Environmentalists: How Far is Too Far?

[PLAYER57832]

Any instance of planning without prices.

Fine, but understand that the real price of the evironment is endless...

And ANY price for human profit is necessarily temporary. Except.. you neatly avoid that very real issue and pretend that Earth consequences can be limited to the visions of corporate balance sheets.

Ah, because a price system is limited to "corporate balance sheets." Nice straw man!

D+

No, but a lot of what passes off as "economic analysis" and "economic theory" really IS just maximizing corporate profit, not a true overall analysis.

And yes.. .the analysis ARE very often limited to the direct profits from one company as opposed to essentially immediate and direct other benefits. The "other" is very often only poorly defined and not fully quantified.

For example, my desire to not smell sulphure fumes is quantified as a reduction in my property value, direct and provable health costs and other readily accessible data. This is contrasted with the tangible profits generated by a specific industry, the jobs and so forth and so on...

A more true analysis would not weigh the monetary profits as necessarily above my personal desire to just live and breath in my own home, wth my kids. Yet, money is given the only priority and everything is reduced to a simplistic view of value.

Worse, that value is heavily slanted so that the profits of the company being proposed are considered fairly fully, but overall health impacts are largely dismissed as "not proven" or "not understood". Even if you expand it into impacts to other industry, such as tourism, hunting and so forth.. those impacts are only barely quantified and the quantification will go for maybe 5-10 years, not the 100- years that these things can persist for if not altered by industry.

[PLAYER57832]

I have to agree that economists are not entirely concerned with long term affects of decisions. They tend to have the mentality of "we'll figure that out later" in relation to the long term affects of short term decisions as though technology or superior minds will solve the sticky problems uncovered when nature is exploited/undermined for the sake of economy. I feel a good example is nuclear power being explored as opposed to much safer but potentially less productive methods in the short term.

Not just "we'll figure it out later", but more often "it doesn't matter.. its all fiction".

In fact, a lot of the anti science movement is very much directed at convincing people that most of environmental science, a lot of biology is just garbage and "not real science".

[PLAYER57832]

5. Finally, why are cows not extinct?

This is an asinine question unless you are expecting me to write an entire essay on the various events in the history of that species. ).

No, the answer is very, very simple.

Cows are not extinct because people have found a need for cows.

The trouble with expanding this to the greater environment, though, is multiple.
1. There just is not time to wait for people to decide what species really are valuable. By the time we find out, they will be gone.. unless humans actively work to preserve them in the absence of such proof of need.

2. Humans are notoriously horrible at deciding value. Many of the worse ecological disasters were brought on by people making what they thought were intelligent decisions -- things like importing white bass and suckers (fish), water hyacinth, etc.

3. Values of any enterprise tend to start out low and then grow. How many people would have plopped down a million for facebook in its first day? When the weight of proof is profit, then species and the environment necessarily fall back because most of their value is yet to be seen.

There are some other issues, but those are some of the biggest.

[HardAttack]

.....

The Earth could care less about profit. Our great grandkids are going to have to deal with our messes, but won't any longer be getting any benefit from the errors. MY kids, right now, cannot eat the fish in our nearby streams, becuase of decisions made for profits that lasted a couple of decades. ...

Well,
what about this,
dont you think, MAYBE those decisions made for profits had given life and better conditions to your elders, grandfathers, or fathers to provide their sons (it is you in this example)...In other words, if your kids now can not eat fish but maybe you wudnt have had kids unless these decisions made for profits wudnt been taken...

[PLAYER57832]

.....

The Earth could care less about profit. Our great grandkids are going to have to deal with our messes, but won't any longer be getting any benefit from the errors. MY kids, right now, cannot eat the fish in our nearby streams, becuase of decisions made for profits that lasted a couple of decades. ...

Well,
what about this,
dont you think, MAYBE those decisions made for profits had given life and better conditions to your elders, grandfathers, or fathers to provide their sons (it is you in this example)...In other words, if your kids now can not eat fish but maybe you wudnt have had kids unless these decisions made for profits wudnt been taken...

