Rare Woodpecker Sends Town Running for Chain Saws

Ronald Bailey | September 24, 2006

...runs the headline is this Associated Press article today. The article continues:

Over the past six months, landowners [in Boiling Springs Lakes, N.C.] have been clear-cutting thousands of trees to keep them from becoming homes for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. The chain saws started in February, when the federal Fish and Wildlife Service put Boiling Spring Lakes on notice that rapid development threatened to squeeze out the woodpecker.

The agency issued a map marking 15 active woodpecker "clusters," and announced it was working on a new one that could potentially designate whole neighborhoods of this town in southeastern North Carolina as protected habitat, subject to more-stringent building restrictions.

Hoping to beat the mapmakers, landowners swarmed City Hall to apply for lot-clearing permits. Treeless land, after all, would not need to be set aside for woodpeckers. Since February, the city has issued 368 logging permits, a vast majority without accompanying building permits.

I've pointed out a couple of times--here and here--that this is exactly the kind of reaction that Endangered Species Act provokes. Instead of persuading landowners to treasure and protect endangered species, the ESA transforms them into pests. If the public values endangered species (and most of us do), then it seems only fair that we fully compensate the people on whose land they live for taking care of them for us.

Comments

|9.24.06 @ 5:43PM|#

Be there any estimates of how much it would cost to compensate land-owners for protecting endangered species?

Ayn_Randian|9.24.06 @ 6:30PM|#

If an individual or a group values endangered species, then let them pay to keep it around. There's no principled justification to force landowners to be caretakers for what some people value. A landowner should be allowed to turn down these transfer payments (they shouldn't exist at all, however) and clear-cut his own land, if he's so inclined.

|9.24.06 @ 6:55PM|#

"red-cockaded woodpecker"

Isn't there a lot of redundancy in this name?
Whatever, I would have personally slit the throat of each and every snail darter. (It escapes me what major project that slimy minnow blocked.) But I am very pro-boid.

Had anyone else heard that, although crows and bluejays are often maligned for eating baby boids, the most frequently guilty are squirrels and deer? That's why I cut the indentured servant squirrels operating the H&R server no slack whatsoever.

|9.24.06 @ 6:56PM|#

If you were trying to design a way to ruin the environment, the ESA would be a pretty good way to start.

That said, Ayn Randian's comments are a bit over the top. What "some" people value? Are you saying that some people like nature and others can live without it? That's obviously not true. You and I would be in rather a lot of trouble if, say, someone cut down all the trees in the world or wiped out all the rainforests.

Calling nature something that "some" people value is basically an admission that you're a free rider - you're happy to take the health benefits that come from ecological conservation but want none of the costs.

Ayn_Randian|9.24.06 @ 7:24PM|#

Uh, no, Adam, what I am saying is is that it's wrong to force people to use their land in ways they don't want to. You want the red-cockaded woodpecker around, you buy a few and keep them somewhere; don't make me preserve some tree-stand because you like a certain bird.

You and I would be in rather a lot of trouble if, say, someone cut down all the trees in the world or wiped out all the rainforests.

Do you have any evidence of either of your two assumptions?:

1. How do you know we would be in a lot of trouble? Do you have any proof? What's your line here?

2. You're assuming that the government would do a better job at preservation that individual landowners. Again, statistics please.

Meanwhile, I'll make the principled argument that making taxpayers pay for a bird that some people like is just another transfer payment.

|9.24.06 @ 7:49PM|#

Adam,

1) If the red-cockaded woodpecker somehow gets wiped out, I forsee little or no negative effect on the health of homo sapiens.

2) If you like the woodpecker, and you make some other guy pay (in lost profits and lost rights to his property) to keep it alive, which of you is the free rider?

