A Worthy Mascot?

I've sometimes asked the question

Of myself, if no one else,

About the nature of the coyote.

Is he really a great predator

Or, just a scavenger?

Whichever doesn't mean that much to me

Except that I have noted

He is quite the survivor

And seems to thrive;

No matter where you look

He's always there.

I grew up watching cartoons

Of him and the roadrunner

And the ineptitude with which he was endowed

Is certainly misleading

Because it is probably

The opposite of his character.

He finds a way,

In spite of urban encroachment

And hunting pressure,

To prolifically occupy

A special niche in the environment.

Perhaps he could best be described

As an opportunist

With a knack for finding ways

To overcome adversity.

I think I will adopt him as my mascot

Because that is the type of character

One must have in this

Old crazy world

Which seems to think up is down

And left is right

And the roadrunner always wins.

Variation, Behavior and Blame

They say that variety is the spice of life and I agree; doing the same thing day after day gets old quickly and my productivity diminishes when that is the case.  I thought the image of this "tiger stripe" steer was fairly representative of variety.  He was part of a group we bought a couple of years ago.  These were on grass for a brief pre-conditioning period before going into the feedyard.  They grew well, performed well and made a little money in spite of the huge variation in the pen.

Variety is good for some things, but not for others.  Because of the genetic variation in this group of cattle, the tendency for them to "grow apart" as they aged was even worse than normal.  They were ready to harvest at different times.  Fortunately, they were finished at a facility that was willing to "top the pen" which means they shipped them to harvest in groups as they were ready.

These days, this kind of discussion causes a very negative reaction among many people.  Talking about "harvesting" these animals creates a feeling of revulsion.  I personally think it is because we anthropomorphize them through making pets part of "family" and watching television shows that focus on the "cuteness" of animals as opposed to their true nature or, purpose in the ecosystems they occupy. 

Cattle, quite simply, are born to be food.  It is their primary purpose for being on this planet.  They are a mobile, reproducing, energy harvesting machine that stores the energy from the sun which is first captured in plants and then concentrated in the tissue of the animal for later consumption.  They are uniquely and amazingly suited for that sole purpose.

The natural world is designed to function in ways we are only now beginning to understand.  All of life on this planet is dependent on energy from the sun for survival.  Each animal, including humans, is designed to fit specific niches in the environment.  Within those niches, animals tend to attempt modification of the environment to suit their own specific needs.  A great example of this is the beaver which builds dams in streams which change the water flow and thus the surrounding local ecosystem.  Sometimes those beaver dams get taken out by the raging torrent of a flooding river.

Humans are by far the worst at modifying the environment.  We lay acre after acre of concrete and asphalt that alters the planet.  Sadly, in our ignorance of the impact we have, we change the earth to the point that in some places it is to our own detriment.  Flooding and altered weather patterns can be a result.  Because of our egocentricity, we tend to place the blame on other things.  Right now, one of the primary objects of "blame" is animal agriculture -- the production of food from animals.  It seems strange to me that we would blame a natural process for issues resulting from our unnatural behavior.  That's not exactly accurate -- our alteration of the environment to suit our purposes is part of our natural behavior, it's just that we have the ability to understand and reason through the facts that point to the ultimate consequences of that behavior; the planet will fight back. 

Water, Conveniences and Contaminants

As I continue my journey back through old images from Mission San Jose in San Antonio, I am struck by this one of a water well.  Here in this country we take clean, readily-available water for granted although it is critical for our survival.

Can you imagine living where the water you drink and use for washing is all hand-dipped from a well?  There are numerous places where that is the case even today.  Often, the water in those open wells is contaminated with debris along with bacteria, insect larva, fecal material and chemicals which leach into it or, fall from above.  Many times, they are the source of disease or, other contaminant-induced illnesses.

In 2009, on a trip to Niger, I saw large community wells that provided the drinking water to many people.  I recall peering into one and seeing quantities of trash -- plastic bags, containers, wood, other debris -- that had blown in from the surrounding streets, yet the people lowered their buckets and drew out the water for consumption.  It is no wonder their mortality rate is high.

The same thing happens in this country, but we aren't usually aware of it.  Roadside trash washes into our streams, rivers and lakes which often serve as reservoirs of drinking water for our cities.  If it wasn't for the decontamination processes of our municipal services -- which includes chemical treatment to kill organisms in the water -- we would be in similar circumstances as the poor in other countries.  Fortunately, we have built infrastructure to cleanse the majority of contaminants from the water before we consume it.

Notice my use of the word "majority" in the previous comment; one thing we fail to completely remove is the micro-plastics -- microscopic pieces of plastic that come from the tons of plastic items we use  on a daily basis.  Those plastics include things like food wraps, straws, drink containers, toys, storage containers, tires and many other things.  Plastics are so pervasive in our lives that we no longer take notice of them.

There are many different kinds of plastic.  They are sometimes rigid, sometimes flexible, some contain dyes while others are clear, they are often combined with other materials such as in footwear.  They are a major component of tires which leave tiny fragments on our roadways as we drive.  Those fragments are washed into ditches and eventually into our waterways.

The consumption of all of those micro-plastics is something being studied by numerous scientists.  As of this time, little is known about the impact they may, or may not have, on our health.  I don't know about you, but I'm not particularly thrilled to know that I am consuming it.

Modern technology is amazing in the the things that make our lives better; sometimes, though, there are unintended consequences that come along for the ride.  I am trying to use fewer plastic objects.  I also am attempting to do as my grandparents and reuse or, re-purpose items more frequently.  There is not only a benefit to the environment, but also an economic benefit.  I wish more people would do the same.

Often it is difficult to connect all the dots between our consumptive behavior and the environment; water is one area that falls into that category.  The next time you grab that plastic wrap, think about where it will end up.  It might be that you are feeding it to your grandchildren....

A Beautiful Invader

Through numerous Spring hikes in the woods over the last few years I have noticed a handful of beautiful flowering trees.  For some time I have been trying to figure out what they were.  A couple of weeks ago we were walking through an area where we rarely visit due to its inaccessibility and came across the tree in the image above.  Upon doing some research, I found it is a wild pear tree, or Callery Pear (Pyrus calleryana) which is native to China and Vietnam.

So, how did a species native to the other side of the world end up in the woods of Northeast Texas?  It is a "cropout" or, native stock from which the Bradford Pear, which is so common as an ornamental, descended.  It is an invasive species that is now becoming established in many parts of the country.

It is likely that birds are the culprit for spreading these trees into the environment of this part of the world.  The fruit provides food for them in the fall and after passing through the alimentary canal, the seeds are left across the countryside in a pile of nitrogen-rich fertilizer where they can germinate and grow.

I enjoy seeing flowering trees in the woods but, would prefer they be native to the landscape.  It may be that this is a case where the invasive species is ultimately beneficial, but it is just one more instance of unintended consequences.

Who Left Their Trash in the Woods?

The other day I was off down in the woods and ran across this tire.  Finding such things in the otherwise non-trashed environment angers me and it makes me sad.  It was in an area that is often inundated with water after a heavy rain and I suspect washed in from a long way off.  Someone upstream had used the creek or, one of the waterways leading into it, as a dumping ground for their trash.  It may have been carried for miles before being deposited in this isolated place.

We often find other people's trash on our land.  It is usually of the smaller variety such as plastic bottles and drink cans.  Occasionally, though, we find larger items such as refrigerators and ice chests and tires.  I think most of the smaller items come from the roadside ditches that are frequently the receptacle of plastic bottles, drink cups, fast food carryout bags and other sundry items that likely were released into the wild at high speeds as their previous owner traveled one of the county roads.  When the rains come, the trash is washed into the many waterways that eventually lead to the creeks and rivers.

I was in school during the major wave of the environmental movement that swept our nation during the 60's and 70's.  We learned that you shouldn't be a "litterbug."  We were not often taught the reasons why we shouldn't litter, just that it was "bad" to do so.  Perhaps that's where the movement failed.  Most people don't realize that the cup they threw out, which is ostensibly biodegradable, may end up as micro-plastic in their water supply or, the fish they catch in the local lake which serves as the city water source.  Maybe they just don't care.

