Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't think this author knows the first thing about the beliefs of environmentalists, liberals or conservatives for that matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
There's ignorant idiots in every group, though. I don't think they represent the core of informed environmentalism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:


http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthink
er.com/articles/../2013/05/unmasking_liberalism_on_the_arizona_range.html

Oh please, keep the masks on.

---

Quote:

---

During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from these tests could be seen for almost 100 mi (160 km) in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels.
On 17 July 1962, the test shot "Little Feller I" of Operation Sunbeam became the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
More from Mr. Dagget here: http://rightway2bgreen.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=update
d


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Huh. Citing 65 year-old practices as "typical" of "liberalism".

I'll play. You know what conservatives thought was a good idea around 65 years ago? Setting off nukes not terribly far from downtown Las Vegas. Hell, they even had big parties to celebrate 'em.



http://io9.com/5902390/wild-vegas-parties-celebrated-atomic-bomb-tests
-of-the-1950s

Quote:

---

During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from these tests could be seen for almost 100 mi (160 km) in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels.
On 17 July 1962, the test shot "Little Feller I" of Operation Sunbeam became the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site

Clearly this is the modern conservative mindset when it comes to health, the environment, and hazardous waste and fallout. [/sarcasm]

Right, Jongsie?

---

Quote:

---

Americans were in the midst of the Cold War, building bomb shelters and practicing air raid drills, when President Harry Truman selected 640 square miles in Nevada, once a part of the Nellis Air Force Base, as the Nevada Proving Grounds, the only peacetime, above ground nuclear testing site in the continental United States. It had been deemed necessary to conduct tests on nuclear devices in order to develop sufficient protection should such a device be used against Americans.

Atomic City
Las Vegans were only made aware of the impending tests two weeks before the first detonation. Although some Las Vegans were concerned about the possible dangers of such activity nearby, a major government publicity campaign and the potential for increased publicity -- and thus, increased business -- quelled many of their misgivings. As they had done with the construction of the Boulder Dam more than twenty years before, Las Vegans jumped at the chance to market themselves as a tourist attraction. As they had once touted their city as the "Gateway to the Boulder Dam," Las Vegans began promoting their hometown as "Atomic City."

A Vegas Attraction
Days after the first bomb was detonated on January 27, 1951, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce issued a stream of press releases excitedly describing the new testing grounds as one of the many attractions Las Vegas had to offer. As one official described, "The angle was to get people to think the explosions wouldn't be anything more than a gag."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


I actually wanted to respond re cattle grazing. I know that some land areas here are too ecological fragile to support cattle, and that can often end in a bun fight between landowners and environmentalists. Doesn't mean that there is a do nothing policy for damaged land.

---

Quote:

---

Grazing by livestock (mainly sheep and cattle) has irreversibly degraded many natural ecosystems in Australia. Consequently, stock are usually removed from public land when new conservation reserves are declared. The damaging effects of livestock on ecosystems such as rivers, wetlands and the alps are well known.

On the other hand, ecologists have recommended that stock continue to graze in certain types of reserves. For over a decade, some National Parks in western NSW and northern Victoria have been grazed by sheep to create habitat for the endangered bird, the Plains Wanderer. In Tasmania, a number of threatened native plant species survive in grazed areas; if stock are removed the plants are smothered by thick grasses and decline. Elsewhere, short-duration (or “crash”) grazing has been recommended to control exotic (weedy) grasses and promote native plants.

In each case, grazing hasn’t been adopted because of a political compromise between production and conservation goals. Instead, it has been supported by conservation biologists to achieve specific ecological outcomes. The same ecologists have often opposed grazing in other regions (especially the alps) where grazing does not deliver desired outcomes.

How can livestock grazing benefit biodiversity conservation in these places, but not others? In each case, managed grazing creates an open habitat that is suitable for plants and animals that cannot persist beneath tall, thick grass. This mechanism is only relevant in a small number of Australian ecosystems – particularly lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands on productive soils in areas of moderate to high rainfall.

Grazing is not required to maintain diversity in all grassy ecosystems, and is rarely needed in dry, infertile sites where low fertility constrains grass growth. Indeed, a recent Victorian study found that grazing by stock and kangaroos promoted the diversity of native plants in fertile, well-watered sites, but reduced diversity in dry, unproductive areas.