Bailey's suggestion, that the tax payers buy land with endnagered species on them, or pay the owners to keep the species alive, is better than the current system, but still forcible wealth redistribution. Ayn Randian's system is the moral solution to this problem; rich individuals, or foundations that collect voluntary donations, should just buy the land and protect it themselves. Not only will this system be without coercion, but such volunteers would, obviously, do a better job of protecting the land than government bureacrats or resentful and reluctant private owners who are preserving it out of fear of litigation or imprisonment.

|9.24.06 @ 7:59PM|#

I belive the term is "preverse insentive".

Land is more valueble with all the trees cut down becouse of government intervention.

|9.24.06 @ 8:01PM|#

"Uh, no, Adam, what I am saying is is that it's wrong to force people to use their land in ways they don't want to."

Tack "...regarless of its impact on anyone else," and you've got an accurate statement.

"don't make me preserve some tree-stand because you like a certain bird."

Hey, our civilization and economy's dependence on a health ecosystem is just, like, your opinion, man.

It's not about whether someone like the way a woodpecker looks; it's about the necessity of maintaining environmental sustainability. Endangered species are just the warning signs of an endangered environment.

|9.24.06 @ 8:04PM|#

Paying landowners to preserve their woodlots may preserve some habitat.

A moratorium on cutting on lands being considered for ESA listing would preserve a lot more.

|9.24.06 @ 8:26PM|#

"You and I would be in rather a lot of trouble if, say, someone cut down all the trees in the world or wiped out all the rainforests.

Do you have any evidence of either of your two assumptions?"

Ha! That's priceless! I feel the same way about all those "true believers" trying to convince me the sky is blue. Don't force your eco-bullshit on me, hippies!

|9.24.06 @ 8:27PM|#

joe,

Yeah, our economy and civilization are still reeling from the extinction of the giant ground sloth, woolly mammoth, saber toothed tiger, and every cool thing with the "saur" suffix (dinosaur, icthyosaur, pterosaur, etc.)

Just because you like something, or because it is cool, doesn't make it just to use the power of the state to force other people to pay for it. It's like how the tax payers are forced to pay for operas and ballets; a small minority loves opera and ballet, and somehow they have gotten the rest of us to help finance their hobbies.

|9.24.06 @ 8:32PM|#

joe,

Endangered species are warning signs about endangered species. Tons of animals have gone extinct through no fault of humans. Preserving one species through regulation is no guarantee of that species survival in any case. Preserving them at the expense of a local economy is really just a way of saying "we really wish humans would stop growing, but we don't have the money to buy the land we don't want them to settle on, so we'll discourage them by making their lives a nuisance through regulation" Its a cheap ploy that is temporary at best and does in no way enact any sort of permanent solution to the problem.

This is just another event in the continuing struggle between those who like red animals and those who wouldn't mind a bunch of small brown animals.

|9.24.06 @ 8:33PM|#

It needn't be the government compensating folks to protect habitat. Both the Nature Conservancy and the Audobon Society buy land to ensure its survival. Ducks, Unlimited works with farmers to maximize migratory fowl populations, while minimizing economic harm to the owners.

Kevin

|9.24.06 @ 8:42PM|#

Another thing, why do people need to preserve trees once the birds have left for the year? Can't they work with homeowners to possibly prevent tree felling in the spring or whenever the birds nest and once that season is over or nesting has been established not to exist in said tree that season, allow homeowners to do yard improvements? Most people aren't looking to cut down trees that birds are currently living in, but old trees need to be taken down for landscape purposes. Forcing homeowners to leave their property alone for years is rediculous.

D.A. Ridgely|9.24.06 @ 8:42PM|#

The more interesting question is why people value endangered species. I can't honestly say I care much one way or the other if red-cockaded woodpeckers become extinct. Moreover, given that something approaching 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on the planet are now extinct, the implicit notion underlying the ESA that nature is just right just now is, to put it mildly, odd.

|9.24.06 @ 9:04PM|#

a landowner needs a logging permit to cut down trees on his own property? Does that mean a farmer needs a permit to harvest corn? How about a lawnmowing permit?

