kauri tree nz

Humans always seem to need a baby seal or cute owl to show support. As you know the big trees need a forest ecosystem to support them. It would be nice if people could get behind saving ecosystems but it seems to be beyond their understanding. Good work, whatever it takes.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i appreciate that that is your opinion but i personally would rather see these great trees standing for another 1000 yrs. out of context but do you take the same view on all diseases?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also love it if humans could coexist with nature as well and not spread death and destruction wherever we go but as history shows us, that is not the case. To put it mildly, my world view is quite dark when it comes to humanity and the environment. Sitting back and watching and accepting to me is the preferable option to trying to stop the inevitable. Holding back humanity from destroying things is like trying to hold water in your hands.

Instead of drawing attention to things that we want to protect, would we be better off trying to make them disapear or keeping them hidden from the public eye and mindset? Glorifying seeing and climbing trees in delicate environments seems like dangling the proverbial carrot in front of a populace that feels similarly entitled and will not be nearly as careful when it comes to the possibility of the spread of disease and other impacts. We either have to completely close wilderness and wild areas to humans or we have to accept that those places will be in a constant and at times dramatic state of change because of the impacts that we cause either from us loving those places to death or being the vectors of yet another disease.

My view on disease in humans is similar but I will not go into that here.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You're not going to make much money climbing funghi

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I would have to disagree. I make a boat load of money climbing dead and dying trees that have been impacted by fungi. If you looked at the trees at the cellular level I probably am basically climbing fungi on certain specimens.
 
I'm lucky enough to live close to a huge national park that is open to humans but no one really uses besides the golf course and main beach. Just nice to know it's there. Then there's the areas too cold or hot that keep the riff raff out.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I would also love it if humans could coexist with nature as well and not spread death and destruction wherever we go but as history shows us, that is not the case. To put it mildly, my world view is quite dark when it comes to humanity and the environment. Sitting back and watching and accepting to me is the preferable option to trying to stop the inevitable. Holding back humanity from destroying things is like trying to hold water in your hands.

Instead of drawing attention to things that we want to protect, would we be better off trying to make them disapear or keeping them hidden from the public eye and mindset? Glorifying seeing and climbing trees in delicate environments seems like dangling the proverbial carrot in front of a populace that feels similarly entitled and will not be nearly as careful when it comes to the possibility of the spread of disease and other impacts. We either have to completely close wilderness and wild areas to humans or we have to accept that those places will be in a constant and at times dramatic state of change because of the impacts that we cause either from us loving those places to death or being the vectors of yet another disease.

My view on disease in humans is similar but I will not go into that here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have found in my work and life that the dichotomy you present is not supported by the evidence, the management of areas infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi in Oz is a prime example of how the whole community can (and I believe should) take responsibility for looking after what remains. Not saying that at times I do not wish some areas were closed to the public...in fact with PTA (and other Phytophthora pathogens) large areas are closed to the public, sometimes for very long periods.

There are often relatively simple actions that need to be followed to minimise the negative impacts that 'we' have on the environment around us, communicating the huge values that foundation species have to their ecosystem is a critical part of getting others to understand and appreciate that importance.

I imagine that some people would prefer not to have acknowledge the role their actions have impacting (often very seriously) the environment around them, but we all have to try much harder to understand what impact we are having and then make informed decisions about what we are prepared to do about that.

Change is inevitable it is part of nature, but in my opinion to abdicate our responsibility to make balanced informed decisions that minimise negative outcomes is truly irresponsible. In fact I have always considered informing,educating and encouraging others about the amazing role trees play in the world to be an integral part of my job.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Things live and things die. The earth is constantly changing though we are often the vectors for the change happening much more quickly than would happen naturally.

I live on a piece of land where the forest is changing because of fungus in the soil killing large numbers of certain species trees. I know that it will affect how that forest feels for me and my generation and perhaps the next one but it will still be like any environment, constantly in a state of change.

