Sunday, December 8, 2013
My Posts 2008
My
Posts 2008
Friday,
February 22, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
Recently at RISE’s annual Industry Grassroots Breakfast Karen Reardon, director of communications and grassroots, announced that RISE was going to attempt to increase its “army of industry advocates” by 600, increasing the membership to 1000 by 2009.
To work to develop a grassroots movement nationwide in support of the nation’s pesticide applicators is a work to be applauded. However, I find it most distressing when someone in a position of responsibility, such as RISE President, Mr. Allen James, states that “We’re being left behind in the green sustainability movement,” “In fact, we’re being looked at as the demon in this one.”
What does “green sustainability” mean? This desire to jump on the “phrases without any possible hope of definition” bandwagon is becoming pandemic in the pesticide application industries. No one can define “green”. Actually everyone can define “green”, because it is unendingly definable depending on your personal philosophy. Remember “organic” when it first was touted. It meant no pesticides then. Now they have a list of pesticides….oops…..now the meaning changed.
“Sustainability” is another nonsense term that is thrown around because it also can mean anything you want it to mean. The important thing is that neither one can be defined scientifically in such a manner that those who tout it will agree to. That is why these terms are being used. Because they sound great and mean nothing, but can be made to mean whatever the activists wish it to mean.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) defines sustainability “as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." They reasoned that “We thus realized that we, too, were advocates of true sustainable development – that is, our mission in the developing world is to encourage and assist people and their governments to take the steps necessary to transform their stagnant, dependent societies into forward-looking, prosperous communities so that they will have the resources at hand to address environmental and human health concerns over the long term.”
Sounds good to me; but what if the activists decide that “sustainable” really means that prosperous communities are the problem and not the answer? Furthermore, what if they decide that all we have to do to be “sustainable” is to return to nature and “live in handmade huts without paved streets, running water, flush toilets, or even electricity” in order for all future generations to meet their needs? Do we then adopt another level of appeasement? This is what they support worldwide! In every undeveloped area of the world where their policies have been adopted or hold sway, dystopia has prevailed.
If we abandon that which is based on facts and adopt some sort of “green sustainability” program it implies that everything we have done in the past has been wrong, but now we have come to enlightenment and agree with the activists. Do we really believe that?
To paraphrase Col. John Boyd, "One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go. If you go one way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club, you will lauded and applauded and you will become prominent. Or you can go the other way and you can do something — something for your friends and your industry and yourself. If you decide to do something, you will not be lauded or applauded, you will not get positions of prominence and you will not be a favorite of those who are prominent. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"
As for being “the demon in this one”; if standing up for science, facts, and truth demonizes our industries, then so be it. Winston Churchill once observed that “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. I for one will not become one that chooses to feed my friends to the crocodiles, nor do I willing choose to be fed to them myself. Those who choose to do rather than to be, will stand with me
Recently at RISE’s annual Industry Grassroots Breakfast Karen Reardon, director of communications and grassroots, announced that RISE was going to attempt to increase its “army of industry advocates” by 600, increasing the membership to 1000 by 2009.
To work to develop a grassroots movement nationwide in support of the nation’s pesticide applicators is a work to be applauded. However, I find it most distressing when someone in a position of responsibility, such as RISE President, Mr. Allen James, states that “We’re being left behind in the green sustainability movement,” “In fact, we’re being looked at as the demon in this one.”
What does “green sustainability” mean? This desire to jump on the “phrases without any possible hope of definition” bandwagon is becoming pandemic in the pesticide application industries. No one can define “green”. Actually everyone can define “green”, because it is unendingly definable depending on your personal philosophy. Remember “organic” when it first was touted. It meant no pesticides then. Now they have a list of pesticides….oops…..now the meaning changed.
“Sustainability” is another nonsense term that is thrown around because it also can mean anything you want it to mean. The important thing is that neither one can be defined scientifically in such a manner that those who tout it will agree to. That is why these terms are being used. Because they sound great and mean nothing, but can be made to mean whatever the activists wish it to mean.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) defines sustainability “as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." They reasoned that “We thus realized that we, too, were advocates of true sustainable development – that is, our mission in the developing world is to encourage and assist people and their governments to take the steps necessary to transform their stagnant, dependent societies into forward-looking, prosperous communities so that they will have the resources at hand to address environmental and human health concerns over the long term.”
Sounds good to me; but what if the activists decide that “sustainable” really means that prosperous communities are the problem and not the answer? Furthermore, what if they decide that all we have to do to be “sustainable” is to return to nature and “live in handmade huts without paved streets, running water, flush toilets, or even electricity” in order for all future generations to meet their needs? Do we then adopt another level of appeasement? This is what they support worldwide! In every undeveloped area of the world where their policies have been adopted or hold sway, dystopia has prevailed.
If we abandon that which is based on facts and adopt some sort of “green sustainability” program it implies that everything we have done in the past has been wrong, but now we have come to enlightenment and agree with the activists. Do we really believe that?
To paraphrase Col. John Boyd, "One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go. If you go one way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club, you will lauded and applauded and you will become prominent. Or you can go the other way and you can do something — something for your friends and your industry and yourself. If you decide to do something, you will not be lauded or applauded, you will not get positions of prominence and you will not be a favorite of those who are prominent. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"
As for being “the demon in this one”; if standing up for science, facts, and truth demonizes our industries, then so be it. Winston Churchill once observed that “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. I for one will not become one that chooses to feed my friends to the crocodiles, nor do I willing choose to be fed to them myself. Those who choose to do rather than to be, will stand with me
Monday,
March 24, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
Many years ago I was watching a television show dealing with how seriously peer pressure impacts children, in this case teenage children. They demonstrated a study using a classroom as the lab for this experiment in human nature. Two sentences appeared on the blackboard, sentence “A” and sentence “B”. The class was asked; “Which sentence was the longest?” I don’t actually remember which sentence was the longest, but for this commentary let’s say that sentence “B” was actually the longest. This test was structured in such a way that only a small number of the kids in each group was unaware as to what was going on and could vote which- ever way they saw fit. All the rest were in on it and their job was to vote for sentence “A” as being the longest when in reality it was the shortest. Now the question! How many of the test students voted along with the crowd for sentence “A” as being the longest, ignoring the obvious truth that sentence “B” was in reality longer? It appears that 93% of the test subjects chose to go along with the crowd rather that have the courage and integrity to stand up for the evidence of their own eyes. Going along to get along!
My original thought was that this number seems to be high. I had reason to change my view some time later. One of my accounts was a local high school where once a year I would make presentations to the science department on pesticides, the theme being, “Risk Versus Benefit”. At the beginning of each program I would write a number on the blackboard (which was always around 50,000) and tell each class this was how many people died last year as a result of using this product. Then I would ask, “Should this product be removed from the market?” The answer was always a resounding “Yes”. At the end of each class I would tell them that these people were killed on the nation’s highways by automobiles. Then I would ask; “How many of you want to do away with cars?” In every class except one, they all wanted to keep cars on the highways. Out of about 200 students only one was willing to stand up and say, “Get rid of them”. Is this a going along to get along attitude being expressed here? Is this a matter of personal self interests? Probably a little of both, it did make me wonder; is 93% a valid number?
Although a recent study actually put the number at 95%, studies have a way of proving what the creator of the study wants proven. Therefore there is no way of knowing if 93% is a truly reliable number. Does it matter? Would it matter if the numbers were 90% or 80% or even less? Probably not, because science should be proving things that we can easily see going on around us and our own experiences in life show that the pressure on youngsters to go along is tremendous and most youngsters succumb to that pressure in greater or lesser degrees.
What is the point of all of this? The desire of young people to fit in is well known, but this isn’t really the issue. The real issue is this. How serious is this problem as we age? Quite frankly, I don’t think it changes all that much except on little issues. Adults have the courage to stand up for issues that don’t amount to much. I used to work with someone who was always the first to stand up and be counted. Always the first to criticize over any tiny issue that really didn’t matter much and would have had little impact on anything, especially his job. How did he respond when a serious issue arose between the company and the employees? Such as a change in how we were to be compensated? This was one of those issues where standing up and being counted could possibly cost you your job. The silence was deafening.
Adults, like children, also have convenient memories. Some years later at a social gathering this came up in discussion and his recollection was, “if you remember, I was the only one to speak out on this issue”. Since he was generally regarded as being outspoken no one questioned it, at least until someone actually pointed out what was actually said and happened at that meeting. Memories became clear again because it was pointed out that after the boss temporarily walked out of the room his comment to the only one speaking up was “why don’t you shut up, I just hope this is all that they take away”.
I would appear that whenever issues become complex or challenging you get the same result with adults as you get with children. Why? Just because issues may appear to be a small matter to adults it doesn't mean it isn’t “big” to children. They don’t have the same concerns as adults. Being accepted by their peers is extremely important to children, especially teenage children. To their perspective, it has the same level of importance as major issues do for adults. It is a matter of perception, and once we realize this it is easy to realize why so many adults make so many decisions to go along with programs and issues that are clearly detrimental to their own interests. We use the term “peer pressure”, but in reality it isn’t a peer pressure problem. It is a herding problem. The innate desire to go along to get along. The need to be part of the herd. The size of the issue is a matter of perspective and fear of rejection, fear of being ridiculed, fear of job loss and fear of isolation cause people to go along to get along. Coupling these fears with a lack of knowledge and proper understanding of important issues absolutely assures the 93% rule. Is 93% the actual percentage for adult decision-making? Once again, I have no idea, but the rule certainly applies as a principle because the actual percentage is immaterial when that percentage is still very large.
Pesticide use is one such issue. We have pest controllers, entomologists, trainers, consultants, university researchers and even owners and their technicians working to promote IPM and other foolish programs that will ultimately destroy the pesticide application industries and there is neither outcry nor any contrary commentary from any of the information deliverers or “leaders” of our industry. In fact the leaders of our industry are promoting these green concepts.
• Is it possible that no one sees the obviousness of promoting IPM or so-called “green” pest control is destructive to our industry?
• Does no one see that calling pest control something other than pest control implies that what we have been doing is wrong and that the environmentalists have been right all along?
• Is it possible that no one sees the obviousness of supporting the Montreal Protocol and eliminating the use of methyl bromide is counter -productive to our industry and mankind?
• Is it possible that no one sees that the fruitage of the environmental movement has been the unnecessary death of millions along with wretched living conditions and sickness for millions more?
• Is it possible that no one sees the devastation that has ensued in the third world as a result of promulgating environmentalist programs?
• Is it possible that no one sees that most of what the environmental movement has promoted has been based on fear mongering and lies? At the very least lies of omission?
• Is it possible that no one sees that the EPA is not a neutral government agency and at its very beginning was willing to make decisions that have been disastrous to mankind without any scientific basis what so ever? One could even say fraudulent science!
• Is it possible that no one sees that there is no scientific basis for the promotion of any of these policies?
• Does no one see that these policies are detrimental to humanity?
Either we are making uninformed decisions or we are guilty of the 93% rule. Going along to get along! The appeasement mentality of Neville Chamberlain was in reality the 93% rule.
"It has now become the duty of the pesticide application, manufacturing and distribution industries to obediently ignore obvious and provable realities. Inculcated deep within the collective psyche of the pest control industry we have now come to believe every bit of the horse pucky so-called experts and consultants and university researchers heap upon us.”
“We are required to stand up for things which are unproven or unprovable. To support things that are not true, while refuting or rejecting those things which are true! We must proclaim our unwavering resolve to support IPM or whatever the latest “green” philosophical flavor of the day is. We must resolve to support the idea that pesticides cause a whole host of maladies and are destroying the environment. We must accept the fairy tales of people like the Mother of Junk Science, Rachel Carson and her acolytes (including many in our industry) and call it science.” The only thing left is to hallow that which is unholy! This is what green means.
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
Many years ago I was watching a television show dealing with how seriously peer pressure impacts children, in this case teenage children. They demonstrated a study using a classroom as the lab for this experiment in human nature. Two sentences appeared on the blackboard, sentence “A” and sentence “B”. The class was asked; “Which sentence was the longest?” I don’t actually remember which sentence was the longest, but for this commentary let’s say that sentence “B” was actually the longest. This test was structured in such a way that only a small number of the kids in each group was unaware as to what was going on and could vote which- ever way they saw fit. All the rest were in on it and their job was to vote for sentence “A” as being the longest when in reality it was the shortest. Now the question! How many of the test students voted along with the crowd for sentence “A” as being the longest, ignoring the obvious truth that sentence “B” was in reality longer? It appears that 93% of the test subjects chose to go along with the crowd rather that have the courage and integrity to stand up for the evidence of their own eyes. Going along to get along!
My original thought was that this number seems to be high. I had reason to change my view some time later. One of my accounts was a local high school where once a year I would make presentations to the science department on pesticides, the theme being, “Risk Versus Benefit”. At the beginning of each program I would write a number on the blackboard (which was always around 50,000) and tell each class this was how many people died last year as a result of using this product. Then I would ask, “Should this product be removed from the market?” The answer was always a resounding “Yes”. At the end of each class I would tell them that these people were killed on the nation’s highways by automobiles. Then I would ask; “How many of you want to do away with cars?” In every class except one, they all wanted to keep cars on the highways. Out of about 200 students only one was willing to stand up and say, “Get rid of them”. Is this a going along to get along attitude being expressed here? Is this a matter of personal self interests? Probably a little of both, it did make me wonder; is 93% a valid number?
Although a recent study actually put the number at 95%, studies have a way of proving what the creator of the study wants proven. Therefore there is no way of knowing if 93% is a truly reliable number. Does it matter? Would it matter if the numbers were 90% or 80% or even less? Probably not, because science should be proving things that we can easily see going on around us and our own experiences in life show that the pressure on youngsters to go along is tremendous and most youngsters succumb to that pressure in greater or lesser degrees.
What is the point of all of this? The desire of young people to fit in is well known, but this isn’t really the issue. The real issue is this. How serious is this problem as we age? Quite frankly, I don’t think it changes all that much except on little issues. Adults have the courage to stand up for issues that don’t amount to much. I used to work with someone who was always the first to stand up and be counted. Always the first to criticize over any tiny issue that really didn’t matter much and would have had little impact on anything, especially his job. How did he respond when a serious issue arose between the company and the employees? Such as a change in how we were to be compensated? This was one of those issues where standing up and being counted could possibly cost you your job. The silence was deafening.
Adults, like children, also have convenient memories. Some years later at a social gathering this came up in discussion and his recollection was, “if you remember, I was the only one to speak out on this issue”. Since he was generally regarded as being outspoken no one questioned it, at least until someone actually pointed out what was actually said and happened at that meeting. Memories became clear again because it was pointed out that after the boss temporarily walked out of the room his comment to the only one speaking up was “why don’t you shut up, I just hope this is all that they take away”.
I would appear that whenever issues become complex or challenging you get the same result with adults as you get with children. Why? Just because issues may appear to be a small matter to adults it doesn't mean it isn’t “big” to children. They don’t have the same concerns as adults. Being accepted by their peers is extremely important to children, especially teenage children. To their perspective, it has the same level of importance as major issues do for adults. It is a matter of perception, and once we realize this it is easy to realize why so many adults make so many decisions to go along with programs and issues that are clearly detrimental to their own interests. We use the term “peer pressure”, but in reality it isn’t a peer pressure problem. It is a herding problem. The innate desire to go along to get along. The need to be part of the herd. The size of the issue is a matter of perspective and fear of rejection, fear of being ridiculed, fear of job loss and fear of isolation cause people to go along to get along. Coupling these fears with a lack of knowledge and proper understanding of important issues absolutely assures the 93% rule. Is 93% the actual percentage for adult decision-making? Once again, I have no idea, but the rule certainly applies as a principle because the actual percentage is immaterial when that percentage is still very large.
Pesticide use is one such issue. We have pest controllers, entomologists, trainers, consultants, university researchers and even owners and their technicians working to promote IPM and other foolish programs that will ultimately destroy the pesticide application industries and there is neither outcry nor any contrary commentary from any of the information deliverers or “leaders” of our industry. In fact the leaders of our industry are promoting these green concepts.
• Is it possible that no one sees the obviousness of promoting IPM or so-called “green” pest control is destructive to our industry?
• Does no one see that calling pest control something other than pest control implies that what we have been doing is wrong and that the environmentalists have been right all along?
• Is it possible that no one sees the obviousness of supporting the Montreal Protocol and eliminating the use of methyl bromide is counter -productive to our industry and mankind?
• Is it possible that no one sees that the fruitage of the environmental movement has been the unnecessary death of millions along with wretched living conditions and sickness for millions more?
• Is it possible that no one sees the devastation that has ensued in the third world as a result of promulgating environmentalist programs?
• Is it possible that no one sees that most of what the environmental movement has promoted has been based on fear mongering and lies? At the very least lies of omission?
• Is it possible that no one sees that the EPA is not a neutral government agency and at its very beginning was willing to make decisions that have been disastrous to mankind without any scientific basis what so ever? One could even say fraudulent science!
• Is it possible that no one sees that there is no scientific basis for the promotion of any of these policies?
• Does no one see that these policies are detrimental to humanity?
Either we are making uninformed decisions or we are guilty of the 93% rule. Going along to get along! The appeasement mentality of Neville Chamberlain was in reality the 93% rule.
"It has now become the duty of the pesticide application, manufacturing and distribution industries to obediently ignore obvious and provable realities. Inculcated deep within the collective psyche of the pest control industry we have now come to believe every bit of the horse pucky so-called experts and consultants and university researchers heap upon us.”
“We are required to stand up for things which are unproven or unprovable. To support things that are not true, while refuting or rejecting those things which are true! We must proclaim our unwavering resolve to support IPM or whatever the latest “green” philosophical flavor of the day is. We must resolve to support the idea that pesticides cause a whole host of maladies and are destroying the environment. We must accept the fairy tales of people like the Mother of Junk Science, Rachel Carson and her acolytes (including many in our industry) and call it science.” The only thing left is to hallow that which is unholy! This is what green means.
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
Sunday,
April 6, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
Since I have been publishing Green Notes as a weekly E-Newsletter I have gotten some feedback from readers who have been appreciative and supportive and a number of them have sent me updates on issues and articles worth linking. There also have been some new acquaintances…… who have been….let us say…..not as supportive. But that is what Green Notes is all about; forcing dialogue about issues facing our industry. Green issues in particular. It really comes down to what it means to be green and why we would want to be green. We have to ask; what is this overwhelming need to change what and who we are?
I have linked large numbers of articles dealing with global warming and energy because they are inextricably interlinked. I use these two issues because as I follow them I keep being amazed how irrational this has become. I understand the greenies; they have embraced an irrational misanthropic philosophy with the ultimate goal of destroying humanity. (If anyone has any doubts regarding this I will be happy to forward that information.) Disagreeable and irrational as that may be, it at least this gives understanding to their actions. Yet people who have the intelligence and availability of information to see the long term consequences, and who should know better, keep right on pursuing the same insane course of acquiescing to greenie demands that has proven to be disastrous over and over again. To believe that you will get a different outcome by doing the same things that have consistently failed is insanity! Let’s take some examples.
• Irrational and easily refutable claims against DDT were thrown up? Solution? Ban it! What happens? Millions die! Solution? Ban more pesticides! The fact that millions have and are dying is immaterial to those demanding these bans.
• Availability goes down and the price of gas goes up. Solution! Tax it! What happens? Price of gas goes up. Solution! Forbid drilling and the building of refineries. What happens? Price of gas goes up! Solution? Tax it some more and demand less drilling and add more regulations on refineries and impossible emission standards. What happens? Less refineries and the price of gas goes up. Solution? Demand energy independence by imposing ethanol? What happens? Price of gas goes up and government subsidizes ethanol which is a hidden extra cost. What happens? The price of food rises over time because we are burning food as energy! Cost of fuel and food goes up. What should be obvious to the most casual observer is that eventually the cost of food and fuel will continue to climb and availability of both will diminish. What happens? People all over the world start to starve to death! Starting with those least able to deal with the costs or the lack of nutrition!
• Business and political leaders have available to them all the real science that would allow for them to make wise decisions based on facts. What do they do? Agree to more insane greenie measures that, if followed, will ensure the eventual elimination of manufacturing, mining, logging, pest control, medicines and advanced living in an advanced modern world with all the benefits that entails!
How is it to be turned around? Recently a Green Notes reader sent me an e-mail discussing this very issue. “Just follow the money now. Even when hard science debunks the climate change mass hysteria--- so much money [and so many political aspirations] are tied to the need to 'change' it will be like turning a large ship to moderate or reverse trends. WSJ on 3-13-08 outlined how an English firm that is making millions or even billions trading 'carbon credits'--- it will soon be an important subsidy for US farmers as well as they begin to receive per acre payments for carbon sequestration. Once these practices become embedded--- some group becomes at least partially dependent--- then facts become less and less important.”
I agreed with him that in the beginning there would be a great deal of money made by a handful of people, but eventually the economy would force everyone to change course. Between the free flowing information of the internet and the economic costs of all of this nonsense people would demand a change of course. After years of following this stuff, I’m no longer so sure. Armored from head to toe with the “invincibility of ignorance” the “momentum of the misinformed” is overwhelming because the informed are so colossally outnumbered.
There are three forces that are driving this insanity; the irrational misanthropy of the greenies, the short sighted greed and self interest of the business and academic communities and the pandering self interest of political leaders. They have instituted changes to society without consideration of the long range consequences, except for the activists; they know what they want. A pristine world!
The word “change” has become a mantra and is in the air constantly now. You can’t watch or read the news without being bombarded with this undefined “philosophy” with change as a goal. Change isn’t a goal! Change is an alteration! For change to be a goal it would mean that everything would be in a state of flux unendingly. There is a term for that – anarchy. So we have to ask ourselves; does change necessarily mean improvement? What are the overall costs of such actions? What are the benefits? What about unintended consequences?
When it comes to becoming “green” in pest control these are questions that are not being asked, yet the history of the green movement has been misanthropic since John Muir started the Sierra Club. Teddy Roosevelt is credited with being the first president to be concerned with preservation of the environment. That is a fallacy. The difference between Roosevelt and Muir was that Muir wanted “preservation” and Roosevelt wanted “conservation”. Those are two different concepts with two entirely different goals. Preservation wants everything pristine unsullied and primitive, untouched by mankind. Conservation implies continued use by humanity. Those two didn’t see eye to eye, nor did they like each other.
The leaders of our industry are making the decision to “go green”. This appeared as a promotion for activity at Legislative Day:
This is an action that I find disheartening and I have some questions.
• What does “taking green to the next level” really mean in the long term?
• How many levels of green are there?
• Is it a finite number?
• Is it possible that the number of levels is infinite?
• Who determines that?
• Who told them to do this?
• Do the directors of our national and state associations direct the industry or does the industry direct them?
• No one asked me what I thought; was I accidently left out of the polling? .
• Did the state associations decide this and then tell the national association that this is what they wanted? If that is the case, I don’t remember being involved in any discussions regarding this.
• Perhaps Ohio was left out of the polling?
Green demands will never cease and their actions in Canada should be a clarion call to all the pest control related industries. For pest control to become green is to publically take a stand that tells the world that we were wrong for sixty years. We are telling the world that the activists have enlightened us. We are telling the world that all the health claims by the environmental activists against us were right. "Being “green” is like being a little bit pregnant. The green movement is all consuming; once in, it is all or nothing. “You cannot cut deals with, or offer alliances to misanthropic environmental activists without being a promoter of misanthropic environmentalism or advancing the goals of misanthropic environmentalism.”
“The Green Council Meeting (Monday Morning). During Legislative Day there will be a forum discussion and an educational program that will include industry experts to take green to the next level. As a follow up to NPMA’s Going Green meeting in November, topics discussed will include the definition of green, the industry's approach to green, green consumer research, the industry's strategy to green, a review of the green tool kit, and much more.”
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
Since I have been publishing Green Notes as a weekly E-Newsletter I have gotten some feedback from readers who have been appreciative and supportive and a number of them have sent me updates on issues and articles worth linking. There also have been some new acquaintances…… who have been….let us say…..not as supportive. But that is what Green Notes is all about; forcing dialogue about issues facing our industry. Green issues in particular. It really comes down to what it means to be green and why we would want to be green. We have to ask; what is this overwhelming need to change what and who we are?
I have linked large numbers of articles dealing with global warming and energy because they are inextricably interlinked. I use these two issues because as I follow them I keep being amazed how irrational this has become. I understand the greenies; they have embraced an irrational misanthropic philosophy with the ultimate goal of destroying humanity. (If anyone has any doubts regarding this I will be happy to forward that information.) Disagreeable and irrational as that may be, it at least this gives understanding to their actions. Yet people who have the intelligence and availability of information to see the long term consequences, and who should know better, keep right on pursuing the same insane course of acquiescing to greenie demands that has proven to be disastrous over and over again. To believe that you will get a different outcome by doing the same things that have consistently failed is insanity! Let’s take some examples.
• Irrational and easily refutable claims against DDT were thrown up? Solution? Ban it! What happens? Millions die! Solution? Ban more pesticides! The fact that millions have and are dying is immaterial to those demanding these bans.
• Availability goes down and the price of gas goes up. Solution! Tax it! What happens? Price of gas goes up. Solution! Forbid drilling and the building of refineries. What happens? Price of gas goes up! Solution? Tax it some more and demand less drilling and add more regulations on refineries and impossible emission standards. What happens? Less refineries and the price of gas goes up. Solution? Demand energy independence by imposing ethanol? What happens? Price of gas goes up and government subsidizes ethanol which is a hidden extra cost. What happens? The price of food rises over time because we are burning food as energy! Cost of fuel and food goes up. What should be obvious to the most casual observer is that eventually the cost of food and fuel will continue to climb and availability of both will diminish. What happens? People all over the world start to starve to death! Starting with those least able to deal with the costs or the lack of nutrition!
• Business and political leaders have available to them all the real science that would allow for them to make wise decisions based on facts. What do they do? Agree to more insane greenie measures that, if followed, will ensure the eventual elimination of manufacturing, mining, logging, pest control, medicines and advanced living in an advanced modern world with all the benefits that entails!
How is it to be turned around? Recently a Green Notes reader sent me an e-mail discussing this very issue. “Just follow the money now. Even when hard science debunks the climate change mass hysteria--- so much money [and so many political aspirations] are tied to the need to 'change' it will be like turning a large ship to moderate or reverse trends. WSJ on 3-13-08 outlined how an English firm that is making millions or even billions trading 'carbon credits'--- it will soon be an important subsidy for US farmers as well as they begin to receive per acre payments for carbon sequestration. Once these practices become embedded--- some group becomes at least partially dependent--- then facts become less and less important.”
I agreed with him that in the beginning there would be a great deal of money made by a handful of people, but eventually the economy would force everyone to change course. Between the free flowing information of the internet and the economic costs of all of this nonsense people would demand a change of course. After years of following this stuff, I’m no longer so sure. Armored from head to toe with the “invincibility of ignorance” the “momentum of the misinformed” is overwhelming because the informed are so colossally outnumbered.
There are three forces that are driving this insanity; the irrational misanthropy of the greenies, the short sighted greed and self interest of the business and academic communities and the pandering self interest of political leaders. They have instituted changes to society without consideration of the long range consequences, except for the activists; they know what they want. A pristine world!
The word “change” has become a mantra and is in the air constantly now. You can’t watch or read the news without being bombarded with this undefined “philosophy” with change as a goal. Change isn’t a goal! Change is an alteration! For change to be a goal it would mean that everything would be in a state of flux unendingly. There is a term for that – anarchy. So we have to ask ourselves; does change necessarily mean improvement? What are the overall costs of such actions? What are the benefits? What about unintended consequences?
When it comes to becoming “green” in pest control these are questions that are not being asked, yet the history of the green movement has been misanthropic since John Muir started the Sierra Club. Teddy Roosevelt is credited with being the first president to be concerned with preservation of the environment. That is a fallacy. The difference between Roosevelt and Muir was that Muir wanted “preservation” and Roosevelt wanted “conservation”. Those are two different concepts with two entirely different goals. Preservation wants everything pristine unsullied and primitive, untouched by mankind. Conservation implies continued use by humanity. Those two didn’t see eye to eye, nor did they like each other.
The leaders of our industry are making the decision to “go green”. This appeared as a promotion for activity at Legislative Day:
This is an action that I find disheartening and I have some questions.
• What does “taking green to the next level” really mean in the long term?
• How many levels of green are there?
• Is it a finite number?
• Is it possible that the number of levels is infinite?
• Who determines that?
• Who told them to do this?
• Do the directors of our national and state associations direct the industry or does the industry direct them?
• No one asked me what I thought; was I accidently left out of the polling? .
• Did the state associations decide this and then tell the national association that this is what they wanted? If that is the case, I don’t remember being involved in any discussions regarding this.
• Perhaps Ohio was left out of the polling?
Green demands will never cease and their actions in Canada should be a clarion call to all the pest control related industries. For pest control to become green is to publically take a stand that tells the world that we were wrong for sixty years. We are telling the world that the activists have enlightened us. We are telling the world that all the health claims by the environmental activists against us were right. "Being “green” is like being a little bit pregnant. The green movement is all consuming; once in, it is all or nothing. “You cannot cut deals with, or offer alliances to misanthropic environmental activists without being a promoter of misanthropic environmentalism or advancing the goals of misanthropic environmentalism.”
“The Green Council Meeting (Monday Morning). During Legislative Day there will be a forum discussion and an educational program that will include industry experts to take green to the next level. As a follow up to NPMA’s Going Green meeting in November, topics discussed will include the definition of green, the industry's approach to green, green consumer research, the industry's strategy to green, a review of the green tool kit, and much more.”
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
Tuesday,
April 29, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
Everyone who knows me knows what my position is regarding our industry going green. However, I have found that there are misconceptions as to what I think going green really means. First off, being green has nothing to do with whichever products or techniques are being used to control pests.
Some months ago I bought a steamer to use on bed bug jobs. As I was walking out with the steamer an industry friend, who knows me very well, said, “Rich, what is happening here? Is this IPM?” (IPM stands for Integrated Pest Management for those outside of pest control) I responded by saying, “No, it’s pest control”. Although he knew the answer and agrees with me, he just had to bust my chops.
I recently ordered some products from a company that is known for selling “green” products. The sales representative claims that this particular product will absolutely control bedbugs. I happen to know that efficacy testing is currently going on regarding these products, but I am not prepared to wait. I want to know now, so I ordered some for myself. This same person overheard this conversation and mockingly asked if I was backpedaling? They couldn't wait to chortle and tell everyone that "Rich is going green"! And these are my friends!
I realized that I had to clarify my position. My view regarding pest control products and techniques is really quite simple. I will use any product or technique that works. I will just as quickly and assuredly abandon any product that ceases to work. Period! My objection is not the products. My objection to the green movement is the philosophy behind it. I object to the malicious and false statements made by the green movement regarding pesticides and good health. I object to the disastrous consequences of their programs on so many poor people around the world.
Thirty years ago, I would have agreed with them. In fact until recent years I had an emotional affinity with their views. Having grown up around the coal mines, coke ovens and steel mills of rural Southwest Pennsylvania I know pollution, and was appalled by it. Worse yet, I was like the vast majority of the population; I was startlingly misinformed by a compliant media that will toot any horn the activists tell them to.
Now, I will not allow anyone to claim that the products we use causes cancer, autism, endocrine disruption, asthma or neurological damage without an argument. I will not passively sit by and listen to their unreasonable and irrational demands without comment. Why; because I took the time to look up the information to find out for myself as to what was true; and I was mortified to find that everything that the activists say is a fallacy.
Fallacies aren’t all lies! Regarding fallacies the Fallacy Files states, "However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time."
Some fallacies are simply mistakes in reasoning that causes people to believe something that is true. Unfortunately many fallacies are deliberately twisted logic. Thomas Sowell outlines this in his book by saying, “Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing of ignored factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” "That is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the moment." Being green is a philosophy. A concept of life that believes that mankind is the world’s foremost virus.
Environmentalism is no longer a philosophy that shows responsible and proper concern for the environment. It has now become an excuse for massive and intrusive regulations, crippling taxes, a massive bureaucratic machine that will eventually govern all that we do. Green believes that gas isn’t priced high enough. Green believes we eat too much. Green believes there are too many of us. Green believes it should control the world. Green believes it must get a message of hysteria out to the public in order to panic them into giving them these controls. Green believes that any lie that promotes these goals is acceptable. Green believes that it is acceptable for tens of millions to die from malaria. Green believes it is acceptable for hundreds of millions to live in squalor.
Green is not about what products we use. Make no mistake about it, eventually all of these so-called green products will come under attack from the activists. They are not monolithic; they have no command and control structure. Eventually one of the groups will attack these products with the same vigor that they attack other chemicals. No matter what we do they will never be satisfied. They will never end their attacks on us. No amount of appeasement will work. The only way that we can possibly satisfy them is if we all commit suicide.
Whether it is IPM, organic, all natural or whatever else happens to become the philosophical flavor of the day, they will demand more until there is nothing left to give. Green is not about products, it is about philosophy. A philosophy that is a vile, contemptible, irrational and misanthropic!
Let’s take a look at the type of people populating the green movement. They are only good at finding fault…they are completely incompetent at finding solutions and when they do it isn’t long before they protest their own solutions and blame someone else. Which bodes well the question; why in the world do we listen to these people? If you owned a company who had an employee who:
• Challenged everyone’s integrity.
• Challenged your authority and competence daily.
• Constantly ran down the company.
• Never offered any positive solutions.
• Never produced anything for the company.
• Made false public accusations against the company.
• Demanded the company give him a seat at the board of director’s meetings.
• Demanded veto power over company policy.
• Demanded special compensation.
What would you do? In most companies they would be fired. Although they could probably make excellent anarchists, they would obviously and clearly be unqualified to hold down a job because you would immediately assume that anyone who acts in this manner has something wrong with their mind. Why in the world do we then listen to people such as this in any other area of endeavor? Is this a form of dementia that acceptable in the public arena? Since the public arena is an arena that impacts human health and welfare so dramatically we should be especially concerned!
Whether it is IPM, organic, all natural or whatever else happens to become the philosophical flavor of the day, they will demand more until there is nothing left to give. Green is not about products, it is about philosophy; a philosophy that is a vile, contemptible, irrational and misanthropic; organized and run by seriously flawed human beings! When we claim to go green, we are enablers to that philosophy.
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
Everyone who knows me knows what my position is regarding our industry going green. However, I have found that there are misconceptions as to what I think going green really means. First off, being green has nothing to do with whichever products or techniques are being used to control pests.
Some months ago I bought a steamer to use on bed bug jobs. As I was walking out with the steamer an industry friend, who knows me very well, said, “Rich, what is happening here? Is this IPM?” (IPM stands for Integrated Pest Management for those outside of pest control) I responded by saying, “No, it’s pest control”. Although he knew the answer and agrees with me, he just had to bust my chops.
I recently ordered some products from a company that is known for selling “green” products. The sales representative claims that this particular product will absolutely control bedbugs. I happen to know that efficacy testing is currently going on regarding these products, but I am not prepared to wait. I want to know now, so I ordered some for myself. This same person overheard this conversation and mockingly asked if I was backpedaling? They couldn't wait to chortle and tell everyone that "Rich is going green"! And these are my friends!
I realized that I had to clarify my position. My view regarding pest control products and techniques is really quite simple. I will use any product or technique that works. I will just as quickly and assuredly abandon any product that ceases to work. Period! My objection is not the products. My objection to the green movement is the philosophy behind it. I object to the malicious and false statements made by the green movement regarding pesticides and good health. I object to the disastrous consequences of their programs on so many poor people around the world.
Thirty years ago, I would have agreed with them. In fact until recent years I had an emotional affinity with their views. Having grown up around the coal mines, coke ovens and steel mills of rural Southwest Pennsylvania I know pollution, and was appalled by it. Worse yet, I was like the vast majority of the population; I was startlingly misinformed by a compliant media that will toot any horn the activists tell them to.
Now, I will not allow anyone to claim that the products we use causes cancer, autism, endocrine disruption, asthma or neurological damage without an argument. I will not passively sit by and listen to their unreasonable and irrational demands without comment. Why; because I took the time to look up the information to find out for myself as to what was true; and I was mortified to find that everything that the activists say is a fallacy.
Fallacies aren’t all lies! Regarding fallacies the Fallacy Files states, "However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time."
Some fallacies are simply mistakes in reasoning that causes people to believe something that is true. Unfortunately many fallacies are deliberately twisted logic. Thomas Sowell outlines this in his book by saying, “Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing of ignored factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” "That is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the moment." Being green is a philosophy. A concept of life that believes that mankind is the world’s foremost virus.
Environmentalism is no longer a philosophy that shows responsible and proper concern for the environment. It has now become an excuse for massive and intrusive regulations, crippling taxes, a massive bureaucratic machine that will eventually govern all that we do. Green believes that gas isn’t priced high enough. Green believes we eat too much. Green believes there are too many of us. Green believes it should control the world. Green believes it must get a message of hysteria out to the public in order to panic them into giving them these controls. Green believes that any lie that promotes these goals is acceptable. Green believes that it is acceptable for tens of millions to die from malaria. Green believes it is acceptable for hundreds of millions to live in squalor.
Green is not about what products we use. Make no mistake about it, eventually all of these so-called green products will come under attack from the activists. They are not monolithic; they have no command and control structure. Eventually one of the groups will attack these products with the same vigor that they attack other chemicals. No matter what we do they will never be satisfied. They will never end their attacks on us. No amount of appeasement will work. The only way that we can possibly satisfy them is if we all commit suicide.
Whether it is IPM, organic, all natural or whatever else happens to become the philosophical flavor of the day, they will demand more until there is nothing left to give. Green is not about products, it is about philosophy. A philosophy that is a vile, contemptible, irrational and misanthropic!
Let’s take a look at the type of people populating the green movement. They are only good at finding fault…they are completely incompetent at finding solutions and when they do it isn’t long before they protest their own solutions and blame someone else. Which bodes well the question; why in the world do we listen to these people? If you owned a company who had an employee who:
• Challenged everyone’s integrity.
• Challenged your authority and competence daily.
• Constantly ran down the company.
• Never offered any positive solutions.
• Never produced anything for the company.
• Made false public accusations against the company.
• Demanded the company give him a seat at the board of director’s meetings.
• Demanded veto power over company policy.
• Demanded special compensation.
What would you do? In most companies they would be fired. Although they could probably make excellent anarchists, they would obviously and clearly be unqualified to hold down a job because you would immediately assume that anyone who acts in this manner has something wrong with their mind. Why in the world do we then listen to people such as this in any other area of endeavor? Is this a form of dementia that acceptable in the public arena? Since the public arena is an arena that impacts human health and welfare so dramatically we should be especially concerned!
Whether it is IPM, organic, all natural or whatever else happens to become the philosophical flavor of the day, they will demand more until there is nothing left to give. Green is not about products, it is about philosophy; a philosophy that is a vile, contemptible, irrational and misanthropic; organized and run by seriously flawed human beings! When we claim to go green, we are enablers to that philosophy.
What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV
By
Rich Kozlovich
Editor’s note: This article has been hit a great deal lately and so I went back and read it. Since I am a bug man and not a trained writer I find that much of the work I have done in past years could stand improvement, therefore I have I have reworked this article. I hope it is an improvement. RK, 3/9/11
Heisenberg’s uncertainty Theory – The more closely you study the subject the less clearly defined it becomes. May I be so bold as to entertain the thought that this certainly would apply to those who attempt to define Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or Green for the structural pest control industry? Here is the reality we are faced with; we have agreed to use these terms without agreeing on what they mean. I hear the statement often; “we all know what IPM is or; we all know what Green means”. Really? The reality is that there is “no universally accepted definition of the IPM and Green phenomena; there is no consensus as to their range, their ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize them.”*
Yet, the activists wield words and phrases such as, “we must reduce our chemical impact” like a cudgel to browbeat anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their views regarding IPM or Green pest control. They suggest that we are a bunch of evil fascists attempting to pollute the world and kill our children for mere profit.
My questions are always the same;
Editor’s note: This article has been hit a great deal lately and so I went back and read it. Since I am a bug man and not a trained writer I find that much of the work I have done in past years could stand improvement, therefore I have I have reworked this article. I hope it is an improvement. RK, 3/9/11
Heisenberg’s uncertainty Theory – The more closely you study the subject the less clearly defined it becomes. May I be so bold as to entertain the thought that this certainly would apply to those who attempt to define Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or Green for the structural pest control industry? Here is the reality we are faced with; we have agreed to use these terms without agreeing on what they mean. I hear the statement often; “we all know what IPM is or; we all know what Green means”. Really? The reality is that there is “no universally accepted definition of the IPM and Green phenomena; there is no consensus as to their range, their ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize them.”*
Yet, the activists wield words and phrases such as, “we must reduce our chemical impact” like a cudgel to browbeat anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their views regarding IPM or Green pest control. They suggest that we are a bunch of evil fascists attempting to pollute the world and kill our children for mere profit.
My questions are always the same;
1.
Exactly what chemical impact are they talking about?
2. What are the statistics?
3. Where is the reduction in life expectancy?
4. Where is the massive increase in diseases?
2. What are the statistics?
3. Where is the reduction in life expectancy?
4. Where is the massive increase in diseases?
They
aren’t in countries that are the heaviest users of pesticides. In fact, it is
now reported that the life expectancy is increasing in these countries. However,
the opposite is true in countries that use pesticides the least. They answer by
making unfounded claims in the press, where they sound like songbirds; however,
when you challenge these people face to face they sound more like croaking
toads.
It can be clearly shown that while they spew out unproven claims about pesticides and those who use them, the green movement has wreaked havoc on people’s lives all over the world. Children dying by the millions and tens millions suffering from a host of maladies and conditions created by the things that they promote, which could have been easily prevented except for the influence activists have on the decision makers of the world. These are facts and they are part of the public record for those who are willing to look for them. They cannot be disputed! They can be spun, they can be denied, they can be twisted and the can be ignored….but they cannot be disputed!
This brings me to some questions that I would really love an answer to:
It can be clearly shown that while they spew out unproven claims about pesticides and those who use them, the green movement has wreaked havoc on people’s lives all over the world. Children dying by the millions and tens millions suffering from a host of maladies and conditions created by the things that they promote, which could have been easily prevented except for the influence activists have on the decision makers of the world. These are facts and they are part of the public record for those who are willing to look for them. They cannot be disputed! They can be spun, they can be denied, they can be twisted and the can be ignored….but they cannot be disputed!
This brings me to some questions that I would really love an answer to:
1.
Why are promoters of these misanthropic concepts given columns that regularly
appear in our industries trade journals? All of a sudden these people become
teachers and journalists to the structural pest control industry and de facto
spokesmen for the industry.
2. Why is it that those who have different views are not given the same opportunity to refute these activists’ views?
3. Why do I never see a regular column devoted to defending us as we are! I have said it before and I will say this again. They are not the pest control industry! Consultants and researchers are hired help and it is their job to salute and say; yes sir. We need to start telling them and not the reverse. If they don't like it we need to fire them!
2. Why is it that those who have different views are not given the same opportunity to refute these activists’ views?
3. Why do I never see a regular column devoted to defending us as we are! I have said it before and I will say this again. They are not the pest control industry! Consultants and researchers are hired help and it is their job to salute and say; yes sir. We need to start telling them and not the reverse. If they don't like it we need to fire them!
For
years the green activists have promoted causes and programs that have resulted
in devastation to the poorest and most desperate people of the world. And all
the while these activist induced devastations have been going on these people
have maintained a steady drumbeat of misinformation, condemning us with their
unscientific claims about pesticides and public health. And the media inside and
outside of our industry has either been silent or has been party to this
campaign of Jabberwocky. What has the application industries done to defend
itself from these false charges? Little or nothing! Worse yet, the pesticide
manufacturing, distribution and application industries are becoming part and
parcel of that package.
How do these ideas take hold in an industry? It is caused by decent, everyday, go to work men who willingly but unknowingly take these concepts seriously. And why are they so 'willing' and 'unknowing'? Actually it is understandable. It is because there is no one from our industries that is rebutting these claims, or responding to the arbitrary demands from the activists and regulators in our own forums. And apparently, it appears that no one else is permitted to publically rebut them. As a result they have no other touch stone to go by except the propaganda of the greenies and the EPA.
Another point that I think should be obvious to the most casual observer is that we can't get “ahead of this green issue”. How can we get ahead of something that isn’t ours? It is their program and they will adjust it to offset anything we do. If we even appear to be “getting ahead” they will adjust it in such a manner that we will fall behind again. We will never get ahead of this “green” phenomenon; period! You can’t get ahead of an irrational concept that is initiated by those who wish you ill. If it isn’t your program you can’t control it; you can only defeat it!
Green is even less definable than IPM. “We didn’t get ahead of IPM and look where it got us”; I was recently told. We waste energy trying to get ahead of things we cannot get ahead of and cannot control. Furthermore, we shouldn’t be trying to get ahead; we should be working to eliminate them. The reason we have “green” as an issue now is not because we didn’t get ahead of IPM; it’s because we didn’t defeat IPM. This was the next obvious step after IPM. Their goal is to eliminate pesticides, and each time we adopt an attitude of appeasement, they will go to the next level and each level will be more extreme than the last. Make no mistake about it; we didn’t stand up to IPM then, and if we don’t defeat “green” now the next step will be elimination. The European Union has already taken steps to do just that. See EU Ministers Clinch Deal on New Pesticides Law in this week's Green Notes Newsletter.
"Through the Looking Glass" was a book by Lewis Carroll with Alice (As in Alice in Wonderland) as the main character. In the book Alice finally awakens from her irrational and nightmarish dream and promptly blames one of her cats for the whole thing.
Who will we blame when we awaken from this irrational and nightmarish attempt to please the green activists inside and outside of our industry? More importantly; who will take responsibility for the disasters that awaits us when the developed world eliminates pesticides and loses the benefits they impart? I will not! I will not have to!
"The time has come," the Walrus said, to talk of many things: Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax - Of cabbages and kings, and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings."- Lewis Carroll
* Paraphrased statement by Stanley G,. Payne in the book Dictionnaire historique des fascisms et du nazisme as cited and quoted in the book Liberal Fascism.
How do these ideas take hold in an industry? It is caused by decent, everyday, go to work men who willingly but unknowingly take these concepts seriously. And why are they so 'willing' and 'unknowing'? Actually it is understandable. It is because there is no one from our industries that is rebutting these claims, or responding to the arbitrary demands from the activists and regulators in our own forums. And apparently, it appears that no one else is permitted to publically rebut them. As a result they have no other touch stone to go by except the propaganda of the greenies and the EPA.
Another point that I think should be obvious to the most casual observer is that we can't get “ahead of this green issue”. How can we get ahead of something that isn’t ours? It is their program and they will adjust it to offset anything we do. If we even appear to be “getting ahead” they will adjust it in such a manner that we will fall behind again. We will never get ahead of this “green” phenomenon; period! You can’t get ahead of an irrational concept that is initiated by those who wish you ill. If it isn’t your program you can’t control it; you can only defeat it!
Green is even less definable than IPM. “We didn’t get ahead of IPM and look where it got us”; I was recently told. We waste energy trying to get ahead of things we cannot get ahead of and cannot control. Furthermore, we shouldn’t be trying to get ahead; we should be working to eliminate them. The reason we have “green” as an issue now is not because we didn’t get ahead of IPM; it’s because we didn’t defeat IPM. This was the next obvious step after IPM. Their goal is to eliminate pesticides, and each time we adopt an attitude of appeasement, they will go to the next level and each level will be more extreme than the last. Make no mistake about it; we didn’t stand up to IPM then, and if we don’t defeat “green” now the next step will be elimination. The European Union has already taken steps to do just that. See EU Ministers Clinch Deal on New Pesticides Law in this week's Green Notes Newsletter.
"Through the Looking Glass" was a book by Lewis Carroll with Alice (As in Alice in Wonderland) as the main character. In the book Alice finally awakens from her irrational and nightmarish dream and promptly blames one of her cats for the whole thing.
Who will we blame when we awaken from this irrational and nightmarish attempt to please the green activists inside and outside of our industry? More importantly; who will take responsibility for the disasters that awaits us when the developed world eliminates pesticides and loses the benefits they impart? I will not! I will not have to!
"The time has come," the Walrus said, to talk of many things: Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax - Of cabbages and kings, and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings."- Lewis Carroll
* Paraphrased statement by Stanley G,. Payne in the book Dictionnaire historique des fascisms et du nazisme as cited and quoted in the book Liberal Fascism.
Saturday,
July 5, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
When you start to look at these “studies” touted by the activists you find that there is one common thread. They are full of weasel words and phrases. This gives them a great deal of wiggle room because they never come out and definitively state that things are factual….they are always ‘maybes’, and always scary ‘maybes’. Did it ever occur to anyone that these “Weasel-words and Phrases” are perhaps just somebody’s unfounded printed accusation, or perhaps some professional’s words for guessing? When this stuff makes it into print, they never give the impression that this may be not only a minority opinion, but may be viewed as …..well……whacky……by the rest of the scientific community.
Anthropogenic Global Warming was one such idea that was considered laughable; at least until the government started feeding huge amounts of grant money into studying it and then it became “science”. Especially since only those who promoted it got the money. All the “science” has turned out to be wrong or fraudulent; but what has that to do with grant money? After all, truth is no longer the Holy Grail of science…..The Holy Grail of science is now grant money.
I have been keeping an updated running list of Weasel-Words and Phrases. You might find them amusing…..You will also notice that these phrases appear in all these “studies” that make outrageous claims against chemicals.
1. Might cause
2. Studies suggest
3. Could cause
4. The long term effects are unknown
5. Linked
6. Voiced concerns about
7. Expressed some concern
8. Experts fear
9. Warning that the chemical could be causing neurological and behavior effects in unborn babies and young children
10. Negligible concern is still expressed
11. Minimal concerns
12. Still leaves doubts
13. Warning of a great cause for concern
14. Some scientists were critical
15. Researchers hypothesize
16. Suspected hormonal imbalance
17. Many scientists say
18. Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious
19. Data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem
20. But government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved and lack of evidence from other studies.
21. May make women more likely to
22. We've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations
23. Probably to blame
24. Ecologists are worried that
25. It has been found through laboratory analysis that (X) substance is present in
26. While further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that
27. While voicing caution on the link to (X), concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, (X) could hurt the environment.
28. Have the potential to significantly promote
This one is my favorite
29. The simple truth is that the way we allow chemicals to be used in society today means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people
30. Factors suggest
31. In sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Human impacts beyond isolated cases are already demonstrable. They involve
impairments to reproduction, alterations in behavior, diminishment of intellectual capacity, and erosion in the ability to resist disease. [emphasis in the original -- http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/bottomline.htm viewed 5/16/06] (This turned out to be a lie)
32. Mounting evidence" that these chemicals "may trigger hormonal changes."
33. There is a serious connection to….
I guess that 100 to 300 million dollars spent by the chemical companies to meet the required testing by EPA in order to introduce a pesticide into the environment was meaningless.
Perhaps I am being too concerned about that which is factual and what can actually be proven….I just dawned on me……perhaps I can get on the “grant money express”. Let’s give this a try…….
There is something in the environment that might cause something because scientists state that studies suggest something could cause long term effects which are unknown due to links that some have expressed or voiced some concerns over. Experts are issuing this warning for fear that this something could be causing some effects in unborn babies and young children. Although negligible or minimal concern is still expressed, studies still leave doubts; therefore questions remain.
Some scientists were critical and felt a warning of a great cause for concern should be issued because researchers hypothesize that something may cause a suspected something. Many other scientists are quoted as saying that; “Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious although the data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem with something.”
Although government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved, and lack of evidence from other studies. It is possible that this should make women more likely to be concerned because we've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations which suggest something is probably to blame.
Other scientists say that ecologists are worried that it has been found through laboratory analysis that some substance is present in something and while further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that something could have the potential to significantly promote something. While voicing caution on the link to something, concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, something could hurt the environment.
The simple truth is that the factors suggest that if we allow something to be used in society today, it means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people; in sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Furthermore, due to the growing body of assertions; there is mounting evidence that something may trigger something.
What do you think? Do you think I could ask for a grant of $150,000,000 to get started studying “something”?
When you start to look at these “studies” touted by the activists you find that there is one common thread. They are full of weasel words and phrases. This gives them a great deal of wiggle room because they never come out and definitively state that things are factual….they are always ‘maybes’, and always scary ‘maybes’. Did it ever occur to anyone that these “Weasel-words and Phrases” are perhaps just somebody’s unfounded printed accusation, or perhaps some professional’s words for guessing? When this stuff makes it into print, they never give the impression that this may be not only a minority opinion, but may be viewed as …..well……whacky……by the rest of the scientific community.
Anthropogenic Global Warming was one such idea that was considered laughable; at least until the government started feeding huge amounts of grant money into studying it and then it became “science”. Especially since only those who promoted it got the money. All the “science” has turned out to be wrong or fraudulent; but what has that to do with grant money? After all, truth is no longer the Holy Grail of science…..The Holy Grail of science is now grant money.
I have been keeping an updated running list of Weasel-Words and Phrases. You might find them amusing…..You will also notice that these phrases appear in all these “studies” that make outrageous claims against chemicals.
1. Might cause
2. Studies suggest
3. Could cause
4. The long term effects are unknown
5. Linked
6. Voiced concerns about
7. Expressed some concern
8. Experts fear
9. Warning that the chemical could be causing neurological and behavior effects in unborn babies and young children
10. Negligible concern is still expressed
11. Minimal concerns
12. Still leaves doubts
13. Warning of a great cause for concern
14. Some scientists were critical
15. Researchers hypothesize
16. Suspected hormonal imbalance
17. Many scientists say
18. Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious
19. Data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem
20. But government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved and lack of evidence from other studies.
21. May make women more likely to
22. We've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations
23. Probably to blame
24. Ecologists are worried that
25. It has been found through laboratory analysis that (X) substance is present in
26. While further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that
27. While voicing caution on the link to (X), concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, (X) could hurt the environment.
28. Have the potential to significantly promote
This one is my favorite
29. The simple truth is that the way we allow chemicals to be used in society today means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people
30. Factors suggest
31. In sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Human impacts beyond isolated cases are already demonstrable. They involve
impairments to reproduction, alterations in behavior, diminishment of intellectual capacity, and erosion in the ability to resist disease. [emphasis in the original -- http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/bottomline.htm viewed 5/16/06] (This turned out to be a lie)
32. Mounting evidence" that these chemicals "may trigger hormonal changes."
33. There is a serious connection to….
I guess that 100 to 300 million dollars spent by the chemical companies to meet the required testing by EPA in order to introduce a pesticide into the environment was meaningless.
Perhaps I am being too concerned about that which is factual and what can actually be proven….I just dawned on me……perhaps I can get on the “grant money express”. Let’s give this a try…….
There is something in the environment that might cause something because scientists state that studies suggest something could cause long term effects which are unknown due to links that some have expressed or voiced some concerns over. Experts are issuing this warning for fear that this something could be causing some effects in unborn babies and young children. Although negligible or minimal concern is still expressed, studies still leave doubts; therefore questions remain.
Some scientists were critical and felt a warning of a great cause for concern should be issued because researchers hypothesize that something may cause a suspected something. Many other scientists are quoted as saying that; “Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious although the data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem with something.”
Although government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved, and lack of evidence from other studies. It is possible that this should make women more likely to be concerned because we've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations which suggest something is probably to blame.
Other scientists say that ecologists are worried that it has been found through laboratory analysis that some substance is present in something and while further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that something could have the potential to significantly promote something. While voicing caution on the link to something, concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, something could hurt the environment.
The simple truth is that the factors suggest that if we allow something to be used in society today, it means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people; in sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Furthermore, due to the growing body of assertions; there is mounting evidence that something may trigger something.
What do you think? Do you think I could ask for a grant of $150,000,000 to get started studying “something”?
Monday,
August 11, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
This was originally published in 2005 in my old blog, but I feel it is worth repeating. RK
History is a funny thing. We have always heard how history keeps repeating itself and how we keep missing the message. Why is that?
• One, we don’t study history.
• Two, when we do, we don’t really study history. Because most of what we get in school is very basic and the real lessons that need to be learned can’t be learned without the details and nuances as a result; most of it would qualify as propaganda.
• Three, we don’t care; It’s just a bunch of old dusty records that don’t really apply to our time. Yet we know that history does repeat itself constantly. The names, places and events might be different, but the underlying principles are all the same. The patterns of human conduct constantly repeat over and over again. Why? Because the one thing all of humanity has had in common all though the all of the ages is that we are human. We are still motivated by the same wants, needs and desires that all men have been motivated by forever.
What has this to do with the pest control industry you may ask? Every person or corporation involved in the pesticide manufacturing and application industries is one of the three following people. Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill or Vidkun Quisling.
Arthur Neville Chamberlain, 1869-1940
Chamberlain was a Rugby educated member of the British upper classes and had been in government all of his adult life starting in 1911 as a member of the Birmingham city council later becoming Lord Mayor.
His career continued in an upward direction from that time on, serving in the national government in various capacities facing the rough and tumble of parliamentary British politics becoming Prime Minister in 1937.
He demonstrated good leadership skills and in spite of being a member of the conservative party he was more of a socialist in temperament than a conservative, instituting many reforms that were very popular. The outcome of his plans never came to fruition as WWII broke out in 1939.
Chamberlain, in his defense, was a good administrator and in many ways a mirror image of his countrymen when it came to another war. WWI had so horrified the British people that they wanted peace at almost any cost. After the bloodbath of 1914-1918 they would have done almost anything to avoid another war. Unfortunately Hitler was not of the same mental bent. Chamberlain was a pragmatist. His “general policy of appeasement” was perfect for Hitler’s general policy of conquest. Hitler had an agenda. Dealing with someone with a definite agenda of conquest by going along to get along was a system for disaster for the British.
Chamberlain is best known for sacrificing the part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland to Hitler in the Munich Agreement. He came back to England waving the agreement in the air for all to see declaring “peace in our time”. The Czechs (you know the people actually impacted by the agreement) didn’t think much of his peace. Nor did that peace of appeasement last long. March of the same year Hitler invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia. Finally after the invasion of Poland Chamberlain declared war. It was too late.
Finally in 1940 one of his friends delivered a devastating speech in the House of Commons quoting Oliver Cromwell speaking to the Long Parliament “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.” His career as Prime Minister was over.
Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, 1874-1965.
Churchill, like Chamberlain was of the British upper classes, only at a higher level since he was a descendant of the first Duke of Marlborough. His early years could only be described as unimpressive, especially his school work, which caused his father Lord Randolph Churchill to consider him a “disappointment”.
He was however an accomplished swordsman and found his niche in the British military. As an unabashed self-promoter he did everything he could to be in every war the British conducted during the years before WWI. Captured during the Boer War he became a hero back in England because of his escape from the Boer prison camp.
His career in government began in 1900 taking on serious positions of responsibility. He too survived the rough and tumble parliamentarian political system of the British Empire. His military mentality was displayed during a number of upheavals in England at that time. He was more than willing to do what most would be aghast at today, including his willingness to use machine guns on striking miners.
Before and during the appeasement period promulgated by Neville Chamberlain, Churchill was virtually a lone voice “crying out in the wilderness” about the dangers of Hitler’s rearmament (forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles). When WWII broke out he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty (the same job he had in WWI) and became a prominent figure in the government since during the “Phony War” most of the action was at sea.
Finally he became Prime Minister in 1940. Most will remember the “I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech Churchill made to the British people. This was a direct response to the go along get along crowd criticizing him for not fixing the war immediately. This was in spite of the fact they created the problem and had no solutions themselves. This speech quieted them for the remainder of the war.
Whatever else Churchill did (his life was filled with decisions that most of us would consider disturbing) he knew whom his enemies were and what needed to be done about them. This was an issue in which he was irritatingly vocal about to a country that was remarkably uncaring of his views. Irritated and uncaring until the war broke out.
Vidkun Quisling, 1887-1945.
The son of a Lutheran minister he was born into one of Norway's oldest families. He graduated from the Norwegian war academy as the best cadet ever, and later rose to the rank of Major, even serving as defense minister in the early 30’s. He was also a brilliant mathematician. His early adult years were spent in relief work in Russia during the time when Stalin was starving his people to death, and later even received the Commander of the British Empire for his promotion of British interests in Russia.
In 1933 Quisling formed the Norwegian Fascist Party with himself as the Norwegian equivalent of Der Fuhrer.
Although he performed a coup d’tat setting up a Nazi style government just as Hitler was invading Norway, he did so in hopes that not all the power would go to the Germans. His government only lasted 5 days. The Germans were willing to let him act as a figure head that could be useful.
Although he considered himself a patriot, doing what was best for the people of Norway (and himself), the Norwegians considered him a traitor. He was executed for treason in 1945.
Who are you?
o Are you the ultimate pragmatist willing to go along to get along? Always believing we can come to some accommodation with the environmental activists by appeasing them just a little more?
o Or are you the hardheaded realist who knows who his enemies are and what needs to be done about them, fully aware that appeasement isn’t the answer.
o Or are you the foolish traitor who is at one with the activists and believes that the offerings of the activists is a good thing for everyone and actively support their projects?
Make no mistake about it; we are all one of these individuals. Like Hitler the activists have an agenda and that agenda is an agenda of conquest. The elimination of the pesticide manufacturing and application industries is their goal. Here are the choices. Appeasement, fight the good fight or treason.
Who are you really?
This was originally published in 2005 in my old blog, but I feel it is worth repeating. RK
History is a funny thing. We have always heard how history keeps repeating itself and how we keep missing the message. Why is that?
• One, we don’t study history.
• Two, when we do, we don’t really study history. Because most of what we get in school is very basic and the real lessons that need to be learned can’t be learned without the details and nuances as a result; most of it would qualify as propaganda.
• Three, we don’t care; It’s just a bunch of old dusty records that don’t really apply to our time. Yet we know that history does repeat itself constantly. The names, places and events might be different, but the underlying principles are all the same. The patterns of human conduct constantly repeat over and over again. Why? Because the one thing all of humanity has had in common all though the all of the ages is that we are human. We are still motivated by the same wants, needs and desires that all men have been motivated by forever.
What has this to do with the pest control industry you may ask? Every person or corporation involved in the pesticide manufacturing and application industries is one of the three following people. Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill or Vidkun Quisling.
Arthur Neville Chamberlain, 1869-1940
Chamberlain was a Rugby educated member of the British upper classes and had been in government all of his adult life starting in 1911 as a member of the Birmingham city council later becoming Lord Mayor.
His career continued in an upward direction from that time on, serving in the national government in various capacities facing the rough and tumble of parliamentary British politics becoming Prime Minister in 1937.
He demonstrated good leadership skills and in spite of being a member of the conservative party he was more of a socialist in temperament than a conservative, instituting many reforms that were very popular. The outcome of his plans never came to fruition as WWII broke out in 1939.
Chamberlain, in his defense, was a good administrator and in many ways a mirror image of his countrymen when it came to another war. WWI had so horrified the British people that they wanted peace at almost any cost. After the bloodbath of 1914-1918 they would have done almost anything to avoid another war. Unfortunately Hitler was not of the same mental bent. Chamberlain was a pragmatist. His “general policy of appeasement” was perfect for Hitler’s general policy of conquest. Hitler had an agenda. Dealing with someone with a definite agenda of conquest by going along to get along was a system for disaster for the British.
Chamberlain is best known for sacrificing the part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland to Hitler in the Munich Agreement. He came back to England waving the agreement in the air for all to see declaring “peace in our time”. The Czechs (you know the people actually impacted by the agreement) didn’t think much of his peace. Nor did that peace of appeasement last long. March of the same year Hitler invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia. Finally after the invasion of Poland Chamberlain declared war. It was too late.
Finally in 1940 one of his friends delivered a devastating speech in the House of Commons quoting Oliver Cromwell speaking to the Long Parliament “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.” His career as Prime Minister was over.
Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, 1874-1965.
Churchill, like Chamberlain was of the British upper classes, only at a higher level since he was a descendant of the first Duke of Marlborough. His early years could only be described as unimpressive, especially his school work, which caused his father Lord Randolph Churchill to consider him a “disappointment”.
He was however an accomplished swordsman and found his niche in the British military. As an unabashed self-promoter he did everything he could to be in every war the British conducted during the years before WWI. Captured during the Boer War he became a hero back in England because of his escape from the Boer prison camp.
His career in government began in 1900 taking on serious positions of responsibility. He too survived the rough and tumble parliamentarian political system of the British Empire. His military mentality was displayed during a number of upheavals in England at that time. He was more than willing to do what most would be aghast at today, including his willingness to use machine guns on striking miners.
Before and during the appeasement period promulgated by Neville Chamberlain, Churchill was virtually a lone voice “crying out in the wilderness” about the dangers of Hitler’s rearmament (forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles). When WWII broke out he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty (the same job he had in WWI) and became a prominent figure in the government since during the “Phony War” most of the action was at sea.
Finally he became Prime Minister in 1940. Most will remember the “I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech Churchill made to the British people. This was a direct response to the go along get along crowd criticizing him for not fixing the war immediately. This was in spite of the fact they created the problem and had no solutions themselves. This speech quieted them for the remainder of the war.
Whatever else Churchill did (his life was filled with decisions that most of us would consider disturbing) he knew whom his enemies were and what needed to be done about them. This was an issue in which he was irritatingly vocal about to a country that was remarkably uncaring of his views. Irritated and uncaring until the war broke out.
Vidkun Quisling, 1887-1945.
The son of a Lutheran minister he was born into one of Norway's oldest families. He graduated from the Norwegian war academy as the best cadet ever, and later rose to the rank of Major, even serving as defense minister in the early 30’s. He was also a brilliant mathematician. His early adult years were spent in relief work in Russia during the time when Stalin was starving his people to death, and later even received the Commander of the British Empire for his promotion of British interests in Russia.
In 1933 Quisling formed the Norwegian Fascist Party with himself as the Norwegian equivalent of Der Fuhrer.
Although he performed a coup d’tat setting up a Nazi style government just as Hitler was invading Norway, he did so in hopes that not all the power would go to the Germans. His government only lasted 5 days. The Germans were willing to let him act as a figure head that could be useful.
Although he considered himself a patriot, doing what was best for the people of Norway (and himself), the Norwegians considered him a traitor. He was executed for treason in 1945.
Who are you?
o Are you the ultimate pragmatist willing to go along to get along? Always believing we can come to some accommodation with the environmental activists by appeasing them just a little more?
o Or are you the hardheaded realist who knows who his enemies are and what needs to be done about them, fully aware that appeasement isn’t the answer.
o Or are you the foolish traitor who is at one with the activists and believes that the offerings of the activists is a good thing for everyone and actively support their projects?
Make no mistake about it; we are all one of these individuals. Like Hitler the activists have an agenda and that agenda is an agenda of conquest. The elimination of the pesticide manufacturing and application industries is their goal. Here are the choices. Appeasement, fight the good fight or treason.
Who are you really?
Thursday,
September 18, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
Last week I told everyone that I would be running a section dealing with ESA outrages. Here is the first installment. I first want to make sure we had some historical background for what is to come.
Between 1962 and 1972 the U.S. Congress got all wrapped up in passing bills that couldn’t help but make the greenie heart beat fast and furious and take their breaths away.
• Wilderness Act, 1964
• Clean Water Act, 1965
• Endangered Species Act, 1966
• Clean Air Act, 1967
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 1968
• Endangered Species Conservation Act, 1969
• Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 1971
• Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972
Most of us would think that this would satisfy the most jaded greenie. They wanted more, and it was decided that the 1969 ESA was inadequate and in 1972 they “upgraded” ESA with some significant changes. Section 4 and Section 7 contained poisoned pills and no one realized it.
Section 4 required the Secretary of the Interior to list any species that was endangered or threatened and defined species as “fish or wildlife or plants” and further refined that definition as “any mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate.” This will take on greater significance in coming weeks.
Section 7 “prohibited the “take” of any listed species. A “take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, dill, trap, capture or collect” a listed species. Friends of the Earth stated that the degradation of a listed species habitat would fit the definition of a “take” under the bills.” Everyone seems to have been caught up in the warm and fuzzy feeling because the thinking was clearly fuzzy…no one hardly whispered an objection. One reason is that they were primarily thinking of what is called the “charismatic” species, such as bald eagles, bears, wolves, etc.
Shannon Peterson noted that;
Last week I told everyone that I would be running a section dealing with ESA outrages. Here is the first installment. I first want to make sure we had some historical background for what is to come.
Between 1962 and 1972 the U.S. Congress got all wrapped up in passing bills that couldn’t help but make the greenie heart beat fast and furious and take their breaths away.
• Wilderness Act, 1964
• Clean Water Act, 1965
• Endangered Species Act, 1966
• Clean Air Act, 1967
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 1968
• Endangered Species Conservation Act, 1969
• Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 1971
• Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972
Most of us would think that this would satisfy the most jaded greenie. They wanted more, and it was decided that the 1969 ESA was inadequate and in 1972 they “upgraded” ESA with some significant changes. Section 4 and Section 7 contained poisoned pills and no one realized it.
Section 4 required the Secretary of the Interior to list any species that was endangered or threatened and defined species as “fish or wildlife or plants” and further refined that definition as “any mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate.” This will take on greater significance in coming weeks.
Section 7 “prohibited the “take” of any listed species. A “take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, dill, trap, capture or collect” a listed species. Friends of the Earth stated that the degradation of a listed species habitat would fit the definition of a “take” under the bills.” Everyone seems to have been caught up in the warm and fuzzy feeling because the thinking was clearly fuzzy…no one hardly whispered an objection. One reason is that they were primarily thinking of what is called the “charismatic” species, such as bald eagles, bears, wolves, etc.
Shannon Peterson noted that;
"Few
at the time opposed the ESA because no one anticipated how it might
interfere significantly with economic development or personal property
interests. …..The timber industry, other natural resource industries, and
private property groups declined to fight the law in 1973 because they failed to
see how it might affect them."
interfere significantly with economic development or personal property
interests. …..The timber industry, other natural resource industries, and
private property groups declined to fight the law in 1973 because they failed to
see how it might affect them."
That
lack of insight would come back to haunt every one of these groups, especially
the timber industry.
How did the concept of “species first and people last” come into being? The same way that the concept of “whatever the cost” came into being! The Supreme Court ruling on TVA vs. Hill. The TVA (which is owned by the Federal government) wanted to build a dam across the Little Tennessee River known as the Tellico Project, unfortunately half way through construction a previously unknown species of perch known as the snail darter was found….a lot of them….10 to 15 thousand of them. Is there only one kind of darter? No! There are a lot of darters. There are a lot of varieties of darters. This one happened to like eating snails. It was also inter-bredable with the other darters. It has been noted that the “snail darter may have been a distinct species, but it wasn’t unique and that new species of darter are discovered in Tennessee at a rate of 1 a year. All told, there are some 130 species of darters, 85 to 90 of which are found in Tennessee and 40 to 45 in the Tennessee River system with 11 in the Little Tennessee itself.”
In 1976 Secretary Andrus declared the area a “critical habitat”.
How did the concept of “species first and people last” come into being? The same way that the concept of “whatever the cost” came into being! The Supreme Court ruling on TVA vs. Hill. The TVA (which is owned by the Federal government) wanted to build a dam across the Little Tennessee River known as the Tellico Project, unfortunately half way through construction a previously unknown species of perch known as the snail darter was found….a lot of them….10 to 15 thousand of them. Is there only one kind of darter? No! There are a lot of darters. There are a lot of varieties of darters. This one happened to like eating snails. It was also inter-bredable with the other darters. It has been noted that the “snail darter may have been a distinct species, but it wasn’t unique and that new species of darter are discovered in Tennessee at a rate of 1 a year. All told, there are some 130 species of darters, 85 to 90 of which are found in Tennessee and 40 to 45 in the Tennessee River system with 11 in the Little Tennessee itself.”
In 1976 Secretary Andrus declared the area a “critical habitat”.
“Under
Section 7 of the ESA, “All Federal agencies must take such actions
as
is necessary to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them
do not result in the destruction or modification of this critical habitat area.”
is necessary to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them
do not result in the destruction or modification of this critical habitat area.”
This
brought construction to a halt. Eventually this made it to the Supreme Court and
the court ruled, to the great pleasure of the greenies and dismay of everyone
else that, “the plain intent of Congress in enacting [the ESA] was to halt and
reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.” Eventually
Congress exempted the Tellico Project from ESA and construction resumed and the
darter was successfully transplanted, at a cost of two million dollars. However,
the damage of this “whatever the cost” decision was to be a specter that would
haunt businesses, and property owners from that point on.
We have to understand the significance of all of this. Justice Powell, who dissented from the opinion stated;
We have to understand the significance of all of this. Justice Powell, who dissented from the opinion stated;
“the
act covers every animal and plant species, subspecies, and
population
in the world needing protection. There are approximately 1.4 million full
species of animals and 600,000 full species of plants in the world. Various
authorities calculate as many as 10 percent of them – some 2000,000 – may need
to be listed as endangered or threatened. When one counts in subspecies, not to
mention individual populations, the total could increase to three to five times
that number.”
in the world needing protection. There are approximately 1.4 million full
species of animals and 600,000 full species of plants in the world. Various
authorities calculate as many as 10 percent of them – some 2000,000 – may need
to be listed as endangered or threatened. When one counts in subspecies, not to
mention individual populations, the total could increase to three to five times
that number.”
This concept of what constitutes a species and “takes” will be discussed in future postings and we will see how these were utilized by federal agents and academics in future postings.
The information is based on and quoted from the book “Green Gone Wild” by M. David Stirling.
Saturday,
September 20, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
For all the years that I have been in pest control I have had to defend what we do, how we do it, and the products we use. Okay, so what? Am I any different than anyone else in pest control? If you had asked me that question 27 years ago I could have emphatically said NO! That was a time when we all came from the same paradigm! Do we today? Well now, that is a different story. Let's talk about that!
Ohio’s pest control industry has had the good fortune of always having had a few good leaders with a clear vision as to what the industry needs. Not just for what is good for them, or for merely what is good in the here and now, but a vision that goes beyond the horizon! The creation of what became the National Pest Management Association is one such example. Ohio’s pest controllers were among the first national leaders that formed what eventually became the National Pest Management Association. This is probably why Ohio pest controllers have been so involved over the years. They were there early and have remained involved through the generations ever since. Another reason is that Ohio pest controllers are passionate about our industry and the issues that face us. As new people came into the industry that passion became infectious to those who are now two, three and four generation pest controllers. People who weren’t around in the early days, but who were no less willing to reached out and carry the standard of their fallen comrades and predecessors.
In 1933 The Society of Exterminators and Fumigators of New York City elected Bill Buettner. They realized the need for a national association. In that same year The Associated Exterminators and Fumigators of the United States with executive offices in the Old Hollenden Hotel in Cleveland Ohio agreed to have a convention in Cleveland to make a very real attempt to form a national association. There clearly wasn’t room for two national associations and in October of that year the associated Ohio group endorsed the New York group and formed what eventually became the National Pest Control Association. Ohio and New York pest controllers brought this industry together because of the vision of a few good men. There is no doubt that Bill Buettner, the first president of the national association, cast a giant shadow, but that was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants who were willing to put the own interests aside for the good of an entire industry.
Both of the trade journals that service our industry are here in Cleveland. Pest Management Professional was first known as “The Exterminator’s Log”, and originally founded by one of the real leaders of the industry, Al Cossetta. Mr. Cossetta was born in 1896 in Naples, Italy. He was an immigrant whose impact on our industry is still felt today. Although he wasn’t an Ohioan, he inspired many in Ohio’s pest control industry. In order to fully appreciate what he accomplished you have to read his story. The Exterminators Log was later called “Pests and Their Control” and in 1949 the publication moved to Cleveland, Ohio. That magazine became best known as Pest Control magazine and is now called Pest Management Professional (PMP).
Pest Control Technology (PCT) however was an Ohio creation from day one. Now located in Cleveland, PCT was originally founded in Cincinnati, Ohio by the Scherzinger family and has always been called by that name.
Those in leadership positions in modern pest control have the good fortune of having had such men lead the way, and those currently in leadership roles are now standing on the shoulders of all of the giants who passed before. But are our leaders going to be casting a giant shadow that we can take shelter under, or is it a shadow that we must flee. Will that shadow cool and comfort us, or will that shadow bring dread and devastation?
Have we completely wandered into the fever swamps of “green” pest control? Just because it is the conventional wisdom doesn’t mean it is right! Conventional wisdom may be nothing more that the philosophical flavor of the day and may not last as long as the current ladies fashion. And worse yet, it may leave devastation in its wake. Conventional wisdom has yet to do what traditional wisdom has done, and that is having stood the test of time.
Those who are the strongest drivers of IPM or “green” pest control are anti-pesticide activists, government bureaucrats, along with universities and Ph.D’s, who are now bound at the hip with these people because of grant money. This drive for political correctness in pest control may be compared to a very similar situation. The current mortgage crisis! I know that may sound irrational, but let’s look at what really happened in order to see the similarities.
The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis!
In 1977 the media discovered the word “redlining” and they used it like a whip. Redlining was supposed to be a racist action by the banks who wanted to prevent poor people and minorities, primarily black, from owning houses. Sounds insane doesn’t it? It is! Especially when a study came out showing that there was no redlining, that in fact these people were denied these loans because they were bad credit risks.
Yet redlining is what they had everyone believing, so in 1977 Congress, under the Carter administration demanded that lending institutions pay attention to the “credit need” of the community and not on their ability to repay the loan and passing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Under this act the banks would be graded on how many of these bad loans they gave out. If they did business in this manner they received a high score. The score was directly proportionate to how easy it was to do a merger or an acquisition or even open a new branch and as I understand it…their ability to borrow money from the government. All of which the government controlled! Under this act if some community activists, like the group ACORN, didn’t like the way you did business could cause all sorts of problems.
For all the years that I have been in pest control I have had to defend what we do, how we do it, and the products we use. Okay, so what? Am I any different than anyone else in pest control? If you had asked me that question 27 years ago I could have emphatically said NO! That was a time when we all came from the same paradigm! Do we today? Well now, that is a different story. Let's talk about that!
Ohio’s pest control industry has had the good fortune of always having had a few good leaders with a clear vision as to what the industry needs. Not just for what is good for them, or for merely what is good in the here and now, but a vision that goes beyond the horizon! The creation of what became the National Pest Management Association is one such example. Ohio’s pest controllers were among the first national leaders that formed what eventually became the National Pest Management Association. This is probably why Ohio pest controllers have been so involved over the years. They were there early and have remained involved through the generations ever since. Another reason is that Ohio pest controllers are passionate about our industry and the issues that face us. As new people came into the industry that passion became infectious to those who are now two, three and four generation pest controllers. People who weren’t around in the early days, but who were no less willing to reached out and carry the standard of their fallen comrades and predecessors.
In 1933 The Society of Exterminators and Fumigators of New York City elected Bill Buettner. They realized the need for a national association. In that same year The Associated Exterminators and Fumigators of the United States with executive offices in the Old Hollenden Hotel in Cleveland Ohio agreed to have a convention in Cleveland to make a very real attempt to form a national association. There clearly wasn’t room for two national associations and in October of that year the associated Ohio group endorsed the New York group and formed what eventually became the National Pest Control Association. Ohio and New York pest controllers brought this industry together because of the vision of a few good men. There is no doubt that Bill Buettner, the first president of the national association, cast a giant shadow, but that was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants who were willing to put the own interests aside for the good of an entire industry.
Both of the trade journals that service our industry are here in Cleveland. Pest Management Professional was first known as “The Exterminator’s Log”, and originally founded by one of the real leaders of the industry, Al Cossetta. Mr. Cossetta was born in 1896 in Naples, Italy. He was an immigrant whose impact on our industry is still felt today. Although he wasn’t an Ohioan, he inspired many in Ohio’s pest control industry. In order to fully appreciate what he accomplished you have to read his story. The Exterminators Log was later called “Pests and Their Control” and in 1949 the publication moved to Cleveland, Ohio. That magazine became best known as Pest Control magazine and is now called Pest Management Professional (PMP).
Pest Control Technology (PCT) however was an Ohio creation from day one. Now located in Cleveland, PCT was originally founded in Cincinnati, Ohio by the Scherzinger family and has always been called by that name.
Those in leadership positions in modern pest control have the good fortune of having had such men lead the way, and those currently in leadership roles are now standing on the shoulders of all of the giants who passed before. But are our leaders going to be casting a giant shadow that we can take shelter under, or is it a shadow that we must flee. Will that shadow cool and comfort us, or will that shadow bring dread and devastation?
Have we completely wandered into the fever swamps of “green” pest control? Just because it is the conventional wisdom doesn’t mean it is right! Conventional wisdom may be nothing more that the philosophical flavor of the day and may not last as long as the current ladies fashion. And worse yet, it may leave devastation in its wake. Conventional wisdom has yet to do what traditional wisdom has done, and that is having stood the test of time.
Those who are the strongest drivers of IPM or “green” pest control are anti-pesticide activists, government bureaucrats, along with universities and Ph.D’s, who are now bound at the hip with these people because of grant money. This drive for political correctness in pest control may be compared to a very similar situation. The current mortgage crisis! I know that may sound irrational, but let’s look at what really happened in order to see the similarities.
The Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis!
In 1977 the media discovered the word “redlining” and they used it like a whip. Redlining was supposed to be a racist action by the banks who wanted to prevent poor people and minorities, primarily black, from owning houses. Sounds insane doesn’t it? It is! Especially when a study came out showing that there was no redlining, that in fact these people were denied these loans because they were bad credit risks.
Yet redlining is what they had everyone believing, so in 1977 Congress, under the Carter administration demanded that lending institutions pay attention to the “credit need” of the community and not on their ability to repay the loan and passing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Under this act the banks would be graded on how many of these bad loans they gave out. If they did business in this manner they received a high score. The score was directly proportionate to how easy it was to do a merger or an acquisition or even open a new branch and as I understand it…their ability to borrow money from the government. All of which the government controlled! Under this act if some community activists, like the group ACORN, didn’t like the way you did business could cause all sorts of problems.
Stan
J. Liebowitz, economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas writes;
"Home
mortgages have been a political piñata for many decades. Greedy lenders aren’t
the real reason for this mess. “In a nutshell, Liebowitz contends that the
federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard
to get minority homeownership up, that it undermined the country's financial
foundation to achieve its goal."
Everyone was happy; everyone basked in the blaze of self congratulations. All of these bad loans were now declared to be “innovation lending” and they were praised by the regulators, academics and activists and because so much pressure was put on the lending institutions in the 90’s by the Clinton administration homeownership among minorities surged. The media called this “one of the hidden success stories” of that administration. At one point the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston is supposed to have “produced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders were to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.”
It was a real catch-22. If they continued giving out these bad loans, they would go out of business. If they didn’t comply there were real financial penalties and if they raised interested rates they were accused of “predatory lending”.
Unfortunately this was undermining an entire economic system and the inevitable happened.
Everyone was happy; everyone basked in the blaze of self congratulations. All of these bad loans were now declared to be “innovation lending” and they were praised by the regulators, academics and activists and because so much pressure was put on the lending institutions in the 90’s by the Clinton administration homeownership among minorities surged. The media called this “one of the hidden success stories” of that administration. At one point the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston is supposed to have “produced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders were to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.”
It was a real catch-22. If they continued giving out these bad loans, they would go out of business. If they didn’t comply there were real financial penalties and if they raised interested rates they were accused of “predatory lending”.
Unfortunately this was undermining an entire economic system and the inevitable happened.
Jeff Jacoby notes; “Trapped
in a no-win situation entirely of the government's making, lenders could only
hope that home prices would continue to rise, staving off the inevitable
collapse. But once the housing bubble burst, there was no escape. Mortgage
lenders have been bankrupted, thousands of subprime homeowners have been
foreclosed on, and countless would-be borrowers can no longer get credit. The
financial fallout has hurt investors around the world. And all of it thanks to
the government, which was sure it understood the credit industry better than the
free market did, and confidently created the conditions that made disaster
unavoidable.”
The Sub-Prime Pest Control Crisis!
In 1972 the EPA was created as a result of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring with all of its flawed science, misrepresented information and predictions that proved ridiculous. Yet everyone believed then, and millions still believe the mother of junk science, and as a result regulators have imposed layer after layer of regulations, putting “community activists” in a position to cause untold trouble.
In pest control we are under attack from the “media” the “community activists”, the “academics” and the “regulators”. We are told we are treating people unfairly because what we are doing is causing terrible health problems in society and in nature, therefore we have to change. We are told that we much adopt IPM or green pest control. We are told that we will be rewarded for abandoning what has worked for what is politically correct. We are told we will be punished if we don’t. Does it sound familiar yet?
We are told that they know best. We have those who are basking in the radiance of self congratulations when they are praised and given awards from government agencies for adopting IPM or for abandoning traditional pest control methods. They call themselves “global problem solvers” and speak with an air of moral self righteousness. Unfortunately this is undermining one of the best public health service systems in the world.
At this point the similarities end. Why? Because the disaster that abandoning pesticides will undoubtedly cause hasn’t struck yet! We haven’t had our equivalent of a “housing bubble burst” yet. However, just as the pressures by government regulators mounted over time, demanding more and more irrational behavior from the lending institutions, the same thing is happening and will continue to happen in pest control. But if we continue with this sub-prime pest control mentality, which we have so cleverly masked by calling it IMP or green pest control, we can surely expect it.
Knowledgeable pest controllers have, with a great deal of work and dedication, traditionally stood against this foolishness with great success. However, in spite of the facts, in spite of the real science, they find themselves standing alone more and more, except for a handful of equally dedicated individuals around the country. It is unfortunate that we have so many in our own ranks who are adopting these philosophies. What happens when there are no more courageous pest controllers who are willing to reach out and grasp a falling standard out of a fallen comrade’s hand? Who will speak up then? More importantly, who will do the “bailing out” when our public health crisis occurs? I am no longer sure who will fix it. I used to think that we would, but I am no longer sure of that. We no longer think alike.
Monday,
September 22, 200
By
Rich Kozlovich
The environmentalist’s victory regarding DDT gave them unprecedented power and influence, but the decision in TVA v. Hill gave them regulatory authority. Never before have individuals outside of the government been able to “not only advance, but to enforce, wildlife preservation without restraint.”
Under the 5th amendment of the Constitution it is stated that; “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Except for one occasion (which was in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States where-in the court ruled that this ESA action was a “taking” under the 5th amendment and the government had to pay compensation if they wanted to proceed) no federal court or agency of the federal government has declared that the seizing of private property under ESA is for public use. Unfortunately only appellate decisions carry the weight of precedent.
In September, 2004 Hurricane Ivan struck the Florida Keys. Perdido Key was devastated. Government agents declared the area a critical habited for the Perdido Key beach mouse to all the vacant lots of the displaced people of the island. So did the government help these people to get their lives back in order? No! Government agents want the entire “key as habitat for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse regardless of whether it is actual habitat, potential habitat or even suitable habitat, simply because it is in the vicinity of designated habitat, in spite of the fact that 65% of the key was already designated a critical habitat. This prohibits safer road or building construction of any kind, including recovering their homes.
“Without conducting proper scientific or economic impact studies, USFW has imposed extremely high mitigation fees and time consuming permitting processes (minimum 18 months each) thus requiring private landowners to finance land acquisition and PKBM conservation projects totaling approximately $47 Million.”
What justifies this form of bureaucratic insanity? It is based on a myth. Those who promoted the ESA and those who continue to stand by this insane and corrupt act promote the idea that there “is the “balance of nature,” the idea that nature, undisturbed by man, is perfectly balanced, and operated in universal harmony, constancy, and stability.” And they promote the idea that America was a perfectly balanced environment until European settlers arrived.
“But something profoundly important happened among American ecologists during the decade of the 1950’s. With improved biological observations, more extensive experimentation, and more thorough data keeping and analyzes suggesting that nature was not so harmonious, constant, or stable, but rather dynamic, erratic, and volatile, ecologists started to challenge the popular, age-old belief in the balance-of-nature.”
“The lobby that crafted and influenced the passage of the ESA in1973 firmly believed in and sought to restore the continent’s balance of nature by first protecting, and the preserving, the species for the normal and necessary endeavors of man. “Biologists today understand,” says Randy Simmons, “that there is no balance of nature, there is no ecological stasis, there is only change. Therefore, the Endangered Species Act cannot restore a balance of nature by restoring species.” However, it can devastate people’s lives and livelihoods. Each week we will expand on this theme.
The information presented and quoted here is from the book Green Gone Wild, by M. David Stirling and the Perdido Property Rights, Inc. web site.
The environmentalist’s victory regarding DDT gave them unprecedented power and influence, but the decision in TVA v. Hill gave them regulatory authority. Never before have individuals outside of the government been able to “not only advance, but to enforce, wildlife preservation without restraint.”
Under the 5th amendment of the Constitution it is stated that; “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Except for one occasion (which was in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States where-in the court ruled that this ESA action was a “taking” under the 5th amendment and the government had to pay compensation if they wanted to proceed) no federal court or agency of the federal government has declared that the seizing of private property under ESA is for public use. Unfortunately only appellate decisions carry the weight of precedent.
