it wrong or right.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Rhythm rider..."crops that are less water intensive". How about the subsidy for ethonal in our gas!!!!!!!!!! Crops that use tons of water like corn to produce that crap. I bought a new car that got 26 mph, and now my station, and all stations where I am at, have included ethonal, and now I just did the math this morning, and I got 19.6 MPH! If water is a problem knock off the subsidy for ethonal, and we will save lots of water.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Well, as the old saying goes, whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over.
Regardless of global warming, or not, the population of the west is growing at a pace that can't sustain things like pools and green lawns and golf courses and parks and farms and trout without something having to give. Or someone having to give in. And, being from an upstream state, the downstreamers seem to only want to have it their way, be it for lake levels or barge traffic or flood control or golf course irrigation.
When this whole mess will finally come to a very real head is when the upstream states say, screw it, it's our water first, and shut off the tap.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I agree, and look at the rising cost of food it causes besides being a subsidy that produces lousy results in your tank! Why anyone besides those that depend on Big Govt want bigger, and bigger more intrusive govt. is beyond me.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from badsmerf wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

This water issue is going to be an issue in future generations. The abuse that humans have done will come back around.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

buckhunter. Understand what I said from a science standpoint. We live in a "closed system" That is 8th grade science. WE have the same amount of water as we had ions ago. How we use the water is another thing. But it isn't like it disappears however we use it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

jmshackelfo...Do you know the organized effort to not build dams, and to take remove them? It can take years of obstructionist litigation, permits after permits, studies that need to be done like we all are aware of on this Keystone Pipeline issue.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Eric368 wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sayfu, I had not heard of that before although it does seem quite plausible that the Government and various groups/individuals could have altered the data to their liking (although it would be silly to say that it had not been changed by both sides of the arguments at times). Renegade1, I currently live in the West and always have and would have to say that I fully agree with you that Midwestern water should not be diverted out west. Remember though that it is not all of the West that is sucking up this water. It's primarily Arizona and Southern California (not Northern California). Southern California has been trying for years and years to get us (Northern California) to dam and divert more and more of our rivers, streams and pristine fisheries (including the Sacramento Delta) so that they can continue their existance in a desert by watering their golf courses and frontyards.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

The world wide data that was evidenced was vastly tainted, embarrassingly unscientific. They put thermo records next to cement structures, computor models were rigged to produce the desired results. The European emails that were actually stolen evidenced govt scientists very worried that their computer models were not going to produce the results that they wanted, and what should they do about it. "The other side?" The other side never has thought man has induced global warming, and influenced the temperature of the sun. A concrete finding validated sun spots contributed to a period of time of global warming. There have been many, many periods of time that exhibited global warming. If you trace the money, there were billions of dollars at stake in the transfer of wealth from the USA to foreign countries via the carbon tax.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Jan thank God for teachers like you that look past the BS taught to the kids these days. As for Ted Turner he is a waste just as is his son Beau, I'm sure they wouldn't sacrifice themselves or family in the name of conservation. Also I believe the overpopulation thing is more than just that, it is resources & power the elite could gain should a limited number of people be allowed to exist.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Merkincrab said, "God forbid the thought that it's the holy and divine virgin-birthed institution of international corporate monopolistic capitalism that might somehow be responsible for killing our planet."

... And straw men are exploding into flames all over. I'm currently living in a former Soviet state. If you think capitalism is so bad, you should check out the alternatives.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Nope, JJ Mudder. Soviet style communism was an ecological disaster. I think capitalism is wonderful, as long as it's regulated. It's the purchase of government (and the media) by the oligarchs to defeat regulation that is what's so bad about capitalism. And the inability of small business to compete with megabusiness. If we could restore a little balance to our world and restrain the insane greed of the last thirty years, maybe we could recover our planet. But if Aaron Million keeps offering 1.4 billion dollars in profit to people who help him divert the waters of the Green to the Front range (Denver Post 4/5/2012), I guess the straw men will self-immolate.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

To JJ Mudder: Regarding your earlier post about overpopulation, I'd like to pass on a quote from the Gink and Gasoline blog:
"We are likely also stuck with over-fishing and diminishing fish numbers and size. I certainly don’t have the answer. I do, however feel pretty certain that the answer is not to be found in either ignorance or apathy. As the world population continues to skyrocket we need to start thinking hard about our decisions and how they impact the resources we enjoy and depend upon. We have to think about how we fish and what fish we eat. I’ll doubtless take some heat for saying this, but I’ve come to the conclusion that if you want better fishing the best thing you can do is use a condom! That’s the real issue. There are too many folks in this world for us to all make selfish choices."
I think it's great that you teach high school social studies. It sounds like you're in denial of high school science. Overpopulation throughout human history has caused resource depletion and the collapse of civilization. No serious conservationist is advocating homicide. But serious scientists have been advocating prudent reproductive practice for years. Recycling and driving Priuses don't do any good if you're having lots of progeny. Humans who limit their reproduction to two kids per adult will help balance our resource consumption and provide for sustainable life. No, I'm not advocating government mandate. But if the religious fundamentalists keep procreating like rabbits, it'll come to that sooner or later.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Merkincrab said, "Overpopulation throughout human history has caused resource depletion and the collapse of civilization."

Declining populations have even more often led to collapsing civilizations, and it often follows a logic pattern similar to what you're describing. The Romans were too busy having a good time to raise children, and they didn't like serving in the Roman army anymore. (Sound familiar?) The short-term solution was the Germans: they had lots of children, and they didn't mind serving in the military. Pretty soon, that which was Roman became German. Today, Germany (and Europe as a whole) is repeating history.

I'm not "in denial of high school science." Children are expensive, and the relative cost of raising a child correlates to income, so poor people can actually afford to have more children. Whether I have 1 child or 10, I'll raise each to be a good steward of nature, to provide for his family, and to be a good neighbor, though not in that order.

What I stated plainly, earlier--which you should investigate for yourself--is that high school and college textbooks give fairly positive coverage to China's one-child policy, and they frequently imply that humans are parasites on the planet. I'd much rather live in a city full of Duggers than with people like this because my experiences tell me that they don't value humanity, and they therefore make selfish neighbors ... or worse.

I'll add something else to those assertions: People who worry a lot about "overpopulation" tend to do so for self-centered, even self-absorbed reasons. If you think that the planet is crowded, by all means, have fewer children; however, if you think that you have some proprietary right to fish alone on your favorite stream, and the rest of the planet should procreate accordingly, the modern equivalent of the "German hordes" will disappoint you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 2 years 1 week ago

figures sayfu and dcast would try and change a post about water conservation into a debate about global warming

also all animal populations reach a limit to where they crash due to a limiting resource. i don't think humans will be an exception to the rule. i'm not saying people should die, but maybe people should start having 1-2 kids instead of 3-5

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

OK, Jan J Mudder. I'm not going to bother to refute your arguments. I'll just restate your last comments. You asserted that it's the people who worry about overpopulation (and presumably create fewer copies of themselves) who are the most self-centered and self-absorbed. You stated that poor people can afford to have more children. You implied that a culture that attempts to slow its population growth (China) doesn't value humanity.
Nope. I'm not going to argue with you. Because I'm guessing you also believe in supply-side economics, the Bernie Madoff theory of investment, and that real beauty of the nineteenth century, "the rain follows the plow." (the theory that cultivation of dry land will bring forth natural irrigation from the sky).

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

And, once again, Merkincrab burns up an army of straw men. You're really good at refuting arguments that I never made.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

Yo, JJM, Back at ya...I had to Google "Duggers", from your earlier post. I didn't know what the hell you were talking about when you said you'd rather live in a city full of them. Aha! You mean "Duggars", the family with 19 kids. Here's what an article says about them:

"Between laundry (there are 35 loads done each week) and dishes, housework is a never-ending cycle, Michelle says. But all of the kids, with the exception of baby Josie, have jobs. To divide chores, Michelle and Jim Bob split the children into teams with designated captains. Two teams of boys usually get put on dish duty.

What's most mind-boggling, though, is the Duggar grocery bill: $3,000 a month. In that time, the family goes through 5 dozen eggs and 48 boxes of cereal -- it's no wonder they use their garage as a pantry. To ensure that mealtime goes smoothly, Michelle says they plan ahead. For breakfast, they start preparing the night before. It's also helpful to finalize a menu prior to grocery shopping, she says. Then, when it's time to eat, everyone lines up and serves themselves buffet style."

Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about. Great stewards of the planet, Mr. and Mrs. Duggar, who are selfless and value humanity by doing 35 WASHLOADS a week and consuming $3000 of groceries. Looks more like unbelievable vanity...as if the world really needs 19 Duggars because they're so frickin' great. Hey, JJ, this is an article about water we're posting on, buddy. Get it? It takes a lot of water to do that much laundry and raise that much grain, produce, and meat.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

So, which of the Duggars should we kill?