How many of you need a permit to harvest trees on your lot?

you think there might be more to this story?

|9.24.06 @ 9:06PM|#

D.A.,

I'll honestly admit I like the thrill of seeing a blad eagler in the wild or a grizzly fishing out in the wild. I like colorful birds and exotic lizards. They're neat to watch. And it adds paint to the canvas of nature. But when human interaction of nature collide, there needs to be a sense of rationality between those who are vigorously interested in preserving nature and those who aren't so interested. And because those who aren't interested are usually the ones to make the sacrifice, those who are need to show that they are as compassionate with their fellow humans as they are with nature, which means they need to give up something to those they are imposing on.

|9.24.06 @ 9:14PM|#

You and I would be in rather a lot of trouble if, say, someone cut down all the trees in the world or wiped out all the rainforests.
Do you have any evidence of either of your two assumptions?:
"1. How do you know we would be in a lot of trouble? Do you have any proof? What's your line here?"

OK, I honestly don't know how to respond to this. You want proof that if all the trees were gone, we'd have a problem? I don't have any proof that if all the blood were sucked out of your body, you'd have a problem. I'm pretty sure, though, that you would.

"2. You're assuming that the government would do a better job at preservation that individual landowners. Again, statistics please."

Well, that's just putting words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. I'm just pointing out that "more nature" vs. "less nature" is not like "more leather shoes" vs "less leather shoes." If tastes are such that there are no leather shoes in the world, that's just fine. But if tastes are such that there we don't protect our environment, there's a serious problem. That's not an argument for government intervention. It's an observation that if nobody values nature, we're screwed. If anything, it's an argument for policies that are growth-friendly, since concern for the environment tends to be something people care about only after reaching a certain income.

And arguing that we're fine despite the extinction of the dinosaurs is silly. Of course we're going to be fine whether the woodpecker goes extinct. Conversely, we're going to have a serious problem if we wipe out every single other species on Earth. There's a line between those two where we go from OK to not OK. I don't have a clue where it is, but it's there somewhere.

Again, I guess I should emphasize that the last thing I'm arguing for is government intervention. What I am arguing for is that we need nature to exist. I wouldn't think that would be a terribly controversial statement.

|9.24.06 @ 9:21PM|#

Another thing, why do people need to preserve trees once the birds have left for the year? Can't they work with homeowners to possibly prevent tree felling in the spring or whenever the birds nest and once that season is over or nesting has been established not to exist in said tree that season, allow homeowners to do yard improvements? Most people aren't looking to cut down trees that birds are currently living in, but old trees need to be taken down for landscape purposes. Forcing homeowners to leave their property alone for years is rediculous.

Comment by: Lost_In_Translation at September 24, 2006 08:42 PM

lost in translation: not all birds are migratory. red-cockaded woodpeckers aren't. also, red-cockaded woodpeckers live specifically in older trees that are on their way out. I agree that the homeowners should be compensated for loss of value of their property, or their land should be purchased outright, preferably by private funds, but by taxpayer funds if necessary to save populations of endangered species. while the funding is being secured, the landowners should be restricted, by law if necessary, from damaging the animals or their property to make it unusable by the animals.

I belive the term is "preverse insentive".

Land is more valueble with all the trees cut down becouse of government intervention.

Comment by: joshua corning at September 24, 2006 07:59 PM

no, the phrase is "perverse incentive", joshua

You and I would be in rather a lot of trouble if, say, someone cut down all the trees in the world or wiped out all the rainforests.

Do you have any evidence of either of your two assumptions?:

only if you can't live without breathing oxygen, Ayn Randian

|9.24.06 @ 9:25PM|#

Mitch,

"2) If you like the woodpecker, and you make some other guy pay (in lost profits and lost rights to his property) to keep it alive, which of you is the free rider?"