In some cases, but that is really the wrong question. The REAL question is if they could have gained those values without also destroying. The problem is that even this thinking its "either or" is just wrong. Its essentially "cheating".. taking the easiest answer instead of looking further to find real solutions that help all. \

Also, we are no longer at the point where we even have that luxury. We are, quite literally at or perhaps even past the point where any additional damage is increasing a downward spiral. (in some cases definitely past.. it is unlikely that Polar bears will survive in the wild, for example)

A factory that poisoned a relatively small stream by my house is perhaps not that big a deal in the scheme of things, even if it does flow into the Allgheny and eventually into the ocean. HOWEVER, when you consider that even in 1989, not one single stream was unimpacted, that every single one had endangered and threatened species and conditions... then you begin to see why it matters now far more than it did then.

In the past, people could say the truly did not know. Now, we know.. but many choose to remain ignorant.

John Mackey did an interview recently where he talked about this to a point. Of course, what made the news most was his comment that Obama's reforms are "facism" -- pretty much does like a lot of powerful people and assumes that his expertise and success in one area mean his opinions in other areas are equally important, but anyway.. he talks about the "win-win" versus the "win or lose". he doesn't, himself have the biological knowledge. However, he has been willing to pay attention to groups that do, such as the Monterey Institute (when it comes to sea food sales). (sadly, he has not done that in regards to healthcare.. but that is a whole other topic, literally).

[DoomYoshi]

I'd say 10 km is too far, unless you have a car.

[Funkyterrance]

I'd say 10 km is too far, unless you have a car.

Wuss.

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, I've got another example of "going too far" in my book:

I know a person who owns a farm and from time to time needs to build structures for his animals. He built a long building in the middle of a field(within building code) as a shelter from rain/sun when the animals were in this particular field as there were no trees in the pasture. Someone called the state on him complaining that the shelter was infringing on wetlands. Now this guy, who has already bought, built and planted this structure in the middle of his field has to have the state come to his land to "investigate". The field is actually in a valley with a brook running through it which is why he is assuming someone reported him.
This field has been farmed/grazed for literally centuries and there is an ancient stone wall running through the middle of it(who puts a stone wall through wetlands???) So we are talking about a piece of land that has been used "unnaturally" for hundreds of years and now because one nosey person from new york city calls the state this guy has to put up with needless phone calls, letters and officials. There is no way this field is going to be deemed wetlands, it's full of timothy grass ffs. To me this is just a case of plain old meddling and a waste of everyone's time.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. economists? What about entrepreneurs (they're usually the ones making these decisions)?

What is different about entrepreneurs? They use the same method of analysis, they just make different decisions. You can make some sort of risk-assessed investment into future profits while still recognizing that money in the short term is more useful than money in the long term (because money in the short term can be invested at ever-higher returns of interest). And this is what people do.

The entrepreneur is 'the guy that does stuff', and the theoretical economist is 'the guy who explains what and why the entrepreneur is doing'. The 'practical' economist does the field work (writing economic impact reports, conducting financial analysis, etc.), and these two kinds of economists can be entrepreneurs--but it depends on the context.

Entrepreneurs are involved in decisions for markets--as well as in politics, bureaucracy, and within the nature movement itself. Basically, an entrepreneur is one who detects profitable opportunities, and arguably also invests the resources in order to realize the profit. Profit can be reflected in values such as cash money and also as more dubious values like political clout and warm and fuzzy feelings.

Therefore, the following sentence doesn't make any sense: "Because economists always heavily discount the future."

2. How do you know that economists and/or entrepreneurs "always heavily discount the future"?

Because they would be stupid not to, if they intend to make the best self-interested decisions. As long as there are non-zero interest rates on investments, it will always make sense from an individual point of view to discount the future commensurate with interest rates. What is needed in this case is a global analysis of the importance of nature preserves to the human species, which is too large of a project for any one entrepreneuer to tackle even if they were somehow not motivated by a profit margin.

You're still not explaining the "always heavily discount" part. Interest rates vary in the actual world, yet inexplicably you're claiming that economists and/or entrepreneurs "always heavily discount the future." Doesn't make sense. It's like you're claiming godlike knowledge of optimal interest rates--and somehow the government can properly reflect it. Whoa, who's leading your people? A man in robes sporting a long beard?

3. How does the "standard economic analysis" fail to 'impose higher interest rates on the present discounted value of longer term investments'? (which economic analysis? What theory? Are you making stuff up?)

Nothing I am saying is necessarily true about the idea of discounting in principle, it only suggests that the typical ways in which economists and businesses engage in discounting make it nigh on impossible for them to recognize the future value of conservation as even worth a second glance (in particular, the discount rate, being typically thought of in terms of standard interest rates, is far too high).

I figured you'd have nothing to show for your making stuff up. Al Gore makes a similar argument to yours too, yet he doesn't cite from where he's reading this
(in other words, he's making it up--like you.)

Here's a business which allegedly cannot do what you've been claiming:

http://www.nature.org/

Oh, and hunting clubs too, and there's many more, but it is somehow "impossible for them to recognize the future value of conservation," yet they exist.

Your position is unsound.

4. For example, forests v. power plant. Lemme ask you something. Are such decisions made on the margin, or is it always "1 forest minus 1 power plant, or 1 power plant minus 1 forest"?

The essential problem here is precisely that decisions are made on the margin. As a result, the thinking will always be "is it worth it to level this forest," and, in particular, it will never take into account the value of that forest with respect to the global issue of conservation. As long as there are plenty of other forests out there, people will have no motivation to save any given forest, and by the time so many forests have been taken down (as they are missing the forest for the... forest) as to make conservation suddenly important to the majority of people, it will be too late.

Sigh, read this.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marginalism.html

And the underlined is false (see above). To nuance your position, you're assuming that the perceived profit of preservation and/or using forests for long-term production of lumber, campgrounds, fishing, fisheries, etc. does not exist or is insufficient, yet the above examples clearly show otherwise.

5. Finally, why are cows not extinct?

This is an asinine question unless you are expecting me to write an entire essay on the various events in the history of that species. Nevertheless, it is also one I am not particularly concerned about in relation to this thread. My point above was not about protecting species per se; if the salamanders are simply not cut out for survival in that area, they will die off. There is not necessarily any harm in that; extinction is part of life. The problematic thing is when humans start taking it into their own hands to decide which species we should save or destroy. (Obviously things become different if the species in question are becoming extinct precisely because of our industrialization, e.g. dolphins, but that's not what we're talking about here).

They aren't extinct because the benefits of private property rights are allowed to be realized. People ruin resources when faced with the "tragedy of the commons" scenario--which is primarily caused by the absence of private property rights. If you care about this stuff, then read Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons, chapters 1-3, and 6. That's about 100 pages, takes about 2-3 hours, etc.


"The problematic thing is when humans start taking it into their own hands to decide which species we should save or destroy."

Ah, so you are opposed to the Park Rangers' decision to block off those areas for the salamanders, and you're against the government's nationalization of parks.
(your position cuts both ways.)


Basically, your contention here makes no sense, and to put it bluntly you don't know what you're talking about. Imagine an astrologer bursting into your Astrophysics class and making up all kinds of crap about the causal link between our futures and specific stellar constellations, which supports his conclusion that astrophysics is wrong.

If you're going to criticize something, at least be conversant with the literature; otherwise, you look like that astrologer.


Here's a reading list:

Living Economics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Free Market Environmentalism
Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation. A great compilation.


If anything, you'd be able to develop better arguments which favor your position, but at least you'd become more aware of the pitfalls of government while developing a more informed appreciation for markets. Finally, to paraphrase Haggis' post to the creationist: it is okay to say, "I don't know."

[BigBallinStalin]

I have to agree that economists are not entirely concerned with long term affects of decisions. They tend to have the mentality of "we'll figure that out later" in relation to the long term affects of short term decisions as though technology or superior minds will solve the sticky problems uncovered when nature is exploited/undermined for the sake of economy. I feel a good example is nuclear power being explored as opposed to much safer but potentially less productive methods in the short term.

Some are, some aren't. It depends on the context of the subject matter.

Also, there's a large group of economists, paid by the government, which do fit into your category, but if we admit this, then we should be fair to criticize the politicians--who of course are entirely concerned with the long term affects of their decisions.

[Haggis_McMutton]

This future discounting stuff is an interesting subject. It might merit a thread in itself.

Let's take something like the Ford Pinto scandal(short version supposedly a decision was made to not recall a defective car line because a cost analysis showed that it would be cheaper to pay the lawsuits than to do the recall). Let's pretend this actually happened.

Now, in that scenario what non-monetary cost did they fail to incorporate in their analysis? One option seems to be the moral cost that the people involved might have to pay, but Ford was a Nazi so lets say that is 0. The other option I see is PR cost. They failed to consider what would happen if it got out that their cars exploded and especially if it got out that they decided to leave the exploding cars in use. Incorporating this cost pushes the analysis towards recall.

It seems to me that the same thing can apply to many other areas, however the caveat here seems to be that the customers / voters / public must have:
1. a reasonable chance of getting access to said information
2. a reasonable chance of caring about said information and
3. a reasonable chance of being able to inflict a cost upon those who took the decision

If we take the government out of the picture, is the above the main method through which the incentives would be jiggled towards more or less environmentally friendly decisions ? Or am I rambling incoherently again ?

[Metsfanmax]

I knew that responding to BBS again was a bad idea. Apparently he is an expert on conservation issues too, whereas I know nothing since I only have a degree in astrophysics. Looks like I should have got my degree in economics. Would have made me a genius.

Will respond tomorrow when I have some more time.

[BigBallinStalin]

I knew that responding to BBS again was a bad idea. Apparently he is an expert on conservation issues too, whereas I know nothing since I only have a degree in astrophysics. Looks like I should have got my degree in economics. Would have made me a genius.

Will respond tomorrow when I have some more time.

Haha, it's not like you need a degree in economics to discuss economics, but if you're going to criticize something, then at least be knowledgeable of the subject matter. You presented an obviously false position, and you're upset, so here's to your straw man fallacy.

[Metsfanmax]

I knew that responding to BBS again was a bad idea. Apparently he is an expert on conservation issues too, whereas I know nothing since I only have a degree in astrophysics. Looks like I should have got my degree in economics. Would have made me a genius.

Will respond tomorrow when I have some more time.

Haha, it's not like you need a degree in economics to discuss economics, but if you're going to criticize something, then at least be knowledgeable of the subject matter. You presented an obviously false position, and you're upset, so here's to your straw man fallacy.

Ok fine I won't respond then, it's just as well for me

[BigBallinStalin]

This future discounting stuff is an interesting subject. It might merit a thread in itself.

Let's take something like the Ford Pinto scandal(short version supposedly a decision was made to not recall a defective car line because a cost analysis showed that it would be cheaper to pay the lawsuits than to do the recall). Let's pretend this actually happened.

Now, in that scenario what non-monetary cost did they fail to incorporate in their analysis? One option seems to be the moral cost that the people involved might have to pay, but Ford was a Nazi so lets say that is 0. The other option I see is PR cost. They failed to consider what would happen if it got out that their cars exploded and especially if it got out that they decided to leave the exploding cars in use. Incorporating this cost pushes the analysis towards recall.

It seems to me that the same thing can apply to many other areas, however the caveat here seems to be that the customers / voters / public must have:
1. a reasonable chance of getting access to said information
2. a reasonable chance of caring about said information and
3. a reasonable chance of being able to inflict a cost upon those who took the decision

If we take the government out of the picture, is the above the main method through which the incentives would be jiggled towards more or less environmentally friendly decisions ? Or am I rambling incoherently again ?

The "main method" is one of profit and loss incentives with prices and property rights (I kept it real short on Law and somewhat on prices). Within the ecosystem of markets, humanity can develop better means for serving one another--on a voluntary basis while being in tune to consumer preferences. Those who fail to do so are punished monetarily and possibly psychologically--however that may be for each person. At the very least, the market is more efficient in innovating and adapting, but with government intervention, they can kick out those incentives (marginally) by getting import quotas, subsidies, favorable regulations for themselves, impose higher start-up costs on others, etc. Marginally, because it's not like the company can 100% ignore profit derived from voluntary exchange.


