Need help to a question?

[Billy Baro7]

A friend of mine would like to know where Ron Paul stands on Wildlife and the Ecological system. My friend is a hugh Wildlife supporter and I can not find anything!

Other than the FOX Spin on Shrimping does anyone have information or links on these issues.

Trying to convince him to take the 3 hour drive down to Springfield today!

Thanks for your help!

Billy

[austinphish]

It ain't pretty. There are threads on this which address it a nice light, but don't look for any video of Ron Paul saying anything great about the environment.

Sorry.

[Billy Baro7]

Thank You for your help!

Billy

[ctb619]

I believe that Ron Paul has great respect for the environment and for conservation of wildlife and our ecosystem. The difference is that he disagrees with those who feel that federal government regulation is the answer to preserving these things. I can't get into specifics, because frankly I haven't looked into it, but I would imagine that Ron Paul's take on these issues stems from his philosophy on private property. Private property owners cannot infringe on the rights of their neighbors, therefore there are legal limits placed on what they can and cannot do in regard to their impact on wildlife and the ecosystem.

[Kuldebar]

It ain't pretty. There are threads on this which address it a nice light, but don't look for any video of Ron Paul saying anything great about the environment.

Sorry.

I think Paul makes some very clear and strong statements in the Google Visit Interview. Let's not confuse "pretty" with what some people think as government only solutions for protecting the environment. And, then there is his record:



Ron Paul believes that polluters are aggressors, and should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. In a radio interview with Dennis Miller, Paul cited the failure of environmental protection under collectivistic countries that do not respect private property, and the effect of private ownership:

" . . . the environment is better protected under private property rights . . . We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property...Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us . . . We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method."

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the state(s) or region(s) concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."

In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, he co-sponsored a bill preventing the US from funding nuclear power plants in China. He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner. Rather than bureaucrats in Washington giving subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, he believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end. He also sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers. Paul believes that nuclear energy is an alternative that should be considered, because it is a clean and efficient fuel and could help with powering efficient electric cars.

Paul believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow hemp production and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue. Hemp can be used in producing sustainable biofuels. This would help North Dakota in particular; the state has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.

Rep. Paul voted against bills in both 2004 and 2005 that would shield a Saudi Arabian royal family-owned group from liability for a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into the groundwater in New England. A Saudi-owned lobbying group spent more than $1.5 million lobbying Congress since 1998 to limit their liability for the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), for which cleanup costs in New England would be billions. The bill included $1.8 billion for federally-funded cleanup of New England municipalities and another $2 billion to give to companies to help them phase out the additive. The provision was inserted into President Bush's energy bill of January 2004 by Majority Leader Tom Delay; the bill also included federal subsidies for oil, coal and gas. The Saudi company said that they should not be liable because they had been required to use an additive and it was more expensive to use the other possible additive, ethanol, in New England. Taxpayers for Common Sense said the measure was a "gift horse" for the Saudi-owned company and would subsidize foreign oil regimes in a bill meant to reduce dependence on foreign oil

[noxagol]

Yeah, its a property rights issue for him. So however that works on wildlife.

The environment is probably his weakest area in my opinion, but that is mostly a non-issue when compared to things like the economy or the war or our freedoms and rights. We need to reverse those first then worry about the environment. Plus, environmentalists blow everything out of proportion. Yes it is being hurt, but no where near what they say.

[recess]

I really don't understand why there is complete blackout on this issue. Especially since it seems to be a fairly important subject to younger people. which the campaign is trying to court.

[Kuldebar]

Yeah, its a property rights issue for him. So however that works on wildlife.

The environment is probably his weakest area in my opinion, but that is mostly a non-issue when compared to things like the economy or the war or our freedoms and rights. We need to reverse those first then worry about the environment. Plus, environmentalists blow everything out of proportion. Yes it is being hurt, but no where near what they say.

Yes, and we need to remember: no one is for pollution. Polluters pollute because they aren't held responsible for their actions and it usually isn't even on their own property.

The government and the military are the largest polluters. As a good example, just take a look at Clarke AB in the the Philippines after is was shut down. There are very many military camps, posts and bases here stateside that have some awful environmental messes that have yet to be cleaned up.

[bbachtung]

Ron Paul has stated many times that the best way to guarantee a clean, unpolluted environment is through private ownership of land. The person who owns the land cares for it (because contaminated and polluted land is worth a lot less). Having a profit motive or stake in the property is the best way to ensure that it is well cared for.

Organizations like Ducks Unlimited have programs in place that provide for "conservation easements" in which the owner of land that is necessary for healthy wildlife is given something (money, a tax break, etc.) in exchange for a permanent legal agreement to preserve the land in its undeveloped state. Check out: http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/ConservationEasements/2825/ConservationEasementsandLandProtectionProgram.html

From the site:



Conservation easements can meet the needs of interested owners of working farms, ranches, timberlands, sporting properties and recreational lands, who wish to protect valuable natural resources while retaining ownership of the property. A perpetual conservation easement allows a landowner to protect key natural habitats of a property while continuing to use the area for economic gain or recreation.


Here's Ron Paul's take on federal government ownership of land and its environmental consequences:



[S]ome of the most radical environmentalists remain convinced that the only way to protect green space is for government, particularly the federal government, to own more and more land. This is an ironic point of view, because countries that have had the most government regulation of property, such as the former Soviet bloc nations, have had the absolute worst records of environmental quality.

***

If we are truly interested in providing better land management and environmental stewardship, we should get the federal government out of the land management business. As the recent uncontrolled burns of Los Alamos show, there is literally no end to the possible ways the federal government can mismanage environmentally sensitive lands. I have introduced legislation to take a project in my district out of federal hands and place it with agencies in Texas.


http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst060500.htm

[Kuldebar]

I really don't understand why there is complete blackout on this issue. Especially since it seems to be a fairly important subject to younger people. which the campaign is trying to court.


The problem is that the issue has a lot of hot air. The environment is important but just like with the war on terror, there has been some high powered fear mongering going on in regards to the environmental concerns. Politics is very much at play here. Additionally, the blame gets placed on what people consider to be the free-market and the government gets cast as the saviour.

[Kregener]

Ron Paul believes that every acre in every state, belongs to that state. The federal behemoth has no basis for control.

State Game & Fish departments usually run circles around the Radio Rangers from Uncle Sugar's Glee Club anyway.

They do in Arizona.

[noxagol]

The problem is that the issue has a lot of hot air. The environment is important but just like with the war on terror, there has been some high powered fear mongering going on in regards to the environmental concerns. Politics is very much at play here.

Exactly. It has been sensationalized and exaggerated. They make it seem like if we don't do something now the environment as we know it will end and we will all die. That is hardly the case, ESPECIALLY with global warming. Yes it is happening, yes we are causing some of it and that portion is smaller than a pin hole on a 4x8 piece of paper.

[recess]

I wonder what ron paul thinks of the the public land owned by the federal government? especially in the West. Sell it off the highest bidder?

[Billy Baro7]

Well thank you for all your comments! Not everyone in America has the same priority as others when it comes to Presidential Candidates! For some it may Health Care others the War on Terror! I do believe if your going to support someone they should have the same values and beliefs that you have! He really likes what Ron Paul stands for but was just unclear on a few Issues! This is high on his list so that is why I thought I would ask!

On other notes I was checking out information on the state fair here in Illinois!
Is anyone else going to be there? Has anyone ever went? I was debating on bringing my 3 year old but a three hour drive might be to much!
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/%5Bpoll%5D_if_u_s_presidential_election_were_held_ today_whom_would_you_vote
Nice poll too............
Thanks again for all your help and support!

Billy

[recess]

Exactly. It has been sensationalized and exaggerated. They make it seem like if we don't do something now the environment as we know it will end and we will all die. That is hardly the case, ESPECIALLY with global warming. Yes it is happening, yes we are causing some of it and that portion is smaller than a pin hole on a 4x8 piece of paper.

I would agree that this is definelty true when it comes to global warming. Which i think is overblown and it is just a power grab by the ruling elite.

[Kregener]

Get serious Recess.

He would likely just cede it back the sates, where it belongs.

[Highmesa]

Well, there is a difference between wildlife issues and pollution issues. While I think the property rights argument is strong for pollution, wildlife in a whole different animal (ha!). As someone who does a lot of work on wildlife issues, including endangered species, I'll through my .02 FRN in.

There are big problems with wildlife and endangered species that do not follow state lines and I can see lots of conflict arising. That said, it can't really get any worse that the way the USFWS operates right now (especially under Bush). Many, if not most decisions are made for political and not scientific reasons.

I would envision more cooperative regional efforts amongst the states for basin-wide solutions. Dave Forman (ex-Earth First!) is working in this direction, trying to build a wildlife corridor through the Rocky Mountains.

It is a problem though if a land owners deside to lay swaths of high fence around large properties, as it restricts the migratory movements of wildlife, eventually wiping out herds of elk and deer, and in turn preditors that depend on these herds. These issues though are best handled at the state and local level though. But it does raise questions. Does a property owner have the right to wipe out the wildlife on his property? Even if those animals may only spend a small part of their year on that area. Who owns the wildlife? In most is not all states right now, it is the state and the people (collectively).

Often I hear arguments that we shouldn't worry, as the market will provide us with private game farms where people can go shoot elk, deer, etc. I think this is seriously short sighted though, and wholly ignores the the impact that limiting the migration of animals has on the overall eco-system. And then there's the issue of non-game animals.