I was NOT saying that anybody should have 19 children; I was saying that I choose them over those who choose to try and control how many children exist.

I've never watched the show nor do I care to. I suspect that you're not really familiar with what the one-child policy is, or else you're incredibly flippant about something so heinous. If you're not really familiar with the one-child policy, here's one recent example of what it looks like:

“In the hospital, a pregnant woman was dragged by several ruggedly muscular men into the operation room and did not relax their vigilance until she was injected with the drug. They said, ‘Another one accomplished.’ But that pregnant woman was near term! And her family did not even know she was kidnapped here. I later learned that she was captured when she was at a fair,” wrote the commentator."

(I'd post the link, but I don't think F&S allows it. Google the quote, or do a little research on your own. Bags of babies show up in the Pearl River--I'd guess that that damages the fishery, too.)

You talk about all of the above as though it's some sort of joke. I love fishing, and I love the outdoors, but there are things in life that are more important.

I could go through every other point-counter-point, if you wish, but I think that you only desire to feel clever. Prove to me that you're not wasting my time, and I'll respond to anything you ask.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Merkincrab wrote 2 years 1 week ago

JJ, This is where we must part company. For me, nothing is more important than fishing and "the outdoors". So long, pal.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 2 years 1 week ago

I appreciate your bluntness. I think this world is temporary, and souls are eternal. We're never going to look at things the same way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jan J. Mudder wrote 1 year 44 weeks ago

I thought of this conversation when I read this article, today: www.lifesitenews.com/news/funding-barbarity-the-wests-love-affair-with-c...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

"with a growing population base, and warmer and drier Winters"...you don't interpret that to mean our Winters will get warmer as the population grows? I did. I see what you mean though. Maybe he doesn't mean the pattern should be expected to continue. The scientists that voiced their oppostion to the man induced climate change theory was debated on the internet and links were provided as to the number of scientist defectors over time. As the numbers continued to increase new links to that fact were posted. I don't have any means to retrieve those links. What appeared to be happening was the fact that govts demanded a concensus of scientists must support the theory for these govts to receive financial reward via the carbon tax. A scientist who declined to join the consensus knew their job would not last long. As govt debt grew, and scientists were laid off, more joined the defection ranks. Al Gore was predicted to become the first billionaire created by the global warming movement. Where is Al now? I haven't heard from him in over a year now. Al kinds of unscientific approaches were reported/documented to have been used to get the desired results the movement wanted.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 2 weeks ago

Eric, Sayfu is correct and this is widely known to those who don't realy on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, PBC, etc... for news They are an intentional propagandist wing of the left and believe in socialism and I would go as far as saying communism. They emails where released on other sites and reported by other news organizations. All this seems a little too elaborate and it is but don't think for a second this crap doesn't happen all the time in every political spectrum in every country around the world. When money is involved people do some wildly crazy things, and there is never a shortage of sheeple to follow, look a Nazi Germany, USSR, China, N. Korea, Africa, ect.... I suggest you to go to Taco Bell and read their slogan and "think outside the box" you can't believe everything you here anywhere but you can take bits and pieces from everywhere to put the puzzle together. Finally I'm 30yrs old and have have seen now looking back several weather phases. In the late 80's-early 90's it was cooler and winters were cold w/ alot of snow, then from mid 90's to early 00's it was hot w/ warmer than normal winters and the last 5years (2010,2009,2008,2007,2006) the winters and summer temps were cooler than normal with record breaking snow falls blizzards and blah,blah,blah. So when it was getting warmer in the 90's they blamed it on global warming but when it started getting cooler they blamed it on climate change which is AKA for global warming and couldn't be taken seriously if you blame the colder weather and massive amounts of snow fall. They convienetly change names to make it work for their purpose. I could go on and on and on but I will not, because it is pointless if you as many others here on this site do faithfully believe in global warming and the progressive way.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

tim...Then you listen to the wrong people. Liberals have created lots of bogus science out there. Global warming, man induced has been an embarrassing scam. The implimentation of the carbon tax that liberals wanted to impose would have been catasrophic to an already fragile economy, and had nothing to do with correcting any global warming. It was all about directing taxes to liberal causes. At one time awhile back, over 600 govt scientists who now no longer worked for the govts of Europe, and the USA signed on saying it was a scam...poor scientific data was intentionally collected, and bogus computor models were used to create bogus data. Emails were intercepted indicating it was a scam. It ain't easy "listening to those more knowledgable than you" but you undoubtably are getting bogus info.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs