Stupid Is As Stupid Does!

[Jay3]

Yes they did over react, but as Warren stated, they were just trying to protect their investment. They have land, that they held on to, hoping that someday they could make a profit on it. Then to fear that they would be stuck with land, land on which they would be taxed, but couldn't build on, or sell for that purpose..........................
Some of these people may have counted on that profit to retire on. It may be all they had. I have elderly patients who have done just that. They bought land 60 years ago, and now that they are retired and on a fixed income, they live by selling off that land. That is their future. I can't imagine living all those years, planning on getting by from the sale of their own peoperty, and then being told that they can't sell or build because it is protected. Maybe they DO work with some, and maybe they can SOMETIMES work around it. But would you want to wait and find out if that were the case with your parcel of land? Kinda crazy, but if you really want to try to understand it............
I would love to have an endangered species nesting on my property. But not if it meant losing the right to use my land as I had wanted. And as I had planned for decades. Who reading this really wouldn't mind having them tell you what you can and can't do with the land that you have owned for many years, and pay taxes on? And how would you even sell that land, to get out of having to pay taxes on useless land? Who do you think would buy it, knowing that they cannot do anything with it. I don't know. I can see both sides. Too bad it had to come to that though. Sad.

[Grimaldy]

Actually it has nothing at all to do with taking people's land away from them because there is an endangered species of wildlife living there. The article clearly says that it would only result in "tighter" building restrictions, whatever that might mean, but lets face it folks if a piece of land has sufficient numbers of trees growing on it to make clear cut harvesting profitable, we are not talking about small lots. And the village gave out 368 permits to clear cut.

What the article does not say is that lumber is sold as a commodity and its price is set by the lumber exchanges. Take a look at the Chicago Board of Trade any day of the week and that will tell you what you get when you sell lumber. What that means is if you suddenly start dumping lumber on the market, you push the price down. The southeastern United States is where a good slice of American lumber production comes from and for the past 10 years or so it has been terrible for the mills. The reason the states require a permit to cut lumber is to try to stabilize the terrible fluctuations that tear at the lumber market. The article wants you to believe that the permits are for scenic and aesthetic reasons- not so. In fact the village issued 368 permits to someone, are we to believe they did not know what the result would be?

The sad thing is that the press always promotes the industry point of view and blames its own problems on wildlife, and when there is no wildlife to blame, on the activists and "tree-huggers". Nobody seems to ask who buys these trees when they are cut down? In fact the same people cut them as buy them and it is not the owner of the land. And when it is a commodity whose price is determined by supply and demand you keep prices up by restricting the supply.
Those darned woodpeckers! I guess we should be lucky they don't build their nests near gasoline filling stations.

[SmithFamilyLoft]

Originally Posted by Grimaldy

Actually it has nothing at all to do with taking people's land away from them because there is an endangered species of wildlife living there. The article clearly says that it would only result in "tighter" building restrictions, whatever that might mean, but lets face it folks if a piece of land has sufficient numbers of trees growing on it to make clear cut harvesting profitable, we are not talking about small lots. And the village gave out 368 permits to clear cut.

What the article does not say is that lumber is sold as a commodity and its price is set by the lumber exchanges. Take a look at the Chicago Board of Trade any day of the week and that will tell you what you get when you sell lumber. What that means is if you suddenly start dumping lumber on the market, you push the price down. The southeastern United States is where a good slice of American lumber production comes from and for the past 10 years or so it has been terrible for the mills. The reason the states require a permit to cut lumber is to try to stabilize the terrible fluctuations that tear at the lumber market. The article wants you to believe that the permits are for scenic and aesthetic reasons- not so. In fact the village issued 368 permits to someone, are we to believe they did not know what the result would be?

The sad thing is that the press always promotes the industry point of view and blames its own problems on wildlife, and when there is no wildlife to blame, on the activists and "tree-huggers". Nobody seems to ask who buys these trees when they are cut down? In fact the same people cut them as buy them and it is not the owner of the land. And when it is a commodity whose price is determined by supply and demand you keep prices up by restricting the supply.
Those darned woodpeckers! I guess we should be lucky they don't build their nests near gasoline filling stations.

