Is Developing Bald Eagle Habitat Tantamount to Flag Burning?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Jun 27, 2007.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    So I ran across this article that talks about the upcoming de-listing of the Bald Eagle, and thinking about the ensuing rush to develop in areas previously off-limits reminded me of the flag burning debate.

    Many here have argued vigorously that desecrating a symbol of America is tantamount to desecrating America itself, and the honor of all those who have fought and died to defend this country.

    So I'm wondering how those who are against flag burning feel about developing in the habitat of what is arguably the second most recognizable symbol of America behind the flag itself. Development will most assuredly reduce the population of this mighty symbol of America, which would seem to be pissing on all those who have defended America, based on the logic of the anti-flag-burning arguments.

    I'm curious to see what logical leaps will be made to justify the desecration of one American symbol, while simultaneously saying it's not OK to desecrate a different symbol of America.

    Argue away...
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    how ironic is it that moving a species off the endangered list actually does it more harm?
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Wonderful creatures aren't they?

    Humans I mean :rolleyes:
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    The article gives no specifics about "development". It doesn't say if the Lake is a feeding area or a nesting-habitat area.

    All wildlife has what might be called a "comfort zone". For whitetail deer, for example, if chain saws and barking dogs are more than a couple of hundred yards away, the deer aren't particularly bothered, and will continue to feed. Jets on afterburner at or above 2,000 feet of altitude don't affect them, either. (The jets bothered me more than they bothered the group of deer that I was watching.)

    As near as I can tell from a few interactions with golden eagles, if you stay some hundred or two hundred yards away, they're unconcerned about your presence. Driving to within twenty or thirty yards, they'll fly away. If they're feeding on carrion, they'll circle back as you drive on past.

    I can see where lake-frontage residential development wouldn't bother the eagles if the houses are set well away from the lake, and particularly if they're at least partially screened by trees and shrubbery. AS long as the residents aren't out yelling and screaming, the eagles wouldn't be bothered by the houses as houses. This sort of setback can be part of the permits that are required before any development could be done.

    Best, though, from an aesthetic standpoint, would be to buy the land and don't do any development.

    'Rat
     
  5. srf4real macrumors 68030

    srf4real

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    paradise beach FL
    #5
    All the bald eagles better move out of Florida - they're flat clearing everything that isn't water and paving it all down here. Our county (Brevard) voters passed a referendum last election to buy up environmentally sensitive lands before it's all gone with an extra half percent sales tax... there is just too much money in development to expect many people to just sit on their land privately. Our politicians are snug in developer's pockets. And who wants to keep their horses and cattle on a 200 miles square ranch that just got 15,000 units developed only a quarter mile away. The ranchers are selling for development as well. If they could, developers around here would build on the frikin' wetlands.:(

    And the really crummy part - they move on to some other gold mine leaving us with the congested roads, under funded needs for schools and essential services... without protection we Florida natives have become an endangered species!:p

    rant over. Eagles are cool.:cool:
     
  6. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #6
    Dear mactastic,

    I was confused by the thread title. I thought you meant the development of a habitat for bald eagles, but you meant to say - development in bald eagle habitats.

    Now I'll give you my opinion:

    I think bald eagles should take precedence over any kind of land development.

    I think grizzly bears should take precedence over any kind of land development.

    I think wolves should take precedence over any kind of land development.

    Get the idea? ;)
     
  7. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #7
    I can't see how the two things are related.

    Eagles need a place to live, a flag is a piece of cloth.

    Eagles are a moderately rare bird and need more consideration of protection than say, rabbits.

    Burning a flag is a symbolic act of political protest protected by the first amendment.

    While I don't want to see bald eagles have their land developed over, I also don't think cramming people into major cities is a proper solution either. Maybe we should work on diversifying the economy to the central part of the country so development demands will be raised there instead.
    When I say we should diversify the economy to the mid section, what I mean is, we should move there, and then there will be less demand for the areas we want to see stay wild.

    Someone wants to burn a flag, well, I'll at least listen to what they have to say. Then make a decision based on their claim of grievance, not on their method of expressing discontent. Basic principle of the U.S.
     
  8. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #8
    I disagree - I say stack'm pack'm and rack'm. There is an insurmountable difference between a bald eagle and a human being. We humans are extremely flawed and corrupt; we don't deserve 1/millionth the land that the bald eagles deserve.
     
  9. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #9
    Read closer. We don't have to be "stacked packed and racked" as you say. There is plenty of usable land away from cities and bald eagles. Unless some people will feel the need to save the prairie dogs… :rolleyes:
     
  10. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #10
    It's just that I'm always hearing news reports about grizzly bears "encroaching" on the backyards of people's homes.

    The bears were there first!!! The people that bulldoze down the natural habitat and build houses there, can go to hell for all I care!

    I don't mean any offence to you killr_b. . . it's just that mactastic has opened up a can of worms on me. I feel very strongly about animals; and if I come off as overly emotional about this subject - I'm sorry. :eek:
     
  11. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #11
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a shortage of immigration to FL? Aren't they planning on eliminating sales tax to encourage immigration? At the same time, why are they still building all these condos when no one is moving in? I heard they have so many new condos built, it woiuld take three years to fill them up. This was all conveyed to me by a few of my Floridian friends, so I can't substantiate it. Are they correct?
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    The hypocrisy is there, but the people who should get it aren't going to. I'm sure someone will be in here in no time talking about how the 2 have nothing to do with each other. Then, instead of backing up the argument, they'll just issue a personal attack. Maybe even against Clinton.

    I guess there's not enough money in killing flags, whereas paving over some eagles is highly profitable.
     