Ford Pinto
The optimal incentive structure would be one where people pursuing their self-interest create outcomes which promote the general interest. The optimal death rate is not zero (otherwise the price of everything would be ridiculously high, people's standards of living would decrease, etc.), but with Ford's Pinto at the time of sale certain risks should have been mentioned. It's generally implied that when we buy something, we assume it to be reasonably safe--and if there's a problem that is dangerous, it should be made clear beforehand. (Perhaps, the demand for arguing about implied consent is the cause of lawyers.)

As mentioned, Ford Pinto grossly underestimated the future costs of that debacle. Over time, what happened? Did Ford keep making Pintos? We can imagine a later scenario where the price of lawsuits would be perceived as less than the recall, but has Ford committed the same mistake twice?

The legal system punished Ford for its recklessness, and the consumers--having realized what has been done--reacted appropriately. This hurt Ford's profits, and because Ford is in a competitive business, it responds to profit and loss incentives. Apparently, since then, it seems that Ford is producing appropriate vehicles--except of course government intervention through bailouts, import quotas on foreign competition's cars, and numerous clauses in "Free Trade" Agreements marginally diminish Ford's sensitivity to consumer demand. It's difficult to say how much government interference through these means contribute to Ford's reduced sensitivity to consumer demand.


(And to correct for confirmation bias, let's incorporate the production lines of all other cars within the US. Has it been nothing but Pintos? Has it been 0.001% Pinto but the rest non-Pinto?). What explains this? One group will shout "REGULATION" while I'll talk about profit and loss incentives, prices, property rights, etc. to provide a fuller and more accurate description.


Is your description the main method?
There is no particular method as you've described since profit and opportunity cost are subjective (as are interest rates and time preferences, much to Mets' chagrin). Nevertheless, the market is an ecosystem. It evolves and adapts. Numerous methods are tried, some are selected and others are discarded. For example, some companies realize that being more "socially responsible" yields greater profits, for others it isn't the case. And underlying these profit and loss incentives is always the government--which rewards as well as punishes both 'good' behavior and 'bad' behavior. The government distorts prices and those incentives with arbitrary punishment, unfair subsidies/support, lawsuit caps (BP Oil Spill), forcing people to use Federal Reserve Notes (US dollars), etc., and this is something very few people realize. They have an anti-market bias and an odd, almost mystical, view of government.

How quick and capable of innovating are government organizations--compared to organizations on the market? The 'method' of the threat of bankruptcy and diminished profits force companies to maintain supply alongside consumer preferences. This is profit and loss incentives at work. Government organizations operate within bureaucratic and political incentives (inflating the budget--regardless of consumer/citizen preferences, doing a crap job (like the DMV), pandering to votes using rhetoric and lies, etc.).

But I'm getting more off-topic. Haggis, if people want to voluntarily exchange some portion of their earnings for campgrounds and outdoor activities, then producers would become cognizant of this profit opportunity (this is entrepreneurship). If turning a forest into long-term lumber is more valuable than turning it into a campground, then it'll be used for lumber because people place more value the goods which involved lumber within the production process. They opt for more houses made of wood or for furniture. But as Mets fails to realize, resources are allocated on the margin. It may be the case that having a forest of which 30% is for lumber and 70% is for recreational activities may be the profit-maximizing choice. For buyers, perhaps 10% is dedicated recreational activities, 30% for the house, whatever.


How do we know what's best for society?
It depends on consumer preferences and voluntary exchange, thus requiring people to convince others that X is better than Y (marketing--as on TV and even on here). The immoral method of doing this is to have the federal government take people's money, nationalize forests which become 'common' property (or no one's property), impose dumb bureaucracies, and be cheered on by the uninformed voters. People who subscribe to the later philosophy believe that they know what is best for everyone--they presume this knowledge. They're paternalists who assume that those in government are willing and are capable of knowing and then carrying out the goals of "the people." It's a faith-based system, which has expanded the State, contributed to these worldwide wars and counterinsurgencies that the US is involved in, reinforced predatory governments, perpetuated poverty through subsidies, curbed our ability to coexist voluntarily, etc.

