Stupid Is As Stupid Does!

[LUCKYT]

Warren? You too! lol! I know were you are coming from. Dave

[Grimaldy]

"For some of our readers, and for some pigeon fanciers around the world, they have much more pressing issues they must contend with. Like can they go outside their home without getting shot, or can they keep the roof over their heads, or feed thmselves and their birds and/or animals this week ? So while some things may change, some challenges have remained the same, for a very...very long time.

Sounds like South Chicago or East Philadelphia.

[conditionfreak]

You know. That article puts in perspective many things that we Americans (I especially) take for granted.

I worry about hawks taking my birds. Others worry about the government taking their birds. Or being shot while taking care of their birds. Or having their home and lofts bombed intentionally or accidentally. Or being outright shunned or banned from society.

Funniest part of the article is where the courts tended to not take serious the testimony of pigeon keepers, because they are always watching their birds in the sky.

That is hilarious. Maybe in America we should not take serious the testomony of those who watch TV, especially American Idol.

[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.

[SmithFamilyLoft]

Actually Grimaldy,

I think the concept of private property and the rights of the individual, and the resulting conflicts, go back much further then the 18th century, perhaps back to the beginning of time. I can imagine that once upon a time, during a hard cold winner, someone had secured himself a cave, and had stored for himself and his mate and children provisions for the winter. Then along came some humans who had not done so, and for the benefit of themselves, they decided that his provisions should be taken. Then perhaps this played out in larger groups, say a small tribe, and another stronger tribe decided that the smaller tribe's resources should be confiscated. Somewhere in time, various different ideas were experimented with, collectives where there was no such thing as private property, and then again arrangements where there was private property and something in between. Perhaps some day, in the "modern" era, there will be one world government, and we will all serve for the good of the collective. See: BORG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

Perhaps under such an arrangement, there will be no individual rights or ownership, and conflict will be eliminated and thus we will have reached a utopia........

One thing for sure, history is full of examples, where conflicts arose because of land and resources. And that has not changed in thousands and perhaps millions of years. In the last thousand years, we know that Kings arose, where they owned everything, and over time, Kings were replaced by governments which own everything. And then we have to this day, governments which covet their neighbors land and resources and again conflict. And now we go full circle back to this thread, which is the conflict between man and animals, which live on the land, and the people who "own" or otherwise control the land and resources.

At one extreme, we could simply remove all humans, and their machines, homes and factories from all the land ( don't know how this would be possible) and return the planet to what it may have been like thousands or millions of years ago. And when some event, like an asteroid hitting the earth, wipes us off the face of the earth, in as little as a few thousand years, the earth would return in large measure to the way it was. And humans join the ranks of all the other millions of species which are now extinct.

Until that happens, the human population will continue to grow, and little by little, day by day, more land and forests will be consumed to make room for people. Don't know how long that will take, a hundred years, or a thousand, but I understand there are more people alive today, then had ever walked the face of the earth since the beginning of time. So, how many times will the population have to double before there is not a single extra square foot of land left for any "wild" life ? So, I suspect conflicts with people and wild life, will continue for as long as any of us are alive.

I have some family members that did do their part in trying to preserve the land. In Lancaster County Pa. there is some of the richest and fertile farm land in the world. The big deal around these parts, is not clear cutting, it is taking farm land which has been farmed for hundreds of years, and turning it into hundreds and thousands of those fancy two car garage homes on 1/2 acre lots, and putting in roads etc. Our family member placed his 90 acre farm into the Land Preservation Trust, assuring that it can never be built on. This way the family farm which was in the family for generations, will forever remain green. Truthfully, I'm not sure I would have personally been able to pass up the large seven figure amount that the developers would have paid. And so I personally am not comfortable saying that the majority of us who live on land which was once farmed, or a forest, should now say that some family which now owns a farm, or a lot, should not be able to build on it. And if we do, then that family should not bear all of the cost, simply condemn the property, take it from them, and pay fair market price, like we do for roads and schools. In the mean time, I don't see a long term future for either the wood pecker, or the human species.

[Grimaldy]

Actually Warren the notion of private property is a relatively new one in the historical scheme of things, and one that is still not accepted by many cultures in the world today. Among certain Arab tribes for instance, as well as the American Indians (past), Aleuts and Eskimos, certain aboriginals in the Southern hemisphere. If you were a bible scholar you would for instance have noted the underlying message of the Book of Acts, which modern churchmen still avoid at all costs.

There is no question however that you are absolutely right in your observation that the human race is expanding in geometric and exponential progression. The nature of our society here in American demands that the newcomers contribute and take their places, if they wish to enjoy the rewards of modern day living in America, and lets face it, they are many. And so are the penalties for the non-conformists. That is not a reason to despair nor is it a reason to cling to the past. New problems demand new solutions. We, as a nation have a collective conscience that recognizes that concrete streets and cities are fundamentally unhealthy, socially, mentally and medically. In fact we came to that realization back in the middle 1880's when we began setting aside land for national forests and parks, as well as public parks in our largest urban cities. A part of that realization is the fact that a whole stratum of wild life not only survives on that small wilderness, but to a great extent humanity does too. Consider the fact that only in the past 10 years we now realize that rainforest absorbs tons of carbon dioxide, the main green house gas responsible for global warming. It would be tragic indeed to come to these realizations when it is too late, and so we must do something if we are not to poison ourselves and choke in our own waste.

Against that background we now ask the question if Joe Blow should be allowed to make a few dollars displacing some of the wildlife necessary to sustain the ecological balance of our nation, which is already in tatters? You tell me!

(As an aside, I notice your writing style has changed)

[Jay3]

Well Grimaldy, guess we just have to agree to disagree. Don't see it as the same thing, but of course, that depends on which side you are on. Then let them pay the land owners what the land would be worth if they were to sell it for a good price, and keep the land a reserve. Not just decide that they cannot do anything with land that is theirs, while they not only continue to pay taxes on the property, but also lose their investment in it.
How many of you people would feel this way if it actually happened to you? Not many. Easy to say you would, when it isn't. Some of these people probably had to sacrafice to pay for the land in the first place. Maybe now, with the way land has gone up in value, they can no longer afford to pay taxes on said land. They need to sell. Who are they going to sell it to? The woodpeckers? Still, I think it sad that it had to get to the point where so many acres were ruined. I still can't help but to put myself in their places. Mind you, even if they were paid fair market value now, they'd still be losing, as the land would have grown in value as time went on.

[Grimaldy]

I don't think we disagree Jaye, I think we are apart on the factual details.

The federal government does compensate people for taking property, even if the taking is only an intrusion which deprives the owner of the use or some of the use of his land. Fifth Amend. US Const. However the science on the density of woodpeckers in the wild is quite well known and studied. Briefly it runs on the order of 100 woodpecker nests to several thousand hectacres of forest. That translates to something on the order of one nest of woodpeckers to well over 100 hectacres of forest. Why a person with a 5-50 acre lot of forest should be remotely concerned escapes me, unless he is simply grasping at straws.

Nobody likes to lose money, but the nature of capitalism is that if you want to make money by investment, you have to be willing to accept a certain degree of risk. The return on the investment is directly related to risk; that is why bank savings accounts pay the lowest return on the money and commodities futures pay the highest. Also you can not talk about risk unless you have losses; that is simply how it works. If you are unwilling to take the risk of losing some or all of your money, you do not invest in speculative adventures. Sadly enough we are now seeing a time when everybody wanted to be an investor, and that investment was related to a highly speculative real estate market. People invested money ignoring the risk, in the hope they would become wealthy. Now the fact of risk has appeared and people who had hoped to be wealthy are losing their homes. They have nobody to blame but themselves, certainly not the woodpeckers, because they ignored the first rule of investment: Do not invest any more money than you can afford to lose. Yes many of those people were people like you describe, retirees, working people with families and debts, but the rules of investment are like the laws of gravity. What goes up must come down, and it usually comes down lot faster than it went up

[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.

[SmithFamilyLoft]

Originally Posted by Grimaldy

....Nobody likes to lose money, but the nature of capitalism is that if you want to make money by investment, you have to be willing to accept a certain degree of risk. The return on the investment is directly related to risk; that is why bank savings accounts pay the lowest return on the money and commodities futures pay the highest. Also you can not talk about risk unless you have losses; that is simply how it works. If you are unwilling to take the risk of losing some or all of your money, you do not invest in speculative adventures. Sadly enough we are now seeing a time when everybody wanted to be an investor, and that investment was related to a highly speculative real estate market. People invested money ignoring the risk, in the hope they would become wealthy.....

Yes, I think I must agree with what you say....and now unfortunately, most "investments", be it land, a home, stocks, bonds, etc. are down. At least in the USA, people are being reintroduced to the concept of "Political Risk". Changes in laws, rules, regulations, taxes, polices and the like, as well as government intervention, etc. as many people have now found out, can have a traumatic negative impact on the value of what you own. With the stroke of a pen, as a farm family in York County recently discovered, "government" can seize what you own, and in this particular local case, for the good of the "Collective"...or...I think the term they used was for "the public good".

So...."the notion of private property is a relatively new one in the historical scheme of things"...means perhaps at least to some degree, we are moving away from this notion of private property, and are moving towards the concept that anything which can be deemed for "the public good" can be confiscated, taxed, regulated, or otherwise have it's value to the owner affected by government policy.

So, it should come as no surprise, that in the process to "save" various animals or birds, some people will be asked to "contribute" more to this "public good" then others. And even in those cases where a government entity pays something to an owner, such as a landowner, the government must confiscate funds from other people unequally to pay this one particular owner.

And from my perspective, government polices are picking winners and losers not only in this age of government bailouts, but they are also picking the winners and losers in terms of which animals and birds are afforded special treatment and protection, such as a Wood pecker or a Coopers Hawk, while other birds such as our pigeons, which served this nation during a time of war, are now treated as vermin, and directly or indirectly government actions support extermination. And if you live in the wrong neighborhood, in the interest of "the public good" they can order you to remove your loft and birds, and if you refuse, you will be sent to a prison for "Rehabilitation".

I think I lean more towards Jay3's line of thinking, because when those heavy handed government agents end up stumping on the head and rights (human, civil, property or otherwise) of the least of us, in the name of "the public good"...then none of us are really safe. And I feel for that little wood pecker, I do, but I also feel for the family that falls victim to "the public good". I don't know how many wood peckers there are in the world, but I do know, that many people have died throughout history, because of actions taken by governments for..."the public good". So, I distrust the whole process.

[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.