Science?

[Secretariat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050618/ts_latimes/landstudyongrazingdenounced

Does science even matter anymore to the WH?

[46zilzal]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050618/ts_latimes/landstudyongrazingdenounced

Does science even matter anymore to the WH?
They've got GOD on their side!!

[Tom]

Just roundin' up them dems before they do any more damage with thier hi-falutin' enviro-wacko reports.


Mmmmm....pass the spotted owl! And the taters. :lol:

[lsbets]

What was the name of Ted Nugent's cookbook? Wasn't it Kill em and Grill em? Now that would be sound environmental policy.

[kenwoodallpromos]

This is very simple. 1995 enviros changing a 40 year program to protect wildlife vs. 2005 change back to protect cattlemen. Both based on science to protect their own priorities. Which side you support depends on one question:
Would you rather be eating steak or tofu while watching a WIld Kingdom tv show featuring a wolf killing and eating a bunny rabbit on BLM land? I could care less! I've got my peanut butter and jelly sandwich while watching pro wrestling!LOL!

[Secretariat]

This is very simple. 1995 enviros changing a 40 year program to protect wildlife vs. 2005 change back to protect cattlemen. Both based on science to protect their own priorities. Which side you support depends on one question:
Would you rather be eating steak or tofu while watching a WIld Kingdom tv show featuring a wolf killing and eating a bunny rabbit on BLM land? I could care less! I've got my peanut butter and jelly sandwich while watching pro wrestling!LOL!


Well, kendall, it is not as simplistic as you state. And we've been eating steaks just fine under the 95 grazing rules. The change is NOT based on science, but based on lobbying. These were scientists AND members of the Bureau who wrote the report that was whitewashed by bureacrats. It was not written by a group of liberal environmentalists.

The orginal guidelines are stated in the article:

"The new rules mark a departure from grazing regulations adopted in 1995 under President Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Those regulations reflected the view of range scientists that a legacy of overgrazing in the West had degraded scarce water resources, damaged native plant communities and imperiled wildlife.

Babbitt ordered the bureau to establish standards that spelled out when public lands were open for grazing, and for the first time required range specialists to assess each pasture to ensure it held enough vegetation to support wildlife and livestock."

Gee, that sounds horrible doesn't it, and wow we've had a slew of steak houses closing ever since. Gimme a break.

What bothers me the most is the flagrant disregard for science to any lobbying group who makes a campaign contribution.

The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing Thursday that it would relax regulations limiting grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study. Perhaps you'd like to reread:

"A GOVERNMENT biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year from the Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the proposed new rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language justifying less stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers.
...
The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The bureau now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals."

So it went from a "significant adverse impact" to "beneficial to animals". That isn't just an alteration, that's revisionist science. It represents a continuing policy of the administration to "dictate" it's policy based on it's supporters at the cost of science.

Laugh it off all you want. It's dangerous long term policy to ignore science for political gain, and it shows very little respect for future generations.

[lsbets]

Sec, do you get the DNC talking points sent to you by fax, e-mail, or have they wired a transmitter into your brain to send you instructions?

[PaceAdvantage]

They've got GOD on their side!!

Lots of administrations have had God on their side....I'd like to think God is on my side as well.....LOL

On the cover of Newsday, in a story about Rev. Billy Graham, you see him hob-nobbing with Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan....Never heard anyone criticizing those administrations because of the fact they listened to what Billy had to say...

It's weird what the Bush admin is criticized for these days by those on the left. Oh well...