I'm not sure you understand the economics of the situation. I don't think it had anything to do with the feasibility or profitability of clear cutting. You could own a small building lot, which is full of trees, and if you can't cut down the trees at some point in the future, because a wood pecker might live in one of the trees, then the lot which could have been worth $100,000+ as a building lot, is now worth something less then 0. From time to time, my firm will clear cut trees from a lot, and it costs the owner money to remove the trees. Most of the trees end up as mulch or as firewood. Sometimes there may be a log or two which may be worth something, but we give it to a logger who is willing to simply come and get it.

As a side note...The price of lumber, or gold, or stocks, or pork bellies or any other commodity, is not set by the exchanges .....the prices are determined by buyers and sellers...more buyers then sellers the price goes up.....the opposite is also true, more sellers then buyers, the price goes down, this is what is referred to as "The Market"....the exchanges are simply where these buyers/sellers meet to do business.

Since most of us live in homes with wood, or eat off a dinner table made of wood, and we write on paper and use items such as toilet paper, or buy newspapers....we all are the ones buying the products made from the trees which are cut down. Try to imagine a world without paper or wood products, I challenge everyone to live in a house and live for awhile without touching, or causing any wood products to be used on your behalf.

The major problem I had with this article, is that people without any skin in the game, and who use wood products, felt free to condemn those property owners who wanted to be able to preserve their right to build on their property at some point in the future.

So if the press seems to write stories from the perspective of humans who use wood products, instead of the wood pecker, well to me that would seem quite natural. I mean when was the last time you read a story from the perspective of a Black Angus cow on the way to "market" ? Cows and wood peckers don't buy newspapers.

In conclusion, if any reader really loves the wood peckers, then stop using any wood based products, and go out and buy tracts of land with woods on them, and have it placed into a land trust. Don't just sit comfortably in your wooden chair, hundreds if not thousands of miles away, and insist that a building lot owner who paid money for his lot, should be forced to bear the cost and hardship, because of your new found passion for a wood pecker. If you think it is OK for someone else to take a big $100,000+ hit, then be willing to give up as much your self....and make sure there is no wood in your pigeon loft to !




.

[Grimaldy]

Well side notes first.

Actually the exchanges work on the principle of "the forward markets". That is what is really being traded is an option to buy or sell a contract for delivery of a commodity at some future date. That means if your business or mill wants to be certain about the price of the commodity they need for tables, pigeon lofts or whatever, they can purchase a option to buy or sell the commodity. The traders in the market place on the other hand are only interested in the market fluctuation, it is in the market swings that they make their money and it is their transactions that give the market its necessary liquidity.

I have no doubt there may be small lot owners with undeveloped lots, but as the news article says, building restrictions may tighten, that is not the same thing as forbidding the cutting of any trees at all. Besides if you anticipate that a few hundred nesting woodpeckers live in several thousands of hectacres of forest (BC Canada surveys) it would be difficult to say with a straight face that a 2-5 acre lot is in danger of being taken over by woodpeckers so that no trees can be cut down. If I wanted to convince people that I needed to harvest or clear cut a few thousand acres of forest I would think the easiest thing to do would be to start a story that Joe Blow with his 2 acre lot will not be allowed to cut any trees down and so he won't be able to sell it to the condo developer or supermarket that is coming to town next year, maybe. All because of a harmless little bird whose presence is going to wipe his investment out and drive him to the poor house unless he gets busy with his chain saw. Then talking about a spotted owl that happens to be in the middle of my 50 thousand acre forest is not going to generate any public sympathy.

The funny thing is that when this topic of clear cutting got started on the west coast 20 years or so ago, the studies affirmed that clear cutting worked in favor of the spotted owl. It seemed to be the presence of humans, lots of humans, that created the problem if my memory is correct, not the loss of trees.