If grazing is to be used for conservation purposes, a number of circumstances need to be met. Stock must preferentially eat the dominant grasses rather than other native plant species. Stock must also be controlled so they graze areas needing treatment and not other areas. In addition, being heavy, hard-footed animals, they should be excluded from wet areas where they can “pug-up” the soil. These points sound simple, but are difficult and expensive to administer in large reserves that contain many vegetation types and few internal fences.

For example, in a recent study, my colleagues and I examined how grazing affected an area containing a mosaic of wetlands dominated by native plants and grasslands dominated by exotic (weedy) plants. Unfortunately, grazing did not control the exotic plants as stock preferred to graze the lush native wetlands rather than the less palatable weedy grassland. A better outcome may have occurred if stock were restricted to the weedy grasslands. However, the cost of erecting fences around each habitat is considerable, and fences would detract from the reserve’s scenic and recreational values.

Another challenge is to develop flexible but rigorous approaches so that stock can be quickly introduced and removed as ecosystem conditions change. This is difficult in Australia’s variable climate. Usually, few (if any) stock are needed in dry periods, but large mobs are needed to control grass growth after heavy rains. Adjusting stocking levels to rapidly changing habitat conditions will always be a challenge for conservation managers and graziers.

What do we need to do before we consider using grazing for conservation purposes? First, the local problem and goals need to be clearly described (for example, “reduce cover of dominant grasses from 70% to 20%”). Infrastructure (fencing and water points) must be adequate to confine stock to targeted problem areas. Trigger points (say, levels of grass cover) must be specified to indicate when livestock are to be introduced and removed. Grazing effects must be properly monitored, including treatment and control areas. Finally, costs and benefits need to be compared against alternative treatments such as burning.

Livestock grazing has the potential to provide a useful management tool to achieve conservation objectives in some ecosystems at some times. However, the political rationale for grazing must be driven by sound ecological objectives, to ensure that “conservation grazing” is not used as an argument to extract production gains at the environment’s expense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And yet, nothing substantive about the article. Just more straw-mans, ad hominems, false dilemmas, the usual from the rightards.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Huh. Citing 65 year-old practices as "typical" of "liberalism".

I'll play. You know what conservatives thought was a good idea around 65 years ago? Setting off nukes not terribly far from downtown Las Vegas. Hell, they even had big parties to celebrate 'em.



http://io9.com/5902390/wild-vegas-parties-celebrated-atomic-bomb-tests
-of-the-1950s

Quote:

---

During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from these tests could be seen for almost 100 mi (160 km) in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels.
On 17 July 1962, the test shot "Little Feller I" of Operation Sunbeam became the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site

Clearly this is the modern conservative mindset when it comes to health, the environment, and hazardous waste and fallout. [/sarcasm]

Right, Jongsie?

---

Umm.

Mike.

Who was the President on 17 July, 1962? Who had been the President since 20 January, 1960? It wasn't a conservative.

BTW, the first tests were in 1951. Who was the President then?

Let me help you.

Quote:

---

Americans were in the midst of the Cold War, building bomb shelters and practicing air raid drills, when President Harry Truman selected 640 square miles in Nevada, once a part of the Nellis Air Force Base, as the Nevada Proving Grounds, the only peacetime, above ground nuclear testing site in the continental United States. It had been deemed necessary to conduct tests on nuclear devices in order to develop sufficient protection should such a device be used against Americans.

Atomic City
Las Vegans were only made aware of the impending tests two weeks before the first detonation. Although some Las Vegans were concerned about the possible dangers of such activity nearby, a major government publicity campaign and the potential for increased publicity -- and thus, increased business -- quelled many of their misgivings. As they had done with the construction of the Boulder Dam more than twenty years before, Las Vegans jumped at the chance to market themselves as a tourist attraction. As they had once touted their city as the "Gateway to the Boulder Dam," Las Vegans began promoting their hometown as "Atomic City."

A Vegas Attraction
Days after the first bomb was detonated on January 27, 1951, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce issued a stream of press releases excitedly describing the new testing grounds as one of the many attractions Las Vegas had to offer. As one official described, "The angle was to get people to think the explosions wouldn't be anything more than a gag."

---

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lasvegas/peopleevents/e_atomictourism.htm
l

So it looks like both Democrats and Republicans were equal opportunity nukers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm in the middle here as it says in my post. Leave it absolutely alone, do nothing at all, is not good policy. Seeding and some grazing is the better plan. Isn't that what Mags ( E-T-A and Kiki, both. ) was suggesting above? Some of that steer manure is a necessary fertilizer. Don't see how anybody could deny that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems I remember that in the old, small farms days here in the USA, smart farmers rotated things: wheat in one field; pasture in another; a third crop in a third, often legumes that fix nitrogen back into the soil; then rotate 'em from one year to another. One use takes out one element, but replenished another, the next reverses the process.

'Course, that's too much trouble for 21st century agribusiness-- "Hey, What we do here is chickens, or beef, or wheat, or cotton, or whatever, square miles of it, and we don't do nothin' else. Ain't no profit in anything else. And we sure don't need NO government regulatin' bureaucrats to tell us different."

Which is of course a really bad attitude for the eco-system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:


Seems I remember that in the old, small farms days here in the USA, smart farmers rotated things: wheat in one field; pasture in another; a third crop in a third, often legumes that fix nitrogen back into the soil; then rotate 'em from one year to another. One use takes out one element, but replenished another, the next reverses the process.

'Course, that's too much trouble for 21st century agribusiness-- "Hey, What we do here is chickens, or beef, or wheat, or cotton, or whatever, square miles of it, and we don't do nothin' else. Ain't no profit in anything else. And we sure don't need NO government regulatin' bureaucrats to tell us different."

Which is of course a really bad attitude for the eco-system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:


Seems I remember that in the old, small farms days here in the USA, smart farmers rotated things: wheat in one field; pasture in another; a third crop in a third, often legumes that fix nitrogen back into the soil; then rotate 'em from one year to another. One use takes out one element, but replenished another, the next reverses the process.

'Course, that's too much trouble for 21st century agribusiness-- "Hey, What we do here is chickens, or beef, or wheat, or cotton, or whatever, square miles of it, and we don't do nothin' else. Ain't no profit in anything else. And we sure don't need NO government regulatin' bureaucrats to tell us different."

Which is of course a really bad attitude for the eco-system.

---

Yes, I agree. I think its the corporate, largescale farming that can do the most damage, because they have to wring their dollar's worth out of very last millimetre of land. Yes, it produced cheaper food, but at what actual cost?

---

Quote:

---

The story behind the brightly lit rows of fruit and vegetables at a local Coles or Woolworths is about the corporatisation of food in Australia. It is also a story about the concentration of the food supply chain - an unprecedented power shift from small growers supplying local markets to big farmers and agents, known as ''aggregators'' and ''category captains''. In reshaping supply chains, the two supermarket companies - accounting for 60 per cent of Australia's fresh fruit and vegetable market - are reshaping the nation's agriculture, diet and understanding of what good, fresh food is.
Strawberry farmer Joe Pignataro.

Strawberry farmer Joe Pignataro. Photo: Angela Wylie

In many ways, the consumer has been the winner, as the supermarkets have improved product freshness and passed on cost savings by cutting out the wholesale middlemen such as the market traders. But critics warn that the move to a more corporate system narrows the choice of products, increases environmentally damaging, industrial-scale agriculture and makes the food supply vulnerable to climate shocks and rising fuel prices.

''We have to stop this race for the cheapest and nastiest and basically corporatised agriculture. [It] leaves us culturally poor," says renowned Mildura-based chef Stefano de Pieri. "It means we will end up with three types of grapes, two types of oranges, one type of cheese. That's the thing that worries me; when you sacrifice prices you sacrifice all of that richness, which is cultural, which is community, which is tradition, which is gastronomy."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/does-the-food-business-stack-up-2012060
3-1zq0j.html#ixzz2U7PpweCf

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Of course, back in the good old days of the small family farm, Americans spent 25% of their income on food. it's now around 10%. http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/03/as-share-of-income-amer
icans-have-the-cheapest-food-in-history-and-cheapest-food-on-the-planet/

Not to say that there aren't problems with large-scale agriculture that need to be addressed, but turning back the clock won't work on a large scale. There's probably a place for small farmers in the locavore and organic markets, but they will only be feeding a small - and relatively well-off - precentage of the food consumers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
along the lines of

Quote:

---

gotta remember from some TV show/ movie I saw once or twice"After we used up the Earth-That-Was, we found more, new Earths." Either we better start working harder on that, and building the ships to take us there, or we oughtta work on using it up more slowly, if we can.

---

The difference for me is I don't hope we build those ships and would prefer we live or die here by our own intelligence or lack thereof. I'm not crazy about the idea of us just "moving on" when we've fouled our own nest, as mankind has done throughout history. JMHO.

Alternatively, I'd ADORE it if we started waking up before billions and billions of people suffer and die...I just don't see it happening.

---