Shouldn't we enjoy what is here and marvel at the fungus as much as the plants that they kill? It might be that much more impressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point and I agree with it mostly.

Us humans constantly try to determine what lives and what dies. Where does that come from? Maybe because we are made in God's image and we tend to imitate? I don't know.

But, I definitely feel the need to manipulate what lives and dies around myself too, even though I usually do allow things to happen in nature, I do have my little projects of growing unique trees and animals in a location where they shouldn't be.

If mankind had a big negative impact on a specie, I do think it's worth a try to "save" it.

But....

Here is an example of why I think we might think the same.

I few year back, when I used to be on Facebook a little, I saw a post about a local Wildlife rescue. The girl that works there posted a story about two bald eagles that were fighting while falling through the air. One eagle was badly injured and hit the ground. it could not fly and a person that witnessed it while driving stopped and grabbed the eagle. brought it into the rescue.

Then, it was like a year later and the rescue was releasing the eagle back to the wild and the story was all "joy joy".

Now, let me give you some background. Bald Eagles had a huge decline years ago from DDT and were almost gone. then man found the problem, stopped DDT and did things to help the eagles recover. Well, they recovered great and there are huge numbers of eagles here.

Anyway, I wrote on facebook to the girl, something like this, "Do you realize that you might not be helping the eagles by doing this? It is likely that that eagle was inferior or weak. A superior male took it out and likely that eagle would have died with it's possible weak genetics. But you saved it and are now releasing a genetically inferior eagle back into the eagle breading group. Just something to think about."

Well, she didn't take it well, called me a douche (which some of you agree, right EZ?) and she deleted the whole conversation.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Now, let me give you some background. Bald Eagles had a huge decline years ago from DDT and were almost gone. then man found the problem, stopped DDT and did things to help the eagles recover. Well, they recovered great and there are huge numbers of eagles here.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not picking on you personally X, I am not really even on topic, just thought I would point out a glaring example of sexist language, that has reared it's head before. ( I have been waiting for the chance;)
grin.gif


The DDT problem was actually brought to light, discovered if you will, by a woman. Look up Rachel Carson.

You can now return to normally scheduled programming.

Tony
 
Yup, eagles and hawks mate in flight... Sometimes they get so caught up in the good times they loose track of the ground. It's epic to watch. I've seen it twice, once with bald eagles, and once with red tail hawks. They start circling in opposite directions until they get the timing just right, then lock talons and spiral toward the ground in free fall.
I've heard accounts of them getting snow blind while mating up in Alaska and cratering into snow banks.
 
I have not watched the links you guys put up yet, but will sometime. was waiting to respond till I saw your links, but it hasn't happened yet. so I'm just responding now.

Like many male animals (NOT ALL), eagles do fight and they fight a lot. Nature is usually brutal, animals don't play and make love much.

Yes, the interesting thing about eagles and hawks is mating in the air while falling.

This is broadcasted a lot, but don't let that make you think that they do not fight.

yes, maybe that eagle in my story was mating, I don't know, I didn't see it, but I thought they said it had puncture wounds and a hurt wing.

Don't think you know everything about an animal from what you learn on TV, internet and magazines. As you have seen from Nat Geo's BIG WOOD show, they sensationalize stuff and don't show the truth.

Often, it is just the amazing things that are shown, or a fabricated story line.

Eagles definitely fight and they fight a LOT.

I have witnessed it many times, plus have lots of old video from my old go-pros at a carcass.

Got some excellent stuff of a Redtail taking on eagles a few weeks ago on my new high res go-pros too. Nat Geo quality, but not staged or altered.

Also, Tony, I hope that you didn't think I meant, "man" as in a male in my past post. It was meant as ManKind, as in us humans.

"Bald Eagles had a huge decline years ago from DDT and were almost gone. then man found the problem, stopped DDT and..."

If I meant an actual Male, I would have written "then A man found the problem". This thought would never have entered my mind in the first place, as I don't give a crap if it was a male or female.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom