Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... MB20140313" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Believe it or not, it would not be the end of the world if the Delta Smelt went extinct. I know it's hard to believe. But it would not. SOMEHOW life managed to plod on when the dinosaurs went extinct. SOMEHOW life managed to plod on when the Dodo bird went extinct. The Tasmanian Wolf. The Passenger Pigeon.

And more than 99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet.

You could not be more wrong, as usual.

The Delta Smelt is a keystone species for marine life in the Delta - it was what many other fish eat, etc.


This is a great example of the GOOD that the Environmentalists do.


You should thank us every time you eat, breathe, or drink water.

dbackjon wrote:You could not be more wrong, as usual.

The Delta Smelt is a keystone species for marine life in the Delta - it was what many other fish eat, etc.


This is a great example of the GOOD that the Environmentalists do.


You should thank us every time you eat, breathe, or drink water.

How long have you been a Smelt expert?

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:You could not be more wrong, as usual.

The Delta Smelt is a keystone species for marine life in the Delta - it was what many other fish eat, etc.


This is a great example of the GOOD that the Environmentalists do.


You should thank us every time you eat, breathe, or drink water.

How long have you been a Smelt expert?

He who smelt it, dealt it.

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:You could not be more wrong, as usual.

The Delta Smelt is a keystone species for marine life in the Delta - it was what many other fish eat, etc.


This is a great example of the GOOD that the Environmentalists do.


You should thank us every time you eat, breathe, or drink water.

How long have you been a Smelt expert?

Good question. He doesn't know shit about the fish smell.

dbackjon wrote:You could not be more wrong, as usual.

The Delta Smelt is a keystone species for marine life in the Delta - it was what many other fish eat, etc.


This is a great example of the GOOD that the Environmentalists do.


You should thank us every time you eat, breathe, or drink water.

I think it's safe to say that a lot of people over there aren't thanking you for things having to do with water right now.

The ecosystem would be different without the Delta Smelt. But there would still be an ecosystem.

And not for you others I am of course not an expert on the Delta Smelt. But it's always the same with this stuff. It's going to be a CATASTROPHE if a species goes extinct. But it's self evident that life rolls right along when species go extinct. It happens all the time. It has always happened all the time. Species go extinct. All of them. Are you having any problems right now because there are no passenger pigeons? Ivory billed woodpeckers? Carolina parakeets? Blackfin cisco? So on and so forth.

It's called intrinsic value, St. Wronge. Look into it.

John is actually correct
Species go extinct as a general rule - and as he said - 99% is the harsh reality
The Panda would have been long gone due to natural forces

It's a long conversation worth uncovering many different points and perspectives
Just type in "Planet of Weeds" into google and open the PDF essay by David Quammen 1998

Awesome... well written

JohnStOnge wrote:

dbackjon wrote:You could not be more wrong, as usual.

The Delta Smelt is a keystone species for marine life in the Delta - it was what many other fish eat, etc.


This is a great example of the GOOD that the Environmentalists do.


You should thank us every time you eat, breathe, or drink water.

I think it's safe to say that a lot of people over there aren't thanking you for things having to do with water right now.

The ecosystem would be different without the Delta Smelt. But there would still be an ecosystem.

And not for you others I am of course not an expert on the Delta Smelt. But it's always the same with this stuff. It's going to be a CATASTROPHE if a species goes extinct. But it's self evident that life rolls right along when species go extinct. It happens all the time. It has always happened all the time. Species go extinct. All of them. Are you having any problems right now because there are no passenger pigeons? Ivory billed woodpeckers? Carolina parakeets? Blackfin cisco? So on and so forth.

Jon,

Texas wants more water. Time to divert the Mississippi and dry out the bayou. We don't need swamps and deltas anyway.

Cluck U wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I think it's safe to say that a lot of people over there aren't thanking you for things having to do with water right now.

The ecosystem would be different without the Delta Smelt. But there would still be an ecosystem.

And not for you others I am of course not an expert on the Delta Smelt. But it's always the same with this stuff. It's going to be a CATASTROPHE if a species goes extinct. But it's self evident that life rolls right along when species go extinct. It happens all the time. It has always happened all the time. Species go extinct. All of them. Are you having any problems right now because there are no passenger pigeons? Ivory billed woodpeckers? Carolina parakeets? Blackfin cisco? So on and so forth.

Jon,

Texas wants more water. Time to divert the Mississippi and dry out the bayou. We don't need swamps and deltas anyway.

Bingo!

No one has a god given right to grow vege's that require irrigation.

Having listened to a lecture on bats and all of their recent problems, trust me, you should be a huge fan of bat habitat. I also hear Bees are in a similar plight which could seriously affect human life.

Advocate for nature John... It's the moral thing to do.

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Jon,

Texas wants more water. Time to divert the Mississippi and dry out the bayou. We don't need swamps and deltas anyway.

Bingo!

No one has a god given right to grow vege's that require irrigation.

Having listened to a lecture on bats and all of their recent problems, trust me, you should be a huge fan of bat habitat. I also hear Bees are in a similar plight which could seriously affect human life.

Advocate for nature John... It's the moral thing to do.

Someday humans will go extinct, and some other animal will evolve intelligence and take our place at the top of the food chain. In about a 100 million years or so they will be able to use us as fossil fuel, but they won't; they will use solar.

Cluck U wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I think it's safe to say that a lot of people over there aren't thanking you for things having to do with water right now.

The ecosystem would be different without the Delta Smelt. But there would still be an ecosystem.

And not for you others I am of course not an expert on the Delta Smelt. But it's always the same with this stuff. It's going to be a CATASTROPHE if a species goes extinct. But it's self evident that life rolls right along when species go extinct. It happens all the time. It has always happened all the time. Species go extinct. All of them. Are you having any problems right now because there are no passenger pigeons? Ivory billed woodpeckers? Carolina parakeets? Blackfin cisco? So on and so forth.

Jon,

Texas wants more water. Time to divert the Mississippi and dry out the bayou. We don't need swamps and deltas anyway.

Cadillac Desert is a good read regarding water management(?) decisions and peoples decisions to grow water intensive crops in arid climates. Good read.

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Bingo!

No one has a god given right to grow vege's that require irrigation.

Having listened to a lecture on bats and all of their recent problems, trust me, you should be a huge fan of bat habitat. I also hear Bees are in a similar plight which could seriously affect human life.

Advocate for nature John... It's the moral thing to do.

Someday humans will go extinct, and some other animal will evolve intelligence and take our place at the top of the food chain. In about a 100 million years or so they will be able to use us as fossil fuel, but they won't; they will use solar.

SDHornet wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Someday humans will go extinct, and some other animal will evolve intelligence and take our place at the top of the food chain. In about a 100 million years or so they will be able to use us as fossil fuel, but they won't; they will use solar.

This!

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Bingo!

No one has a god given right to grow vege's that require irrigation.

Having listened to a lecture on bats and all of their recent problems, trust me, you should be a huge fan of bat habitat. I also hear Bees are in a similar plight which could seriously affect human life.

Advocate for nature John... It's the moral thing to do.

Someday humans will go extinct, and some other animal will evolve intelligence and take our place at the top of the food chain. In about a 100 million years or so they will be able to use us as fossil fuel, but they won't; they will use solar.

My money's on dolphins.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvNQXDLoi4[/youtube]

Fellas, this is what I'm talking about:

We have a law that is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that nature is static and that nothing ever goes extinct. Like there is something "unnatural" about a species going extinct.

There isn't. Species go extinct all the time and have gone extinct all the time when the activity of another species has been something they can't cope with.

It's fine if we want to try to preserve other species for as long as possible when we can. But this thing about bringing everything else to a halt in order to preserve some species pretty much no matter what is ridiculous. We should not be willing to cause tens of thousands of people extreme hardship just to preserve the existence of a little fish. We should not have a body of law that says "WE WILL DO ANYTHING TO PRESERVE A SPECIES."

And that's what we have. Our priorities are out of order.

JohnStOnge wrote:Fellas, this is what I'm talking about:

We have a law that is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that nature is static and that nothing ever goes extinct. Like there is something "unnatural" about a species going extinct.

There isn't. Species go extinct all the time and have gone extinct all the time when the activity of another species has been something they can't cope with.

