Subject: Re: [RC] How tree hugging hurts the environment
My viewpoint is a little different - I guess that's no surprise by now. I think it stems from how I define "environment." In my opinion, its the natural state of the planet. Its not human centric where man has dominion over the earth and animals. I view humankind's industrialization and development of the planet as not natural and therefore a burden to the planet. Without humans to alter the environment, cows would not be pastured and overgrowth would burn naturally on a regular basis (germinating seeds and creating rich soil etc). Yes, nature always finds a way but I don't beleive that it should in some cases.
BTW - if environmentalists are tree huggers, is there a term to describe those on the other side of the debate?
----- Original Message ---- From: Marlene Moss <Marlene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Ridecamp <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:27:32 PM Subject: [RC] How tree hugging hurts the environment
My husband?s family lives in Steamboat Colorado and have lived there far longer than the hippy/tree huggers. The tree huggers are trying to restrict the use of cattle on BLM land, trying to buy up land so that it can?t be used and to leave it ?pristine?. Well, anyone who knows Steamboat knows how fast and big things grow there. So what?s happened is that the undergrowth is totally out of control and a single lightening strike could cause a fire that would be devastating to plant, animal and humans. Naturally, fires are supposed to happen to clear out the undergrowth, but no one, not even the tree huggers, are going to vote to just allow the fires to burn. So the cattle can actually play an important role in keeping the overall environment safe. This is one of those topics that are not safe to bring up at the dinner table!!!