But I don't "like the woodpecker!" This is not about ideology or thinking a certain animal should be preserved because it's cute. Why is it so hard for some libertarians (of which I am one) to acknowledge that a healthy environment is important? Environmental damage is an externality that needs to be internalized as much as possible, by using market mechanisms. Privatization of land and water is the most obvious solution. Some things, like air pollution, are really hard to hand over to the private sector: how the hell do you privatize air? The best we can do there is probably just hoping that as people get wealthier, they will care enough about air quality to pressure polluters into improving their performance by voting with their dollars.

The moral argument for privatizing nature is that it gives the best chance of preserving it, but we can't pretend that it's not possible to do irreversible and calamitous damage to the environment and that the choice between a healthy environment and an unhealthy one is like the one between ordering the steak and ordering the pasta: whatever floats your boat and it really makes no difference to anyone else. That's all I'm saying.

|9.24.06 @ 9:27PM|#

"Since February, the city has issued 368 logging permits, a vast majority without accompanying building permits."

Do they also issue chainsaw licenses? Keep an official registry of owners of waffle faced framing hammers?

The Law of Unintended Consequences is my favorite law.

|9.24.06 @ 9:39PM|#

biologist,

I'm certainly not up on my bird knowledge, having given up on biology after 9th grade, so I appreciate the correction. This does pose a problem, but I think in this case the action and reaction were fairly extreme. I'm sure those homeowners that clear cut their land have every intention of replanting, but the idea that they could have a nested tree in the middle of their foundation slab was too much for them. The government, then, didn't seem to discuss much with them also, which led to the panic.

|9.24.06 @ 9:57PM|#

I have a 5 acre empty lot out here in the country. The farmer next door has a 5 acre field next to my lot that he hasn't used in years. It looks just like my lot. Where I pay $300/yr in property taxes, he pays maybe a $100 because it qualifies for an agriculture type program. If he does anything other than agriculture on that land he will lose that tax break.

harvesting trees off a woodlot that enjoys special tax breaks is one thing, but cutting down trees soley to keep a bird away seems to be an abuse of the property tax payer that has paid more so this guy could pay less

|9.24.06 @ 10:01PM|#

If preserving species diversity is important, then it may be very difficult for private markets to handle the problem for certain animals. Voluntary decisions to preserve or not presesrve are a potential problem. If a network of ecosystem (that is here a forest)is necessary for this woodpecker or whatever animal is in question, then a patchwork of woods may not do the trick.

D.A. Ridgely|9.24.06 @ 10:05PM|#

Essentially, walter66, all your neighbor would be doing is destroying vegetation on his land to keep a pest from lowering its value to him.

LIT, I understand others derive aesthetic pleasure from nature, but that isn't what joe and those who agree with him are arguing.

|9.24.06 @ 10:09PM|#

what's up with bugmenot.com ? Haven't been able to use it the last few times I have tried. Is there another site out there doing the same thing?

|9.24.06 @ 10:13PM|#

biologist said,

Do you have any evidence of either of your two assumptions?:

Dumbass did you even read the article???

Over the past six months, landowners [in Boiling Springs Lakes, N.C.] have been clear-cutting thousands of trees to keep them from becoming homes for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.

Do you think the land owners are cutting down the trees becouse it devalues thier land???

Ayn_Randian|9.24.06 @ 10:15PM|#

You know, there's not much "nature" in say, downtown Manhattan (unless you're going to assert that Central Park is keeping the inhabitants alive) and they seem to be doing just fine.

And biologist, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't most of our oxygen come from marine algae and the like?

Regardless, I don't see what's controversial about the statement "Don't take taxpayer money to preserve something you just happen to like", be it red-cockaded woodpeckers or whatever. If humanity could survive and the earth was paved end to end, so be it. I think that if we need nature, we'll keep it around, but the value of things extends only as far as they are useful to humans.

|9.24.06 @ 10:19PM|#

the bird isn't a pest so that line of reasoning is kind of ignorent. The woodpecker is traditionally an insect eater so he would be good for the woodlot

|9.24.06 @ 10:22PM|#

while the funding is being secured, the landowners should be restricted, by law if necessary, from damaging the animals or their property to make it unusable by the animals.

If the funding even looked even slightly likely such a law would be completely useless and absolutly unessasary..

..gee i have a woodpecker on my land and the gov is going to pay me to let it live here...i know i will go cut down all the trees on my property.

WHAT!?!?!

No, what will happen is everyone will start growing trees and putting up nests and blowing matting whistles to get the fuckers to live on thier land.

|9.24.06 @ 10:22PM|#

How does red-cockaded woodpecker taste & what's the best way to cook it?

|9.24.06 @ 10:29PM|#

A moratorium on cutting on lands being considered for ESA listing would preserve a lot more.

so lets see a regulation that harms the economy and creates the incentive to destroy habitat and joe's answer is to increase the restrictions that not only would harm the economy even more but encurage everyone who owns land to cut down every tree on thier porperty...fucking brilliant.

Preserve more my ass more like guarantee an ecological disastor and make every land owner in the country a criminal.

On a side note i really hope idiots like joe get such legislation passed...think kelo times a million...friggin political land slide...hell we might even get a libertarian elected to the house.

|9.24.06 @ 10:46PM|#

"You know, there's not much "nature" in say, downtown Manhattan (unless you're going to assert that Central Park is keeping the inhabitants alive) and they seem to be doing just fine."

There are two possibilities here. Either (1) you believe that human beings can live without nature, or (2) I'm misunderstanding your argument.

No one with an IQ above 18 could believe #1, so that leaves only one option. So I apologize for misunderstanding your argument. But I would like to point out that it really does sound like you're saying people could live fine if every plant and animal on Earth died off, so you might want to rephrase or clarify what you're saying.

|9.24.06 @ 11:18PM|#

"You and I would be in rather a lot of trouble if, say, someone cut down all the trees in the world or wiped out all the rainforests."
I know a few acres of forest that would still be standing if not for the ESA, see the article.

D.A. Ridgely|9.24.06 @ 11:23PM|#

the bird isn't a pest so that line of reasoning is kind of ignorent. The woodpecker is traditionally an insect eater so he would be good for the woodlot

Nope, the woodpecker is a pest precisely because its presence lowers the value of the property, a consequence one must assume the property owner wishes to avoid. That's what pests are: harmful nuisances.

Oh, and if you are going to accuse someone of ignorance, you should take greater pains to spell the word correctly.

|9.24.06 @ 11:24PM|#

"You and I would be in rather a lot of trouble if, say, someone cut down all the trees in the world or wiped out all the rainforests."
I know a few acres of forest that would still be standing if not for the ESA, see the article.

For the nth time, I am not arguing for state intervention. Where do you read that into my statement? Did I also argue for bombing Malta, without realizing it?

|9.24.06 @ 11:59PM|#

The ESA has lots of shortcomings this issue just raises one of them. Others include

1. A focus on attractive megafauna with no underpinning of preservation of whole usable habitats

2. For all of the caterwauling it appers to be ineffective. The number of species listed and then recovered have been pretty small.

3. There are huge disincentives to landowners doing anything to enhance habitat that might attract or help preserve an endangered species. Doing something good for an endangered species, good for the species, good for the nation, very, very, bad for the landowner.

4. Private landowners that have preserved sufficient habitat to protect and preserve an endangered species get a kick in the teeth because of the ESA. They have preserved the habitat and the species and the ESA rewards them by taking control of the land away from them and making it impossible for them to make a living. All with no compensation.

|9.25.06 @ 12:04AM|#

Joe,

It would be nice if you would be a little more flexible and open minded in your thinking.

Every time it is pointed out how a regulation has had negative consequences that were contrary to the regulations original objective your first response is always, without fail, more regulation.

Step back and try to be creative for a change of pace.

|9.25.06 @ 12:13AM|#

Interesting Quote

-------------------------------------------

"Government land use regulations in the United States discourage landowners from protecting wildlife. This is unfortunate, since private landowners control approximately 60 percent of the land base, and at least 80 percent of wildlife in the 48 contiguous states is dependent in whole or in part upon private land."

----------------------------------------

Above quote is from an article on private wildlife conservation. Just glanced at it but it might make interesting reading for you folks.

Private wildlife conservation

|9.25.06 @ 2:05AM|#

What "some" people value? Are you saying that some people like nature and others can live without it?

People don't have the ability to destroy nature, so there's no need to protect it.

What people have the ability to destroy is individual species -- which are NOT universally valued. If every indoor cockroach in the world died tomorrow, the world would be a better place. There are millions of species in the world with no apparent value to me -- if they matter to you, YOU pay to protect them.

|9.25.06 @ 2:32AM|#

I belive the term is "preverse insentive".

Land is more valueble with all the trees cut down becouse of government intervention.

Comment by: joshua corning at September 24, 2006 07:59 PM

no, the phrase is "perverse incentive", joshua

Comment by: biologist at September 24, 2006 09:21 PM

actully your bothe wrong, but joshau is cloaser. the correct term is actuly "preverse insensitive."

|9.25.06 @ 8:04AM|#

biologist said,

Do you have any evidence of either of your two assumptions?:

Dumbass did you even read the article???

Comment by: joshua corning at September 24, 2006 10:13 PM

I was quoting Ayn Randian and replying to him.
Dumbass, did you even read the comments?

Ayn Randian, about half the world's oxygen production comes from algae and bacteria, the other half from land plants.

|9.25.06 @ 9:01AM|#

So on one extreme end, we have someone arguing to place a moratorium on tree cutting (which will encourage landowners and loggers to clear cut like blazes, while waiting for that measure to pass, fearing a negative ruling against them ultimately). On the other extreme end we have another genius arguing that we can live without trees, as though trees are no different from shoe polish. Fucking brilliant. There's a book out called something like "Intellectual Morons: how ideology makes people stupid." I'd recommend it but I fear there would be ideological resistance here.

|9.25.06 @ 9:16AM|#

Preserving species should be one of our highest priorities. We are dependent on biological resources for necessities such as food and medicine. We have only named a fraction of the species, much less determined their potential value for humans. Preserving biodiversity, and its ability to evolve in this changing environment, will be critical for future generations to have the same opportunities and benefits we enjoy.

I disagree that ESA has not been effective. The failure to de-list is a manifestation of inadequate resources and resistance to recovery actions (e.g. the subject of this thread). ESA has been effective in preventing extinctions; the will to improve many of the species to recovered status is just not there.

That being said, the designated habitat strategy of preserving species is onerous to private landownwers, though it seems to be caused by inadequate resources to do anything else. As noted above, it would likely be more efficient to preserve the diversity of ecosystems instead of focusing on single species. My view is that the solution lies in developing a strategy to preserve 'core' diversity areas, special habitat areas, and natural corridors to link them throughout. Ideally, this would be a consensus plan with buy-in from a range of groups,i.e. conservationists, business, agriculture, biologists, etc... (which will happen when a pork chop falls onto my grill from the pig flying overhead). That is all, return ad hominen.

|9.25.06 @ 9:27AM|#

The ESA is more or less a scam. I will give you an example:

The Mojave ground squirrel is a listed species on the ESA. The Mojave Ground Squirrel is a lot like a chipmunk in appearance. Because of the MGS all kinds of expenses have been incurred by land owners, usually via an extortion to purchase and "set aside" twice the land they intend to "develop".

A group made a move to delist the MGS, which caused all manner of whining and moaning by the tree huggers who really know best. The group pointed out that there was no data to justify an ESA listing for the MGS. No matter, said the tree huggers, the MGS is listed and it is staying that way, period. Years long battle ensued, the last I checked the MGS was still listed despite being prevalent.

It ain't about the critters for most of the green weanies, its about control.

|9.25.06 @ 9:28AM|#

You're welcome, by the way.

|9.25.06 @ 9:36AM|#

Q. What do you do if you find a Mojave Ground Squirrel on your property?
A. Get six cats, or maybe 12 cats, cause a lot of pussy is always better than a squirrel.

Q. What do you do if you find a desert tortoise on your property.
A. Hire a Cambodian gardener who is engaged to be married because, well it's romantic.

|9.25.06 @ 10:03AM|#

DA Ridgely,

"Nope, the woodpecker is a pest precisely because its presence lowers the value of the property, a consequence one must assume the property owner wishes to avoid."

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that saleable market value is the only value worth considering.

Lost in Translation, the mortality of birds during the actual cutting isn't the major problem; it's the loss of habitat from that point forward.

Also, "Endangered species are warning signs about endangered species." That's simply a false statement. We are not going through a great die-out, comparable to the half-dozen others in the planet's history, because of the selective hunting and killing of species, but because of the destruction of suitable habitat, either through the clearing/development of land, or intrusions, such as pollution, that degrade its capacity to support the species that live there.

TJIT,

You are correct about the shortcomings of ESA - don't assume I think it's perfect the way it is. I just threw that out to keep the thread from turning into a boring Mutual Admiration Society. It's not as if the argument for privatization was going to go unsaid.

|9.25.06 @ 10:30AM|#

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that saleable market value is the only value worth considering.


Well, joe, his point was that these PRIVATE landowners see the bird as a pest because they are considering saleable market value. Like I said before, if you see a value in some bird above and beyond individual market value, you should be prepared to pay, and not make others pay for your preference.

and does your last comment officially repudiate your wonderful idea of declaring lands off-limits to development if they are even "under consideration"? I sure hope so.

|9.25.06 @ 11:09AM|#

This all stems from the idea that so-called regulatory takings aren't (always) an exercise of eminent domain. If the public at large determines that environmental protections need to be enacted that restrict a landowner's use of his property, why, that landowner should be compensated for the resulting reduced value of his property. Yeah, that would be expensive, but it would also be a lot more fair than saying, "Too bad, sucker".

|9.25.06 @ 2:24PM|#

biologist,

was quoting Ayn Randian and replying to him.
Dumbass, did you even read the comments?

Oh yeah sorry about that...but i do not take all the blame...where you stopped commenting to me and started to comment to ann is not very clear in your post.

|9.25.06 @ 2:29PM|#

On the other extreme end we have another genius arguing that we can live without trees, as though trees are no different from shoe polish. Fucking brilliant.

we very may well could live without trees...and it would suck...that is sort of the point; trees have an intrinsic value both asthetic and practical...wouldn't it be nice if gov regulations actually where set up in line to encuage markets to recognise and enhance these values rather then dimminish them?

Ayn Randian is not tree hater...one may wonder if the other side is considering that the policies they support encurage thier distruction....but i only kid...they really hate markets and that is the real problem.

|9.25.06 @ 2:34PM|#

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that saleable market value is the only value worth considering.

Jesus h christ joe how can you be so fucking obtuse...no that is not the only consideration of value in fact those trees and wood peckers do have a value beyond market value so why in the fuck do you support a policy of regulations that diminish those values...what do you not understand about preverse incentives??

D.A. Ridgely|9.25.06 @ 2:57PM|#

You're making the classic mistake of assuming that saleable market value is the only value worth considering.

Phooey. Maybe he bought the land to build a retirement home eventually in which he intends to live until he dies and couldn't care less about what happens to the property after his death. But if he can't cut the trees down five years from now to build that house, he's screwed, isn't he?

If, between the two of us, someone is conflating market value with perceived or subjective value, I don't think I'm the one.

Oh, and as for assumptions, what is your evidence of the "great die-out" we are "going through"?

|9.25.06 @ 8:50PM|#

If I am told that the "big black ant that bites" was endangered and that it is drawn to sugar and that killing it was a crime I would do all I could to keep sugar out of my yard.