[Grimaldy]

Hi Jaye,

Actually both you and Warren pose the same idea, whether the rights of an investor to make a profit should be upheld whatever the consequences to the rest of the nation. That is an 18th century economic idea that has long been discredited. Consider a steel mill that pumps thousands of tons, not pounds, of raw chemical and acid into the air in a large city. Multiply those mills by five and the number of cities by 15. Do the rest of the citizens in America have to suffer so the few investors can realize a profit, or should the rest of America be ignored simply because they "have no skin in the game". What about cigarette smoke? Should the right of the investor to sell to whomever and encourage consumption be upheld, even though the health costs have to be paid by the rest of us? Should the company that owns thousands of acres of forest have the right to kill off and drive away wild game simply because it interferes with their need to make a profit. I don't think so!

Consider the current problem facing Scotland a small country north of England trying desperately to achieve independence. Scotland is slightly smaller than the state of Illinois, but all of the land in Scotland is owned by about 300 families. Those families make a lot of money encouraging foreign tourists to visit and shoot game on their property, mostly game birds like grouse and a type of prairie chicken. Recently the Scots began to reintroduce the Eagle a large, majestic, beautiful bird which has been extinct in Scotland for over 100 years. The Eagle however eats game birds. The estate owners have begun a surreptitious campaign of poisoning the Eagles even though it is against the laws of that country, because as they say, we have a right to make money on foreign tourism and the Eagles (even though there are only three left) take "our" gamebirds. If you know the history of Scotland, one of the more shameful pages of its history is what happens when the right of a few investors to make money is upheld over the rights of the other citizens. At least they have learned from history.

Whether you chose to see America as a democracy, republic, commune, or a collection of anarchists, the simple fact is that we all have to live together. If we consider the right of a few to make money by whatever means they can, regardless of the result or effect on the rest of us, that takes us right back to the erly days of the industrial revolution, with 12 hour workdays, child labor, no rights for injured workers, polluted water supplies etc. If we truly believe that conflicts of this kind are resolved by majority vote and rule, then it is the duty of the few, including the small investor, to comply. Or go live somewhere else where a dictator will let you work people to death with no burden on your right to make a profit.

[Jay3]

But Grimaldy, when a person purchases land, and pays for it, and pays taxes on it for years, you rightfully, think of it as yours. Which it is. Buying a piece of land shouldn't be a risk. True, at the time, you can't be positively sure of how much the value of said land will go up. But you do consider it yours. And the government doesn't pay what it is worth. I also don't think that they were offering to buy the land from these folks. Or am I mistaken? This is not the same as investing in the stock market for crying out loud. They bought the land. Their name is on the deed. It's their land! Not the same at all. Buying land isn't normally considered a risk. The value almost has to go up over time, and even if it didn't, it's still your property. Or it should be. Not the same at all. Do you, when you purchase and pay for something, think of it as a risk. Do you invest only what you can afford to lose? Of course not. You're not investing. Your making a purchase to own something.If a purchase a house, should you have to look at it as though it were the stock market. Only invest what you can afford to lose? I don't think most people can afford to just have someone walk away with their house. Many people put most of what they have saved to buy a home. Are you saying that they shouldn't do that unless they can afford to lose it? After paying on it for years, and finally paying it off? If that happened, most would not be able to just buy another one and start making mortgage payments all over again. So, by your standards, they should never have bought to begin with. They should have realized the risks? Who'da thought there would be something out there that would just take it away? They bought and paid for it. They own it! I really don't think that this scenario can be compared to investing. Purchasing land shouldn't have to be done with the thought that someone might just walk in a take it.

[Grimaldy]

There is no earthly reason why the value of land has to go up Jaye, is there?
The fact is that the 20th century has been a long period of inflation, meaning that whatever you want to buy takes more money; in the 19th century America went through a long period of deflation, as did the Japanese in the 20th. Property values dropped like a bag of hammers in an elevator shaft.

An investment is a purchase of something we hope will appreciate in value (buying long), but not something we really need, so we will collect a profit by selling when the price rises. Like a stock share or a vacant lot, or a parcel of land. A house we need to live in is something we need to survive, a place to live. If we choose to purchase a large extravagant home so it is an investment as well as something we need, we are still stuck with the rules governing investment. We might try to fool ourselves by saying that we need a place to live, a necessity, but the fact is that we also are aware that we seek to make money, making it an investment.

People buy land and lose their money all the time, both for residence and for investment. There are no guarantees in life, that is simply how it is. There is a tendency for rural people to believe that land has some sort magic, sacred value because you can see it and walk on it, but these are people who do not know the history of their own country. America was founded on land sales and land swindles, right from the days of independence down to present. Look at the State of Florida for an example. George Washington, first president of the nation got his start as a land surveyor, west of the Allegheny mountains, which was English territory at that time. Surveyors were paid then by taking a part of the land they marked out.

Now America is no worse, and indeed much better than many other nations when it comes to land swindles. They have been in the forefront of trying to protect the investors and to stop the practices when they find out about them in America, whereas that is just a way of life in certain other nations.
But lets be realistic; we buy those things we need with as little money as we need to spend, we invest money according to our means and opportunities. Certain rules follow investment and those who ignore them end up paying for it. Blaming woodpeckers and spotted owls and tiny fish is a sucker's game to deflect the blame from where it really belongs.

[Grimaldy]

I can't say I disagree with what you have written Warren.

There are some things that only government can do and should do; there are many things government can not do. It can not regulate morality, religion, or reproduction to name just a few. It can and must regulate many other matters simply because it is best situated to do that. The present financial mess that America suffers and as a result most of the world as well, is the result of government failing to regulate. The "market place" is a den of thieves that will lie, cheat, steal and do anything necessary to make money. For the past eight years we have been told of the magic and wonders of de-regulation and the result has been global disaster. The thieves not only have their money they have now resorted to black mail; if the government does not bail them out with taxpayer dollars they will bring the whole nation down with them. In other countries and in other times, responsible government would simply take them out, put them up against a wall and have them shot. Today we can only learn from our mistakes so we do not repeat them.

Ecology prcoeeds from the fact that this planet we call home is really a very fragile place. A few changes in temperature or in the food chain can produce tremendous and disasterous results. Humans have been walking the face of the earth for only 30-50 thousand years, a blink of the eye when you realize the dinosaurs lived here millions of years ago, the plants millions of years before that and the bacteria millions if not billions of years before all of them.
We do know that all species of life are interdependent on one another to a greater or lesser degree, and we know it as the food chain. We do not know what the result will be if those relationships start to unravel, but once they do it may well be too late to do anything about it. Unfortunately people like Rick Santelli are now starting to emerge with their appeals to the worst instincts of human nature, trying to suggest that government attempts to change the situation is really picking winners and losers. Some people see the problem as spending money on wildlife that we would be better off without. One thing is certain however, appeals to base instinct gets you people like Adolph Hitler. We need to understand the problems and to work together to find solutions rather than blaming pigeons, woodpeckers and spotted owls.

[SmithFamilyLoft]

Originally Posted by Grimaldy

I can't say I disagree with what you have written Warren.

There are some things that only government can do and should do; there are many things government can not do. It can not regulate morality, religion, or reproduction to name just a few. It can and must regulate many other matters simply because it is best situated to do that. The present financial mess that America suffers and as a result most of the world as well, is the result of government failing to regulate. The "market place" is a den of thieves that will lie, cheat, steal and do anything necessary to make money. For the past eight years we have been told of the magic and wonders of de-regulation and the result has been global disaster. The thieves not only have their money they have now resorted to black mail; if the government does not bail them out with taxpayer dollars they will bring the whole nation down with them. In other countries and in other times, responsible government would simply take them out, put them up against a wall and have them shot. Today we can only learn from our mistakes so we do not repeat them.

Ecology prcoeeds from the fact that this planet we call home is really a very fragile place. A few changes in temperature or in the food chain can produce tremendous and disasterous results. Humans have been walking the face of the earth for only 30-50 thousand years, a blink of the eye when you realize the dinosaurs lived here millions of years ago, the plants millions of years before that and the bacteria millions if not billions of years before all of them.
We do know that all species of life are interdependent on one another to a greater or lesser degree, and we know it as the food chain. We do not know what the result will be if those relationships start to unravel, but once they do it may well be too late to do anything about it. Unfortunately people like Rick Santelli are now starting to emerge with their appeals to the worst instincts of human nature, trying to suggest that government attempts to change the situation is really picking winners and losers. Some people see the problem as spending money on wildlife that we would be better off without. One thing is certain however, appeals to base instinct gets you people like Adolph Hitler. We need to understand the problems and to work together to find solutions rather than blaming pigeons, woodpeckers and spotted owls.

Well....I think we have now really gone way past pushing the envelope, to completely off the envelope. We have gone to the extreme of listing the talking points of a particular political party, and then listing the actual name of a private US citizen who has been critical of recent government actions, and in the same breath liking him and others critical of government policies to Adolf Hitler. If this is not an example of off the envelope, and then off the wall, then I don't know what is.

I confess, that I admire those like Mr. Rick Santelli, who have spoken out in opposition to polices, which many Americans would agree, is the largest confiscation of wealth and power by a government, that the world has ever seen. And as such, I am not unbiased. And I offer my apologies for having contributed to the demise of this thread.

The discussion of how government policies can have unforeseen and unintended consequences, when dealing with issues in regard to the protection of endangered species, has now gone far afield. Now private citizens who are critical of the socialist agenda and redistribution of wealth, are now appealing to "the worst instincts of human nature" and Adolf Hitler.

This discussion has now gone so far to the extreme, that anyone who may disagree with the current polices relating to protection of wild life and now redistribution schemes, is compared to the worst vestiges of mankind the world as ever known. Which leads me to believe that many issues relating to the environment is just one small piece of a much larger agenda, and that is even greater control and power to a centralized bureaucracy.

I might suggest, that this thread has now outlived it's usefulness.

[Jay3]

Well, to buy and pay for something, then pay taxes on it probably for years, and to have the government swoop in and deam it worthless to you, sorry but that is unfair. Nothing is safe. Nothing is yours. Even if you have bought it outright. It sucks. And yes, I can understand how those people felt, having what was theirs, pretty much taken away. So everybody did what they had to do. The government did what they had to do, and so did the people. And usually when that happens, nobody wins.They may have gone overboard, but they made their point. What more is there to say? In this case, everybody lost something. It's too bad. But this is what happens when someone or something is taking what is yours. You stand up and fight for it. Sometimes your decisions might be a bit faulty, but that is what happens when people are pushed too far. And how far is too far is individual. I guess we definately know where these people stand.

[Grimaldy]

If you think about it for a moment Jaye, you might think you own land. But if you fail to pay your taxes, you will usually find out it is the government who owns it and they have just been renting it to you.

[LokotaLoft]

which kinda shows you that fighting for your freedoms and rights is a useless fight and plight ..so many die each day for something that can be taken away from you so easily if the government so chooses it ,its no wonder the country is falling apart so fast an furiously ..maybe if these people running the country had to actually go to war for what they had they would see things in a different light but its very hard for them to get a grasp of it all from the comfort of their over indulgent lifestyles to say the least

[UncleBuck]

Amen! I agree with you Warren.

[SmithFamilyLoft]

I will again apologize for not exerting better over site to this thread, and perhaps for contributing to it's demise into a left vs. right discussion. Such is the downside in trying to discuss issues which invite political debate. Since this is not a web site designed for political discourse, but a pigeon resource site, I will close this thread and invite such discussions to take place on some political blog site.