How do we deal with such problems? They are difficult questions, with complex answers. But, right now we are offered up one solution to the problems from the federal government, which changes based on the administration. If the states, operating alone or cooperatively, were dealing with the problems, we would have multiple potential solutions to these problems. Some would be worse than the current system, but some would be better.

There is no easy answer to these questions and alot of it depends on the ecologial values we as a society want to hold. If the federal government leaves the game, will anything change? Some places yes, some no. I think all states have their own endangered speicies lists, so there would just be a change in focus from federal protection to local. Where issues involve ranges that cross states lines, I can still see federal courts being involved.

I do believe, and am often labeled as a crackpot for it, that the feds should turn all the federal public lands over to the respective states, and let the states determine the best way to manage them. Some people think they should sell off the lands to the highest bidder, which I think would be an enormous mistake, subject to the worst kind of corporatist cronyism. The states should get to decide what should be public and private land.

[recess]

Get serious Recess.

He would likely just cede it back the sates, where it belongs.

thats what i was thinking, I agree that the states would do a much better job at managaing public lands than Washington. especially since everything the BLM and Forest Service does benefits Timber, Mining and livestock at the expense of the Tax payers who get stuck subsidizing them.

[recess]

Well, there is a difference between wildlife issues and pollution issues. While I think the property rights argument is strong for pollution, wildlife in a whole different animal (ha!). As someone who does a lot of work on wildlife issues, including endangered species, I'll through my .02 FRN in.

There are big problems with wildlife and endangered species that do not follow state lines and I can see lots of conflict arising. That said, it can't really get any worse that the way the USFWS operates right now (especially under Bush). Many, if not most decisions are made for political and not scientific reasons.

I would envision more cooperative regional efforts amongst the states for basin-wide solutions. Dave Forman (ex-Earth First!) is working in this direction, trying to build a wildlife corridor through the Rocky Mountains.

It is a problem though if a land owners deside to lay swaths of high fence around large properties, as it restricts the migratory movements of wildlife, eventually wiping out herds of elk and deer, and in turn preditors that depend on these herds. These issues though are best handled at the state and local level though. But it does raise questions. Does a property owner have the right to wipe out the wildlife on his property? Even if those animals may only spend a small part of their year on that area. Who owns the wildlife? In most is not all states right now, it is the state and the people (collectively).

Often I hear arguments that we shouldn't worry, as the market will provide us with private game farms where people can go shoot elk, deer, etc. I think this is seriously short sighted though, and wholly ignores the the impact that limiting the migration of animals has on the overall eco-system. And then there's the issue of non-game animals.

How do we deal with such problems? They are difficult questions, with complex answers. But, right now we are offered up one solution to the problems from the federal government, which changes based on the administration. If the states, operating alone or cooperatively, were dealing with the problems, we would have multiple potential solutions to these problems. Some would be worse than the current system, but some would be better.

There is no easy answer to these questions and alot of it depends on the ecologial values we as a society want to hold. If the federal government leaves the game, will anything change? Some places yes, some no. I think all states have their own endangered speicies lists, so there would just be a change in focus from federal protection to local. Where issues involve ranges that cross states lines, I can still see federal courts being involved.

I do believe, and am often labeled as a crackpot for it, that the feds should turn all the federal public lands over to the respective states, and let the states determine the best way to manage them. Some people think they should sell off the lands to the highest bidder, which I think would be an enormous mistake, subject to the worst kind of corporatist cronyism. The states should get to decide what should be public and private land.

I don't see any reason why the states couldn't manage Wilderness as defined by Wilderness act 1964 exactly the same way the Feds do.
In fact California has a system similar to it.
I could also see states working together for more migratory animals and Salmon.

[Ninja Homer]

It all comes down to property rights:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=53

Right now, the EPA serves as kind of a government middle man between the property owner and whoever is doing the polluting. The polluting person or company goes to the EPA and gets permission from them to pollute, or follows their regulations on how much they can pollute. Now the EPA serves as a government approved barrier between the property owner and the polluter, making it very difficult for the property owner to file a lawsuit for damages caused by the polluter. Rather than protecting the environment, the EPA actually protects polluting people or companies.

Get rid of the EPA, and then people will be able to file lawsuits for any damages to the water, land, or air of their property. The costs of cleaning up the mess will be so great to polluters, that they will quickly realize that they are much better off taking care of their mess properly in the first place.

[Spirit of '76]

Here's a great essay from The American Conservative (http://amconmag.com) on environmentalism from a traditional conservative viewpoint. It was not written by Ron Paul, but I feel quite certain that he would agree with its fundamental premise:

A Righter Shade of Green (http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_07_16/cover.html)