In September, 2004 Hurricane Ivan struck the Florida Keys. Perdido Key was devastated. Government agents declared the area a critical habited for the Perdido Key beach mouse to all the vacant lots of the displaced people of the island. So did the government help these people to get their lives back in order? No! Government agents want the entire “key as habitat for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse regardless of whether it is actual habitat, potential habitat or even suitable habitat, simply because it is in the vicinity of designated habitat, in spite of the fact that 65% of the key was already designated a critical habitat. This prohibits safer road or building construction of any kind, including recovering their homes.
“Without conducting proper scientific or economic impact studies, USFW has imposed extremely high mitigation fees and time consuming permitting processes (minimum 18 months each) thus requiring private landowners to finance land acquisition and PKBM conservation projects totaling approximately $47 Million.”
What justifies this form of bureaucratic insanity? It is based on a myth. Those who promoted the ESA and those who continue to stand by this insane and corrupt act promote the idea that there “is the “balance of nature,” the idea that nature, undisturbed by man, is perfectly balanced, and operated in universal harmony, constancy, and stability.” And they promote the idea that America was a perfectly balanced environment until European settlers arrived.
“But something profoundly important happened among American ecologists during the decade of the 1950’s. With improved biological observations, more extensive experimentation, and more thorough data keeping and analyzes suggesting that nature was not so harmonious, constant, or stable, but rather dynamic, erratic, and volatile, ecologists started to challenge the popular, age-old belief in the balance-of-nature.”
“The lobby that crafted and influenced the passage of the ESA in1973 firmly believed in and sought to restore the continent’s balance of nature by first protecting, and the preserving, the species for the normal and necessary endeavors of man. “Biologists today understand,” says Randy Simmons, “that there is no balance of nature, there is no ecological stasis, there is only change. Therefore, the Endangered Species Act cannot restore a balance of nature by restoring species.” However, it can devastate people’s lives and livelihoods. Each week we will expand on this theme.
The information presented and quoted here is from the book Green Gone Wild, by M. David Stirling and the Perdido Property Rights, Inc. web site.
Saturday,
October 18, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
Property owners face a daunting task against government agents and activists if there should be some type of endangered species of plant or animal on their property. Robert J. Smith wrote that these agents “routinely prevent use of their lands or property, including such activities as harvesting trees, planting crops, grazing cattle, irrigating fields, clearing brush along fence lines, discing firebreaks around homes and barns, or building a home.“ Even Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Regional Director, Sam D. Hamilton recognizes that because of the ESA effect “The incentives are wrong here. If I have a rare metal n my property, its value goes up. But if a rare bird occupies the land, its value disappears.”
One such example of what is wrong with ESA is the property owned by Ben Cone, Jr. Cone owns several thousand acres of pine forest in Pender County, North Carolina. Like so many who own undeveloped lands he took pride in maintaining it. They enjoy the wildlife, the outdoor experience and many times they are the ones who create habitat for all sorts of wildlife.
For almost 10 years after inheriting this property “he planted special grasses for wild turkey, selectively logged 30-50 acres on a five years basis to create open areas for wildlife and conducted controlled burns to enhance foraging for quail and deer.” Red-cockaded woodpeckers had been on his land since the 1970’s, but since he wasn’t logging there at the time it was no big deal.
It soon became a big deal when he decided in 1991 that he would start logging his property. FWS informed him that twenty nine ….29….. red-cockaded woodpeckers in 12 colonies were living there and that was now their home. By the time they drew lines around each of these habitats they removed 1,560 acres from his control…this was now designated “critical habitat”. These 29 birds cost him 1,560 acres.
These birds spend their entire life within a few miles of the spot where they hatched and they are quite picky as to where they will live. They will only nest in the cavities of trees in mature pine forests between 60 and 70 years old, and he forest floor has to be open and free of hardwood trees or brush. It turns out that Mr. Cone actually helped to create a wonderful habitat for these birds with his responsible stewardship of the land and now he was going to be punished for it. If ever the phrase, “no good deed goes unpunished”, ever applied; it applied now.
There was only one solution….he immediately stopped his 75 to 80 rotation plan for his forests and started clear cutting on a 40 year rotation. If they needed trees that were at least 60 years old they were going to have to find someone else’s trees because no tree on any piece of land that he still controlled were ever going to live that long.
After he clear cut 700 acres the FWS realized how stupid their actions were and (get this) offered him a deal. If he stopped cutting for four years and paid….PAID….$45,000 dollars to create a habitat for these birds on government land they would return his land to him….and he took it. What is really sad is that everyone who is aware of what goes on with all of this ESA corruption views this as a good deal. He had to pay the government $45,000 and four years of production to take back what was already his.
There is another caveat regarding this bird’s preferred living conditions. They prefer long-leaf pines; hence, landowners take predictable actions to protect their land from the predation of government officials enforcing the ESA. They simply plant trees that aren’t attractive to endangered species.
The information cited here is based on the book, Green Gone Wild, by M. David Stirling
Property owners face a daunting task against government agents and activists if there should be some type of endangered species of plant or animal on their property. Robert J. Smith wrote that these agents “routinely prevent use of their lands or property, including such activities as harvesting trees, planting crops, grazing cattle, irrigating fields, clearing brush along fence lines, discing firebreaks around homes and barns, or building a home.“ Even Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Regional Director, Sam D. Hamilton recognizes that because of the ESA effect “The incentives are wrong here. If I have a rare metal n my property, its value goes up. But if a rare bird occupies the land, its value disappears.”
One such example of what is wrong with ESA is the property owned by Ben Cone, Jr. Cone owns several thousand acres of pine forest in Pender County, North Carolina. Like so many who own undeveloped lands he took pride in maintaining it. They enjoy the wildlife, the outdoor experience and many times they are the ones who create habitat for all sorts of wildlife.
For almost 10 years after inheriting this property “he planted special grasses for wild turkey, selectively logged 30-50 acres on a five years basis to create open areas for wildlife and conducted controlled burns to enhance foraging for quail and deer.” Red-cockaded woodpeckers had been on his land since the 1970’s, but since he wasn’t logging there at the time it was no big deal.
It soon became a big deal when he decided in 1991 that he would start logging his property. FWS informed him that twenty nine ….29….. red-cockaded woodpeckers in 12 colonies were living there and that was now their home. By the time they drew lines around each of these habitats they removed 1,560 acres from his control…this was now designated “critical habitat”. These 29 birds cost him 1,560 acres.
These birds spend their entire life within a few miles of the spot where they hatched and they are quite picky as to where they will live. They will only nest in the cavities of trees in mature pine forests between 60 and 70 years old, and he forest floor has to be open and free of hardwood trees or brush. It turns out that Mr. Cone actually helped to create a wonderful habitat for these birds with his responsible stewardship of the land and now he was going to be punished for it. If ever the phrase, “no good deed goes unpunished”, ever applied; it applied now.
There was only one solution….he immediately stopped his 75 to 80 rotation plan for his forests and started clear cutting on a 40 year rotation. If they needed trees that were at least 60 years old they were going to have to find someone else’s trees because no tree on any piece of land that he still controlled were ever going to live that long.
After he clear cut 700 acres the FWS realized how stupid their actions were and (get this) offered him a deal. If he stopped cutting for four years and paid….PAID….$45,000 dollars to create a habitat for these birds on government land they would return his land to him….and he took it. What is really sad is that everyone who is aware of what goes on with all of this ESA corruption views this as a good deal. He had to pay the government $45,000 and four years of production to take back what was already his.
There is another caveat regarding this bird’s preferred living conditions. They prefer long-leaf pines; hence, landowners take predictable actions to protect their land from the predation of government officials enforcing the ESA. They simply plant trees that aren’t attractive to endangered species.
The information cited here is based on the book, Green Gone Wild, by M. David Stirling
Monday,
September 22, 2008
By
Rich Kozlovich
The environmentalist’s victory regarding DDT gave them unprecedented power and influence, but the decision in TVA v. Hill gave them regulatory authority. Never before have individuals outside of the government been able to “not only advance, but to enforce, wildlife preservation without restraint.”
Under the 5th amendment of the Constitution it is stated that; “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Except for one occasion (which was in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States where-in the court ruled that this ESA action was a “taking” under the 5th amendment and the government had to pay compensation if they wanted to proceed) no federal court or agency of the federal government has declared that the seizing of private property under ESA is for public use. Unfortunately only appellate decisions carry the weight of precedent.
In September, 2004 Hurricane Ivan struck the Florida Keys. Perdido Key was devastated. Government agents declared the area a critical habited for the Perdido Key beach mouse to all the vacant lots of the displaced people of the island. So did the government help these people to get their lives back in order? No! Government agents want the entire “key as habitat for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse regardless of whether it is actual habitat, potential habitat or even suitable habitat, simply because it is in the vicinity of designated habitat, in spite of the fact that 65% of the key was already designated a critical habitat. This prohibits safer road or building construction of any kind, including recovering their homes.
“Without conducting proper scientific or economic impact studies, USFW has imposed extremely high mitigation fees and time consuming permitting processes (minimum 18 months each) thus requiring private landowners to finance land acquisition and PKBM conservation projects totaling approximately $47 Million.”
What justifies this form of bureaucratic insanity? It is based on a myth. Those who promoted the ESA and those who continue to stand by this insane and corrupt act promote the idea that there “is the “balance of nature,” the idea that nature, undisturbed by man, is perfectly balanced, and operated in universal harmony, constancy, and stability.” And they promote the idea that America was a perfectly balanced environment until European settlers arrived.
“But something profoundly important happened among American ecologists during the decade of the 1950’s. With improved biological observations, more extensive experimentation, and more thorough data keeping and analyzes suggesting that nature was not so harmonious, constant, or stable, but rather dynamic, erratic, and volatile, ecologists started to challenge the popular, age-old belief in the balance-of-nature.”
“The lobby that crafted and influenced the passage of the ESA in1973 firmly believed in and sought to restore the continent’s balance of nature by first protecting, and the preserving, the species for the normal and necessary endeavors of man. “Biologists today understand,” says Randy Simmons, “that there is no balance of nature, there is no ecological stasis, there is only change. Therefore, the Endangered Species Act cannot restore a balance of nature by restoring species.” However, it can devastate people’s lives and livelihoods. Each week we will expand on this theme.
The information presented and quoted here is from the book Green Gone Wild, by M. David Stirling and the Perdido Property Rights, Inc. web site.
The environmentalist’s victory regarding DDT gave them unprecedented power and influence, but the decision in TVA v. Hill gave them regulatory authority. Never before have individuals outside of the government been able to “not only advance, but to enforce, wildlife preservation without restraint.”
Under the 5th amendment of the Constitution it is stated that; “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Except for one occasion (which was in Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States where-in the court ruled that this ESA action was a “taking” under the 5th amendment and the government had to pay compensation if they wanted to proceed) no federal court or agency of the federal government has declared that the seizing of private property under ESA is for public use. Unfortunately only appellate decisions carry the weight of precedent.
In September, 2004 Hurricane Ivan struck the Florida Keys. Perdido Key was devastated. Government agents declared the area a critical habited for the Perdido Key beach mouse to all the vacant lots of the displaced people of the island. So did the government help these people to get their lives back in order? No! Government agents want the entire “key as habitat for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse regardless of whether it is actual habitat, potential habitat or even suitable habitat, simply because it is in the vicinity of designated habitat, in spite of the fact that 65% of the key was already designated a critical habitat. This prohibits safer road or building construction of any kind, including recovering their homes.
“Without conducting proper scientific or economic impact studies, USFW has imposed extremely high mitigation fees and time consuming permitting processes (minimum 18 months each) thus requiring private landowners to finance land acquisition and PKBM conservation projects totaling approximately $47 Million.”
What justifies this form of bureaucratic insanity? It is based on a myth. Those who promoted the ESA and those who continue to stand by this insane and corrupt act promote the idea that there “is the “balance of nature,” the idea that nature, undisturbed by man, is perfectly balanced, and operated in universal harmony, constancy, and stability.” And they promote the idea that America was a perfectly balanced environment until European settlers arrived.
“But something profoundly important happened among American ecologists during the decade of the 1950’s. With improved biological observations, more extensive experimentation, and more thorough data keeping and analyzes suggesting that nature was not so harmonious, constant, or stable, but rather dynamic, erratic, and volatile, ecologists started to challenge the popular, age-old belief in the balance-of-nature.”
“The lobby that crafted and influenced the passage of the ESA in1973 firmly believed in and sought to restore the continent’s balance of nature by first protecting, and the preserving, the species for the normal and necessary endeavors of man. “Biologists today understand,” says Randy Simmons, “that there is no balance of nature, there is no ecological stasis, there is only change. Therefore, the Endangered Species Act cannot restore a balance of nature by restoring species.” However, it can devastate people’s lives and livelihoods. Each week we will expand on this theme.
The information presented and quoted here is from the book Green Gone Wild, by M. David Stirling and the Perdido Property Rights, Inc. web site.
No comments:
Post a Comment