  13. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #13
    If you were to develop bald eagle breeding grounds because you were protesting against the government then there might be a connection.

    Just like if someone needed to burn the american flag for heat, that wouldn't fall under "flag burning" proper.
     
  14. srf4real macrumors 68030

    srf4real

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    paradise beach FL
    #14
    Well that's enough debate to warrant an entire thread of it's own...
    What I see is developers raping habitat, building a pond where the wetlands were and then leaving town. The eagles are moving out west to older pasture, and bald eagle populations are strong, however that area will be the next target for the developers as our human population increases. There is certainly a slowdown in building at this time due to over-development and a bursting market bubble... but looking at the long term I think we both know that Florida with its sunny warm days and mild winters, beaches from border to border, and fresh water everywhere will be the place to move to again. Florida finally gave the gopher tortoise some stronger rights this month, after the damage to their mounds has been done and is irreversible. (developers just plowed them over and called it incidental loss) Then there are the bobcats 'intruding' into civilization, gators, brown bears, and even the scrub jay. B.S. I say - build it higher or limit growth altogether to city limits... no "re-zoning" of ag and low-density lands... stop urban sprawl. I would rather see a twenty story condominium developed on fifty acres of natural habitat with one road in and one road out than see 750 single family homes crammed onto that same land - that's how they do it now.
    See, ya got me started again!:p
     
  15. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    And how do you suggest that occur? Are you willing to spend your money on something that has no ROI?
     
  16. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    So if a DFH tells you he's burning the flag for heat despite the fact that he is doing it on a hot day, that makes it ok?
     
  17. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #17
    So, you live in a place that never had wild animals that were displaced?
     
  18. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #18
    Ted Turner seems to have figured out a way to lock up 2 million acres of land and still makes enough from the bison he has on them to make it worth his while.
     
  19. ghall macrumors 68040

    ghall

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    #19
    There was this piece of land near where I live. Used to be a driving range for golfers. Beautiful field, and it was used by geese as well. It was nice to see a piece of land that both humans and animals could share. So the land was bought up, and now there's a big ugly Super Stop & Shop right there. Now the geese can't use that land any more. What really gets me is that NOBODY CARES that they are causing damage to the life of another species. They took over a beautiful, and functional piece of land, and built a giant super market, just so a few people wouldn't have to drive an extra 10 minutes to the next town and go to the Stop & Shop there. It's disgusting!
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20

    Get real, it's a big tax write off and feel good scheme. Not to mention all the federal subsidies he gets.
     
  21. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #21
    The wildlife don't know that nor do they care.

    He's not paving over the land, putting in a strip mine or clear cutting the woods - that was my point.

    There are a lot more examples of private parties and even organizations buying up land specifically to set it aside that probably have more altruistic motives than Ted (and I'm not a fan of Ted otherwise).
     
  22. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    I dunno man... Bison can be pretty touchy. They're all probably planning a mass suicide to get back at Ted for using them as a tax write off instead of only genuinely caring about their well being. Mighty spiteful creatures those bison...


    Lethal
     
  23. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #23
    I think the point you're making is that it's impossible to build a residential or commercial area without displacing some kind of wild life; is that what you meant? If so than I agree.

    To answer your question: this area I'm living in now used to be grape vineyards; and before that the California desert. So I imagine quite a few jack rabbits were displaced as well as a whole fortitude of other wild life such as field mice and magnificent hawks.

    :(
     
  24. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    And there are vastly more examples of private parties and even organizations buying up land specifically to develop it for financial motives.

    What I'm curious about is whether killing a bald eagle - lets just say as a protest against environmental policies - is pissing on the troops the way flag burning is.
     
  25. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    "And how do you suggest that occur? Are you willing to spend your money on something that has no ROI?"

    You've heard of the Nature Conservancy? If not, check it out.

    Me, I have right at 800 acres that's not gonna get developed in my lifetime, and probably not in my son's lifetime. Wildlife habitat. Not many mule deer, but dove/quail/badger/skunk/bobcat/coyote/fox/raccoon/javelina and miscellaneous little critters. And a couple of resident Mama Cougars nearby.

    Don't want land developed? Buy it. Do a low-key hunting thing, and in Texas you can get the same ad valorem tax break on the land as for farming and ranching.

    Back to the iggles: From a National Geographic program on bald eagles at a lake up in the Cascades, they hang around the shoreline trees along the lake. If that's standard behavior, then residential development some small distance back from the shore won't bother the birds. In wooded country, a buffer zone of a hundred yards or so should be sufficient. In more open country, farther; probably a couple of hundred yards.

    In general, critters aren't as bothered by people's activities as a lot of folks think. (I wonder if the raccoons still come to the back door of Smitty's bar in Sausalito, to get leftover rolls. If Smity's is still there.) As long as the habitat isn't reduced to any extent, they make out okay. Probably more wildlife losses from vehicle impacts on highways, and bird losses from all those towers we need for cell phones and TVs, than from actual habitat reduction.

    A lot of what folks think they know just isn't so. As example, during the deer season in Texas in 1963, the state's wildlife folks' survey claimed a hunter kill of some 15,000 deer in three counties northwest of Austin. Sounds like a lot? The winter kill because of drouth--"natural causes"--was claimed to be 17,000. And the three counties still had--and have--an over-population of deer, based on the carrying capacity of the land. Runty little things.

    Y'all like kitty cats? Those nice, furry little critters? They kill hundreds of millions of song birds per year. The Wisconsin study is floating around the Web, somewhere...

    'Rat
     

Share This Page