Fish Explorer Logo
Wyoming
Wyoming Fishing FishExplorer.com
Wyoming Fishing  
Login Usr:Psd:
Don't have an account? Register now...
 
spacer spacer
spacer

I'm No Tree Hugger - But...

Blog by: Lloyd Tackitt , Texas 3/24/2014

I'm not a tree hugger.  But I do appreciate what the tree huggers have accomplished.  Some of them go to some weird extremes though.  Probably only a small percentage of them - if the normal news type of bell-curve is any example.  You know and I know that in every category of people there are a few extremists on each end, and it's those extremists that get 99% of the news coverage, and that makes it seem like those extremists are the "normal majority" of that group.  I imagine it's the same for environmentalists.  Huh, just noticed "environ mentalist"  mental is a word often used in Britain the way we use crazy here.  Sorry I get easily distracted...

I'm not a tree hugger and I do like to buy cheap gasoline whenever I can find cheap gasoline.  In other words I'm not anxious to cause the price of gasoline to go up.  But hell, something has to give.  Listening to the radio this morning it has been 25 years today since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the people that live up there are still dealing, and in a major way, with oil in the water from that, and then I heard about the oil spill in the Houston ship channel this weekend.  Not to mention what happened to the gulf when that underwater well broke loose.  I was on a beach in Corpus thirty years ago and there were tar balls in the sand then. 

I'm not a tree hugging extremists, but I do appreciate what the tree hugging extremists have accomplished.  For example I lived in Maryland in the late 60's and the Potomac was an absolute sewer.  I saw it about five years ago and it sure looked, and smelled, a lot better.  We all know about the river that used to catch fire once-in-a-while up north but no longer does - Cleveland I think it was.  Anyone that lives in or near a large city knows about smog, and how much better it is now than it used to be. And that list of improvements goes on.   I don't always agree with the environmentalist's tactics, but I do agree with the results.

We can fix this oil spillage.  We can stop it entirely.  But it will be enormously expensive to retrofit all the tankers and to upgrade the new ones in design and construction.  It will drive up the cost of gasoline, I have no doubt of that.  I get ticked off pretty regularly when the price of gasoline goes up because of the speculators that are like vultures or leeches.  First sign of a disturbance somewhere across the ocean and they are driving the price up, and the only ones that benefit are the bastards driving up the costs for the rest of us.  I hate those bastards, and I don't hate often. 

But I don't have a problem with paying more at the pump to stop these oil spills.  The ocean is getting more crowded and dirtier every single day.  It would only take simple engineering, more metal, and more skilled manhours to fix this spillage problem - it's not rocket science - it's simple economics, we have the technology already.  If we want a cleaner ocean, we have to pay the price for a cleaner ocean, something we hate to do obviously, or else we'd already be doing it.

I'd pay more for better fishing for all of us.

Just sayin.

Blog content © Lloyd Tackitt
Blog Comments
boogieman, CO   3/24/2014 9:16:12 AM
nice blog. unfortunately we live in a retroactive society not a proactive one. I don't see us making changes until it gets worse. However I do agree that we should take the preventive measures you mentioned. I'd be willing to pay a bit more personally, however I understand many folks just don't have the means to pay more, if gas goes up, then it will be taking food off the table, a catch 22 i guess...
 
IceFishingFool, CO   3/24/2014 9:20:12 AM
So True Lloyd, and its been said before, Man is a cancer to the space ship we call Earth.
 
Lloyd Tackitt (Lloyd Tackitt), TX   3/24/2014 10:44:04 AM
We do seem to go through a cycle. Starts with industrialization which causes a lot of pollution, then as industrialization becomes more technical and competitive the pollution goes down. I think maybe this is because the regulations increase on the industries as the average person's life style improves (as a result of industrialization) and the average person has the ability to be more interested in reducing pollution. Kind of like Maslow's Hierarchy, you can't reach self-actualization while you're scraping for food - that kind of thing. If mankind survives itself long enough the trend looks to me to be one that eventually man will live a lot closer to harmony with nature. While that won't happen soon by our individual time-frame standards by geologic time it's only a blink away.
 
Coyute, CO   3/24/2014 12:08:31 PM
'Man is a cancer to the spaceship we call Earth.' Agreed. Unfortunately, people keep breeding. All I can do is get my kicks while I can because the 'end' isn't that far off. :)
 
Attila64, TX   3/24/2014 12:43:39 PM
Maybe we need to eliminate the ability of companies guilty of gross negligence like BP and Exxon from ever dealing with anything in the oil industry in this country ever again. Hold them to the same level of responsibility we hold others accountable. Everything I have read upon the Exxon Valdez incident eludes to our government spent more money prosecuting Exxon and cleaning the mess up than the actual fines Exxon ended up paying. Sad
 
boogieman, CO   3/24/2014 1:57:05 PM
i think Coyute hit the nail on the head "people keep breading." why don't we target the underlying issue to most of the problems facing society today...
 
Lloyd Tackitt (Lloyd Tackitt), TX   3/24/2014 2:13:19 PM
I can see that point, but then what would be the point of nature without man and his specialized form of conciousness to witness it? it'd be sort of like an art museum that no one ever visited.
 
boogieman, CO   3/24/2014 5:35:16 PM
I am not saying that people should have kids period, just not as many kids. If we would have leveled out population at 1.6 billion (approx. pop in 1900), then we would not have near the demand that exists today, with a population 4 times as great (7bill). Instead, depending on the projections you believe, we could have twice that many by 2100 (maybe not we will see). More people=more resources=more impact on the environment. So I am not saying that we need no people, just less. We need a population that is stable, or decreasing, not increasing if you are at all worried about the impact on the environment, and our ability to grow food. I am all in for people, and maybe thatís my problem. I would like to see humans (or what we evolve into) thriving on this planet in 2000 years! Instead I am worried that society as we know it will not be here in 100! I probably just inferred way too much from Coyutes comment, for which I am sorry. But it seem to me, that most of the problems facing our society, stem from the sheer number of people we are trying to support, and it looks like populations are only headed up! Way off target for a fishing forum, unless you consider declining ocean fisheries and all the impacts placed on our bodies of water, that I know we all enjoy. Just my 2 cents sorry for the novel
 
Abel1, CO   3/24/2014 6:17:16 PM
Think about it. Cancer kills its host.
 
Dennsco, CO   3/24/2014 6:34:42 PM
I don't agree with some of you who are commenting, humans are not a cancer on the Earth. And I also think that some tree huggers that embrace trees, and advocate for human abortion are twisted in the head. I do think I world has serious problems, but we should work on fixing them, including mitigating oil spills, and cleaning and caring for our environment. I doubt there are very many who think pollution is a good thing. But lets not go overboard the last thing we need is more government involved in anything!
 
Lloyd Tackitt (Lloyd Tackitt), TX   3/24/2014 7:24:33 PM
From what I've read all of the so called first-world countries have declining birth rates. The US is at just about a self supporting birth rate right now. Our increase in population seems to be coming from third world countries that have an increasing birth rate. But the trend appears to be that once a country reaches a certain degree of technological living, the birth rate declines. Assuming that all countries will eventually reach that level, then the earth's population will stabilize and then actually decline. It's a lot more complicated than I just made it sound, but the overall trend is downwards:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html And I agree that we need less govt in our lives. I wish we had no govt in our lives at all, but the fact is that people in large part are only kept from running crazy in the streets by fear of being caged. And population density has a lot to do with the quality and quantity of fresh water fishing.
 
Dangly, CO   3/25/2014 8:23:16 AM
"We can fix this oil spillage. We can stop it entirely" I like you Lloyd, but in this case you are wrong, buddy. The reason you got Tarballs on your feet on the beach 30 years ago is the same reason that you would have gotten Tar balls on your feet 200 years ago. more natural crude seeping happens on the floor of the gulf every six hours than the deep water horizon leeked the entire time it was broken. Not that i am excusing BP, but we need to understand our place in the causation side of things if we are going to have real goals. There are tar balls on the beach because there have always been tar balls on the beach. The biggest reason that fuel prices rise and fall is not due to speculators but due to regulations and wrinkles in the political landscape. Paying more at the pump will not stop oil spills, as the VAST majority of what you pay at the pump you pay in taxes, not padding peoples pockets. I DO NOT WORK IN THE OIL INDUSTRY. just sayin.
 
Lloyd Tackitt (Lloyd Tackitt), TX   3/25/2014 9:45:09 AM
Dangly I like you right back! But you are wrong, and also right. It's pretty darned hard for anyone to do anything but make sweeping statements in a small box like this, so we both make sweeping statements. We can stop the man-caused oil spills but it would be enormously expensive. You're right that there is more natural seepage than man-caused spills. I disagree pretty strongly though about the speculators and instead of trying to write a super long discourse let me paste this link to a good article on the subject: http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price.htm
 
cookster, CO   3/25/2014 10:26:33 AM
^ x10