Monday, April 17, 2006

That Picture You See Is A Wetland As Per The Bush (Mis)Administration.. Yes I Kid You Not
Update: Apparently one of my commentors (JD.. no fan of mine..) read the report and claims this policy of calling golf course hazards as wetlands has continued thru prior administrations. I have not had time to read the report myself (this post was based on a Field & Stream article). I will read the govt report myself when I get a chance. That being said it is still a bone headed policy and trying to say we are not losing wetlands by using man made golf hazards as "wetlands" in your figures does not make this administration any better.
That being said here is proof that Dubya has a poor environmental record compared to Clinton and yes even his father Bush Sr.
Here is a quote form the link where they compared these administrations -
"In 13 of those 17 categories, the Bush administration had lower average numbers than the Clinton administration. And in 11 of those categories, the 2003 average was lower than the 2001 average, showing the trend increasing over time.
They apparently did increase civil penalties against water polluters but their overall record is not good.
There is more in the link and here about the general record of this administration on the environment.

Not surprising is it? This is an administration that defines up as down, failure as success and will use every excuse imaginable to not acknowledge any mistake.
As per wikipedia a wetland is - "an environment at the interface between truly terrestrial ecosystems...and truly aquatic systems...making them different from each yet highly dependent on both".
Now how in the fark does that golf course water hazard represent a wetland???
Golf courses are often characterized by the heavy use of pesticides and weed killers to keep the greens oh so perfect. How do you think they look that great?
It's not a surprise that this administration with one of the worst environmental records is actually claiming that the US is no longer losing wetlands!
Ya baby, everything is hunky dory just don't look at our standards for measuring hunky dory ;-).
This link is from the Field & Stream magazine. And when hunters and fishermen get mad at you, you are in real trouble!

"The Bush Administration announced last week that the nation is no longer losing wetlands--as long as you consider golf course water hazards to be wetlands.


Thursday (March 30), Interior Secretary Gale Norton called a press conference to claim our long nightmare of wetlands loss had finally come to an end due to unprecedented gains since 1997 (click hear to read the report she cites). However, she then admitted much of that gain has been in artificially created ponds, such as golf course water hazards and farm impoundments.

The sporting community--from Ducks Unlimited to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership--reacted quickly, and not favorably. Researchers long ago established that natural wetlands such as marshes, swamps and prairie potholes are far more productive than even the best-designed artificial wetlands. And sharp-edged water bodies like water hazards, farm ponds, and even reservoirs offer very little for wildlife. Putting man-made ponds in the same class as natural wetlands is like ranking pen-raised quail with wild coveys.

The boldness of Norton's claim was particularly galling given the Bush Administration's record on wetlands. President Bush, like other presidents before him, promised a policy of �no net loss� of wetlands, but his administration has consistently supported rollbacks of the Clean Water Act to satisfy industry and development.

In fact, at the same press conference, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported a continued loss of 523,500 acres of natural wetlands during the same time period. So how could the nation have come out ahead if it lost more than half a million acres? Norton didn't try to hide the truth: The 715,300-acre �gain� was mainly artificial ponds."

Amazing eh? But not surprising when Dubya was guvnor of Texas it was one of the most polluted
states in the nation!

2008 cannot come soon enough. What surpises me (well not really) are the way some of the blind Bush supporters (Bushbots) continue to worship him. One of whom I knew always used to hide behind his "libertarian" label and claim that is what he was when it got hard to defend dear leader!


Keshi said...

So he lacks expertise in other areas too :)

Hows u Jay?


Aditi said...

Shouldnt an administration have some sort of check system in place to ensure that they dont make such ridiculous statements?

karmic_jay said...

Keshi...Me's fine, works carzy busy and you? He has no expertise. He just has a reverse midas touch, everything he touches turns to..

Aditi, you see we are in a war and at time of war we cannot question anything the administration does or says, lest it be deemd unpatriotic.. /sarcasm

Jordan's Dad said...

Jay - I know you are liberal, and you think I'm a "Bushbot," but I really thought you were smarter than this. Did you even read the report? Or just the article about the report?

If you bother to read the report, you will learn that the US has been experiencing a decline in wetlands since 1951, including all the way through the Clinton years.

So when you lose something like a wetland, and you want it back, you have to create it. Otherwise you will never gain wetlands.

But the report clearly shows that the administration is concerned with creating new wetlands and reversing the 50-year trend of losing them.

I dont pretend to know that wetlands are necessarily good or bad or whatever. And I'll assume that golf courses do not present "ideal" wetlands, whatever that means. And the agencies certainly included golf courses to boost the numbers and show a reversal in the 50-year trend of losing wetlands.

But, if you really wanted to hang the Bush administration with this (not that anyone will care in 2008), you would cite a statistic that showed that, under Bush, the loss of NATURAL wetlands has increased, only to be replaced by man made ponds on golf courses.

I dont know that such a statistic exists, but dont be so blinded by Bush hatred to think that he is responsible for the loss of wetlands over the past 50 years. You are smart enough to know he's only been president for 5.

karmic_jay said...

JD, You know who you are. I know people who worship everything Bush does(i had a colleague like that). Ofcourse I know we have been losing wetlands for a while now. That does not let the current administration off the hook.
I did not like certain aspects of nafta that was signed under Clinton, I did not like that he did not do more to make health care affordable for Americans. I just don't admire everything any one does cos these are just politicians, but trying to pass off golf water hazards as wetlands to make your record look better is just not right. And then they try to make it look as Of course they are "concerned" whatever that means. You mean concerned enough that they had to show they were doing better and so they include gold courses? Golf courses are not wetlands and that is what I am critical about. He has a lousy record ont he environment and by including gold courses in them, the admin is trying to show that wetlands actually increased?
Take out the golf courses and the area under wetlands actually shrinks.
"In fact, at the same press conference, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported a continued loss of 523,500 acres of natural wetlands during the same time period. So how could the nation have come out ahead if it lost more than half a million acres? Norton didn't try to hide the truth: The 715,300-acre “gain” was mainly artificial ponds. "
LOL. Wetlands are critical by the way esp in areas like around New Orleans, they keep hurricanes at bay as they bleed energy off them instead of open water, that might just feed them.
I am not blinded by Bush hatred (so try and stop calling it that), I just don't agree with his policies like most Americans.
Ya ya I know polls don't count.

Jordan's Dad said...

But are we losing natural wetlands at a higher or lower rate than we were in previous years? That's the key question you can't answer.

As far as "rolling back" Clinton's policies - remember our little discussion on cost/benefit analysis when it comes to environmental policy? You assume Clintons policies provided the most benefit to the environment with the least impact on the economy. Bush disagrees. And until you can prove that the environment has gotten worse as a result of Bush's policies (which you cant), the "harmful" effect of them remains only in liberal theory.

Meanwhile the economy is doing great after the tech bubble burst (under Clinton), the stock market crash (also under Clinton), and the worst terrorist attack on US soil (because Clinton never took action against al qeada). Not a bad job for Bush I must say...

And again with the hurricanes? Is that your answer to everything? You must be some sort of hurricane expert../ sarcasm

Anonymous said...

JD...the issue here is not how well the Bush administration has done in protecting the wetlands, it's actually that this administration acts very Orwellian in the way it re-labels and re-defines everything that would otherwise paint it in a bad light. Do you really think that Iraq is doing well right now because we're hearing about fewer American casualties? I assure you that they're in the midst of a civil war and they're tearing each other apart right now. I recall them redefining other terms as well, terms like unemployment. Didn't they also consider McDonald's employees working the grill to be factory workers? And now they have redefined the term "wetlands".

Are we in 2006 or 1984? Hmm?

Jordan's Dad said...

From the 1999 Report (under Clinton), guess what they use to determine the overall net gain/loss of wetlands. That's right kids... golf courses!

From Page 56 of the report:

"This study included freshwater
ponds that are functionally and
qualitatively different. Ponds
included beaver ponds, farm ponds,
water retention ponds, barrow pits,
small open mine pits, dug outs, small residential area lakes, water traps on golf courses, fish farms and natural ponds (Figure 36). All of these meet the wetland definition criteria of Cowardin et al. (1979)."

Check it out here: status_trends/national_reports/ 1997_Status_Report.pdf

So, you were saying something about Bush...?

In any event, good luck riding the wetland issue into the white house in 2008. Its a good one.

Viewer said...

one amazing thing is that i have come across very few american Bush supporters till date .... where the hell do these guys live ?

Mr. J said...

Conversations between Jay and JD are always good. ;) Kewl!!!

karmic_jay said...

Err. JD I think no election is won on one or two issues. Unless of course it is scaring people with the Iraqi (non existent WMD) and gays getting married.
So if you think the liberals are going to win with wetlands than you clearly think your opponents have no brains which says something about you.
As about the decline in the wetland rates.
You use a typical conservative argument, obfuscate the issue.
I am not talking about rates of decline, I am talking about the classification of obvious non wetlands like water bodies on golf courses as wetlands to make it look as if the wetland decline had been reversed.Sort of like the whole WMD evidence that was cherry picked to get what suited them the best.
Now if you want to talk about the rate of decline being faster under Clinton as opposed to Bush, feel free to do that. To be better than his predecessors you know Bush has to do better.
Concern is all good, it's the actions that matter and an action like calling non wetlands wetlands just does not cut it.
Once again who is blaming him for what happened over 50 years doh!
He is the one who went to a national park and called himself the environmental president, well if you are one follow it up with better action than having your lackeys classify golf course water courses as wetlands. And you say oh gosh Clinton did it too.
And if Clinton did that then it is wrong. I am not defending if Clinton or his people did that. But I thought the whole idea of Bush and honor and integrity was that Bush would not be like Clinton. Guess what he is and that ain't gonna cut it.
Again just cos wetlands have been declining for so many years, and continue to do so under his watch and then use the increased golf course water bodies to claim wetlands are coming back is disingenuous.
See field and stream mag readers can't fish in gold ponds you see.
But I am glad you could read the report, you clearly have more time to research this. :)
Also sad that you compare him to Clinton. You can do better.
AS for blaming Clinton for not stopping 911, if W could not get the significance of a memo that said OBL determined to attack in the US then he ain't worth putting on a pedestal is it?
The way you jump to defend him regardless clearly says that.
I am amazed at how blind you are with not being able to give Clinton credit for anything. I thought he had his plus points and his -ve ones too.
As for W, tell me what he has done that is so wonderous. We haven't had an attack since 911 and yes I think he deserves credit for that, but if one happens will he take the blame? The number or abortions went up under his watch, u know that corelates with an increase in poverty also up under is watch( but stock market is doing well yay)
Also while I am generally a liberal I am registered as an independent and with good reason and I have some moderate to mildy conservative positions too. I see things seriously wrong with both parties, but right now we as a nation are being led in a wrong direction. I do not see how casting my vote for the party in charge helps in reversing things.

Jordan's Dad said...

Thanks Jay, I'll take that as a (very long and drawn out) mea culpa.

Do you really think Bush or Clinton sits down and writes these reports??? The point is this is the way the agency has been defining wetlands for YEARS.

YOU are the one who is trying to say Bush is to blame for changing the standards. But you dont even bother to reserach your criticisms. You're just so ready to believe anything negative you read about the administration.

"That Picture You See Is A Wetland As Per The Bush (Mis)Administration.. Yes I Kid You Not"

Yeah - and for the Clinton, Bush I, Reagan and Carter administrations too!

Admit that I totally busted you on this one and the entire point of your post is garbage. If you are an honest person, which I think you are, you would update your post to include a correction.

Viewer said...

@karmic_jay : I really cant belivethat u guys (u n JD ) have dragged this issue yet again...

all i wud like to assume is that this is a pure healthy argument if this is then my suggestion wud be IGNORE...
Onething I must admit u both are really good at making ur point clear.

and Jordan's dad this goes for u too

Jordan's Dad said...

Of course I'm a fan of yours!

Appreciate the update. Very solid.

Keshi said...

hehe Midas Touch!

Im busy too but its all calm and cool over here..u know Aussie bludgers lol!