Government is a package deal, and self-interested groups like environmentalists only want their piece of the pie. In seeking that small piece of the pie, they contribute to "Leviathan," which we use such political clout to expand into other endeavors--beyond the preferences of the environmentalists. They fail to factor in their social costs of contributing to an organization which is fueled by involuntary exchange, impervious to bankruptcy, can largely ignore the uninformed voters' preferences, colludes with select businesses, etc.

At least Ford learned from its mistakes (but it does get bailed out, doesn't it?). With government, it's a journey in the dark because without prices, it can't have rational planning. It loses the profit and loss incentives because it steals the money--instead of trading for it based on the value of the goods offered. The government loses an objective criterion for measuring performance (monetary profit), thus it loses the ability to know how well it is satisfying consumers.

[thegreekdog]

This future discounting stuff is an interesting subject. It might merit a thread in itself.

Let's take something like the Ford Pinto scandal(short version supposedly a decision was made to not recall a defective car line because a cost analysis showed that it would be cheaper to pay the lawsuits than to do the recall). Let's pretend this actually happened.

Now, in that scenario what non-monetary cost did they fail to incorporate in their analysis? One option seems to be the moral cost that the people involved might have to pay, but Ford was a Nazi so lets say that is 0. The other option I see is PR cost. They failed to consider what would happen if it got out that their cars exploded and especially if it got out that they decided to leave the exploding cars in use. Incorporating this cost pushes the analysis towards recall.

It seems to me that the same thing can apply to many other areas, however the caveat here seems to be that the customers / voters / public must have:
1. a reasonable chance of getting access to said information
2. a reasonable chance of caring about said information and
3. a reasonable chance of being able to inflict a cost upon those who took the decision

If we take the government out of the picture, is the above the main method through which the incentives would be jiggled towards more or less environmentally friendly decisions ? Or am I rambling incoherently again ?

Yes.

[thegreekdog]

Whoops... didn't read BBS's post.

Still... yes.

Also, Ford is a great example. What would have happened to Ford, and its environmental impact, if it had gone bankrupt and closed its doors?

[Symmetry]

Thought this story might fit in well here:

Animal rights protesters branding each other

Animal-rights protesters have long been masters at courting both attention and controversy in their quest to put an end to what they perceive as cruel farming practices.

Becky Folkard, a 34-year-old vegan from Hampshire, is promising to perform the latest form of protest today at a staged event in London where she will "hot brand" three fellow protestors to highlight the pain inflicted on dairy cattle when they are branded.

Folkard will burn the number "269" on the bare chests of three volunteers – two anonymous women and a 24-year-old protestor called Ben Hannah – using a red-hot branding iron. This form of action originated in Israel last year when protesters released a video of volunteers being branded with the number 269 – in tribute to a calf they encountered on a farm. The idea has now spread virally across the world culminating in a global "We All Are 269" day, with events planned in cities including Melbourne, Frankfurt, Lima and Washington DC.

Worth reading the whole article. It'd be a shame to spoil the end.

[spurgistan]

Thought this story might fit in well here:

Animal rights protesters branding each other

Animal-rights protesters have long been masters at courting both attention and controversy in their quest to put an end to what they perceive as cruel farming practices.

Becky Folkard, a 34-year-old vegan from Hampshire, is promising to perform the latest form of protest today at a staged event in London where she will "hot brand" three fellow protestors to highlight the pain inflicted on dairy cattle when they are branded.

Folkard will burn the number "269" on the bare chests of three volunteers – two anonymous women and a 24-year-old protestor called Ben Hannah – using a red-hot branding iron. This form of action originated in Israel last year when protesters released a video of volunteers being branded with the number 269 – in tribute to a calf they encountered on a farm. The idea has now spread virally across the world culminating in a global "We All Are 269" day, with events planned in cities including Melbourne, Frankfurt, Lima and Washington DC.

Worth reading the whole article. It'd be a shame to spoil the end.

Spoiler.

show

[Metsfanmax]

Thought this story might fit in well here:

Animal rights protesters branding each other

Animal-rights protesters have long been masters at courting both attention and controversy in their quest to put an end to what they perceive as cruel farming practices.

Becky Folkard, a 34-year-old vegan from Hampshire, is promising to perform the latest form of protest today at a staged event in London where she will "hot brand" three fellow protestors to highlight the pain inflicted on dairy cattle when they are branded.

Folkard will burn the number "269" on the bare chests of three volunteers – two anonymous women and a 24-year-old protestor called Ben Hannah – using a red-hot branding iron. This form of action originated in Israel last year when protesters released a video of volunteers being branded with the number 269 – in tribute to a calf they encountered on a farm. The idea has now spread virally across the world culminating in a global "We All Are 269" day, with events planned in cities including Melbourne, Frankfurt, Lima and Washington DC.

Worth reading the whole article. It'd be a shame to spoil the end.

Spoiler.

show

Actually, this sort of thing does still happen in the United States. Consider the Beef 2007-08 Study by the USDA, which estimates that 20.5% of beef cows are hot branded and only 4% are freeze branded. These are of similar size to the same study done in 1997, suggesting that hot branding is not actually decreasing in prevalence. The USDA estimates that there are over 30 million beef cows in the United States, which means that this estimate implies that more beef cows have been hot branded than there are people in the state of Maryland. We would do well to follow the lead of other countries and outlaw hot branding practices, given that the less painful freeze branding and electronic tagging systems do actually exist now.

[Gillipig]

I live directly next door to a state forest which is about 2000 acres large. The forest is meant to be a place where people who don't own their own land can enjoy nature as well as a place where animals and plants alike can remain unmolested for the most part.
However...
Every spring through fall they put up stakes with fluorescent surveyours tape and little signs that read "CAUTION! SALAMANDER BREEDING POOLS!" around the large puddles that form on the main roadway that runs through the middle of the forest. Now I can see putting these signs up if these little creatures were endangered or something but they aren't. They are the same salamanders that I see by the thousand on my property in any given day during the warmer months. They are literally so abundant in the area that I don't think you could wipe them out if you tried. Now I do not disturb these puddles as I don't have anything against the little guys but it makes me wonder about the person who made the decision to buy all those stakes, laminate all the little signs, etc.. I think that person has gone too far.

So what's your personal experience that has given you an example of "too far" in regard to environmental concern?

I don't see how that is "going to far", he's not hurting or insulting anyone by putting up those signs. One can make the argument that he's wasting his time and should spend it helping protect other animals that actually are endangered, but that's quite different from saying he's going to far.

[PLAYER57832]

I live directly next door to a state forest which is about 2000 acres large. The forest is meant to be a place where people who don't own their own land can enjoy nature as well as a place where animals and plants alike can remain unmolested for the most part.
However...
Every spring through fall they put up stakes with fluorescent surveyours tape and little signs that read "CAUTION! SALAMANDER BREEDING POOLS!" around the large puddles that form on the main roadway that runs through the middle of the forest. Now I can see putting these signs up if these little creatures were endangered or something but they aren't. They are the same salamanders that I see by the thousand on my property in any given day during the warmer months. They are literally so abundant in the area that I don't think you could wipe them out if you tried. Now I do not disturb these puddles as I don't have anything against the little guys but it makes me wonder about the person who made the decision to buy all those stakes, laminate all the little signs, etc.. I think that person has gone too far.

So what's your personal experience that has given you an example of "too far" in regard to environmental concern?

I don't see how that is "going to far", he's not hurting or insulting anyone by putting up those signs. One can make the argument that he's wasting his time and should spend it helping protect other animals that actually are endangered, but that's quite different from saying he's going to far.

Missread this the first time.

Frist, are you positive that these salamanders aren't endangered or threatened? They might be prominent near you, but not overall. They might be "listed'. Or, maybe they are not listed, but they should be/will be. There is a long process needed to prove a species is endangered.

Beyond that possibility, this is just some guy who like salamanders? Well... everyone is entitled to their opinion. A lot of corporations are able to put up signs telling you their product {will make your life better]... and no one complains about that. Why is this a problem? I thought you were talking about something official.