It's fine if we want to try to preserve other species for as long as possible when we can. But this thing about bringing everything else to a halt in order to preserve some species pretty much no matter what is ridiculous. We should not be willing to cause tens of thousands of people extreme hardship just to preserve the existence of a little fish. We should not have a body of law that says "WE WILL DO ANYTHING TO PRESERVE A SPECIES."

And that's what we have. Our priorities are out of order.

Jon,

I've thought about your post and you make some good points about how dumb we are for causing people extreme hardship just to preserve nature.

Texas wants more water. Time to divert the Mississippi and dry out the bayou. Think of all the new housing opportunities and drilling opportunities that would provide jobs and oil, while lifting thousands of people out of extreme hardship...they wouldn't need to crap in a bucket anymore.

We don't need swamps, pan fish, and deltas anyway. Nature will adapt, and you can eat more salt imported from Texas.

Cluck U wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Fellas, this is what I'm talking about:

We have a law that is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that nature is static and that nothing ever goes extinct. Like there is something "unnatural" about a species going extinct.

There isn't. Species go extinct all the time and have gone extinct all the time when the activity of another species has been something they can't cope with.

It's fine if we want to try to preserve other species for as long as possible when we can. But this thing about bringing everything else to a halt in order to preserve some species pretty much no matter what is ridiculous. We should not be willing to cause tens of thousands of people extreme hardship just to preserve the existence of a little fish. We should not have a body of law that says "WE WILL DO ANYTHING TO PRESERVE A SPECIES."

And that's what we have. Our priorities are out of order.

Jon,

I've thought about your post and you make some good points about how dumb we are for causing people extreme hardship just to preserve nature.

Texas wants more water. Time to divert the Mississippi and dry out the bayou. Think of all the new housing opportunities and drilling opportunities that would provide jobs and oil, while lifting thousands of people out of extreme hardship...they wouldn't need to crap in a bucket anymore.

We don't need swamps, pan fish, and deltas anyway. Nature will adapt, and you can eat more salt imported from Texas.

What JSO doesn't understand is the smelt have formed a powerful alliance with conscientious humans who understand the balance between nature and progress.

John is defending troglodyte farmers and developers who are not smart enough to make money on the up and up. He thinks this is UNFAIR!

It's egalitarianism run amok I tell ya!

BTW, we deep fried some smelt at a tailgate a couple of years ago. Little fuckers are delicious!

JohnStOnge wrote:Fellas, this is what I'm talking about:

We have a law that is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that nature is static and that nothing ever goes extinct. Like there is something "unnatural" about a species going extinct.

There isn't. Species go extinct all the time and have gone extinct all the time when the activity of another species has been something they can't cope with.

It's fine if we want to try to preserve other species for as long as possible when we can. But this thing about bringing everything else to a halt in order to preserve some species pretty much no matter what is ridiculous. We should not be willing to cause tens of thousands of people extreme hardship just to preserve the existence of a little fish. We should not have a body of law that says "WE WILL DO ANYTHING TO PRESERVE A SPECIES."

And that's what we have. Our priorities are out of order.

If god is making us write all these laws she must want us to save the smelt, no?

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Fellas, this is what I'm talking about:

We have a law that is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that nature is static and that nothing ever goes extinct. Like there is something "unnatural" about a species going extinct.

There isn't. Species go extinct all the time and have gone extinct all the time when the activity of another species has been something they can't cope with.

It's fine if we want to try to preserve other species for as long as possible when we can. But this thing about bringing everything else to a halt in order to preserve some species pretty much no matter what is ridiculous. We should not be willing to cause tens of thousands of people extreme hardship just to preserve the existence of a little fish. We should not have a body of law that says "WE WILL DO ANYTHING TO PRESERVE A SPECIES."

And that's what we have. Our priorities are out of order.

If god is making us write all these laws she must want us to save the smelt, no?

He said she said.

dbackjon wrote:You could not be more wrong, as usual.

The Delta Smelt is a keystone species for marine life in the Delta - it was what many other fish eat, etc.


This is a great example of the GOOD that the Environmentalists do.


You should thank us every time you eat, breathe, or drink water.

So go put about 50 of them in a jar.

Problem solved, and it just cost you a jar.

Californians fight over water all the time. I lived there for 16 years and I remember!

Maybe they should so something like forbid people to fill their swimming pools.....and wash their cars or water their lawns before destroying the environment??