Article View: ca.environment
Article #8093Re: Ancient Forest Action Alert
From: Mark Slagle
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 03:07
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 03:07
43 lines
3038 bytes
3038 bytes
In article <13vmm3INN2fv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes: > Here is exactly the type of mentality that we are up against. > We have to stop thinking in terms of "I owe it, I control it, I > will do with it as I please". I would ask Mr. Pikus, that if I > purchased land next to his home, and was allow to use it as a > toxic waste site, or nuclear dumping ground, or maybe a land > fill Would he simply say, "You own it, that's OK". He probably would not say that, because he could show specific damages to himself and his property as a result of your activity. But you can't show the same in the case of those who would log private timber lands. > Mr. Pikus I would say simply "Please stop thinking shelfishly", > we can't go on just pinning everything on the "I own it" > phrase. As you may know many if not all cities and towns have > regulations as to how you may build your home on your own land, > and it is good that they do, otherwise we would have all types > of intrusive building going on. Many, maybe most, but not all cities have zoning laws. All zoning laws protect the existing property owners from change. That has both good and bad results, but it's hard to argue that they act to benefit all residents of the city, much less that they are necessarily a good thing. At the very least, they are a themselves a result of "thinking selfishly", which you otherwise deplore. > The old growth forest should be saved, we don't need it for > lumber. This is one of last natural settings that we can hold > on to in the US. If you haven't been there and seen these areas > and enjoyed them, then maybe you should plan a trip to see the > last of the redwood forest. Now you are shifting the argument to the matter of Federal lands. The argument to which you responded concerned privately held timber lands. Is your position so weak that you must change the subject to mount a defense? -- ---- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088 408-756-0895 USA
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<SLAGLE.92Jul15200705@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!newsReferences:
<4830@gold.gvg.tek.com> <1992Jul11.224426.2523@megatek.uucp> <13vmm3INN2fv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: ffe14,59fa9633315a4be0 X-Google-Attributes: gidffe14,public X-Google-Thread: 10df74,74612a2a6f7a9299 X-Google-Attributes: gid10df74,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-07-15 17:47:40 PST Newsgroups: ca.environment,alt.activism Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) Subject: Re: Ancient Forest Action Alert Message-ID: <SLAGLE.92Jul15200705@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com In-reply-to: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU's message of 14 Jul 92 23:06:43 GMT Sender: news@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (News) Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca. References: <4830@gold.gvg.tek.com> <1992Jul11.224426.2523@megatek.uucp> <13vmm3INN2fv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 03:07:09 GMT Lines: 43