One of the ways governmental bodies incorporated the anti-littering campaigns of those years into legislative action was to make littering carry stiff fines or, other penalties.  That's great, but do you know anyone who was ever fined for littering?  I'm sure it happens, but it isn't frequent or we would hear about it every day based on the volume of trash I see.

As I listen to the various "solutions" to what is now being called the "climate crisis," I hear proposals to penalize those who contribute to the issue.  Fifty years after littering fines were instituted, we still have a littering problem.  I wonder just how well the proposed penalties will work in curbing behavior that contributes to the anthropocentric view of global warming?  In my opinion, the real solution is to educate rather than to regulate.  Behavior changes when understanding of the consequences is clear.

I think there is no doubt that many behaviors of mankind are abusive of the planet.  One of the most egregious is the paving over of productive land as urban and suburban sprawl gobbles the countryside.  If our legislative bodies want to do something that will help, maybe they should look at population growth patterns in view of flooding issues, the loss of productive agricultural lands and the exploding infrastructure necessary to accommodate low-density housing.

[Aside] I follow an individual on Twitter who has ties to the United Nations Committee on Climate Change.  He daily posts photos of the beautiful places he visits around Europe.  His jet travel alone contributes more in a year to releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere than most people will contribute in a lifetime.  Yet, he does get to see some beautiful places that most of us will never have the opportunity to see.  Should I envy him? or, should I condemn him as a hypocrite?  I choose to do neither.  I just hope he someday might see that the image he portrays in his posts is not the one he asks in the behavior of others.  Sometime I would love to have the opportunity to show him the world in which I live.

I am a strong proponent of the free market.  I don't like regulation or, legislation, therefore, I would suggest that behavior be based on incentives through the market with things like tax credits which are currently used for conservation easements.  We need to ask if there are ways to incorporate similar strategies in directing growth so that the environmental impacts are minimized.  As we do so, we need to keep in mind the potential negative economic impacts that such incentives may carry.  If initiatives penalize some current landowners while rewarding others, the result will be increased corruption.  Perhaps it would be possible to use a tax structure that would reward developers for including green spaces and flood mitigation strategies within a development and penalizing them for not doing so.  Those penalties could then be used as offsets to those landowners who own sensitive areas that would be penalized if developed.  What is needed is a reward system that would encourage the preservation of the sensitive area.

I'm just trying to reason through possible mechanisms to drive good behavior through the market rather than strictly through a penalty system that likely won't work anyway.  There are lots of people out there with much more experience and training in this area than I will ever have; I hope they will step to the forefront and bring a common sense approach that will prevent the likes of a "Green New Deal" from taking hold.

Food In Balance

There is an area behind our Vet Shed that is not accessible to the cattle and the grass tends to get very lush.  A water hydrant is located there for the occasions when we need to hook up a hose and fill a tank, or whatever.  Late yesterday as I was waiting for my spouse to turn the water on so I could fill a tub, I could hear her talking.  I couldn't make out the words and thought she might have received a call on her cell phone.  Nope, she was talking to this little guy who was hidden in the deep grass.

We have a number of cottontail rabbits that hang out around our place.  I believe this to be an Eastern Cottontail Rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).  It is estimated they have an 85% mortality rate prior to reaching maturity -- most of that before ever leaving the nest.  They also are very fertile and have 4 to 5 litters which average about 4 babies each year.  I think their primary role in the environment must be to provide food to predators!

I enjoy seeing the rabbits.  To me, they are an indicator of the health of the land and our local ecosystem.  It is also a joy when the grandchildren spot one.  Their excited voices and happy chatter thrill my heart.

Taking care of the land for future generations is important.  It is something the ranching community does very well.  Usually, there is a multi-generational outlook with a strong desire to see the land passed down to children, grandchildren and more.  Because of that view, ranchers tend to be good stewards and have been practicing sustainable techniques for generations.  Certainly mistakes are made, but subsequent generations apply new knowledge and seek to leave the land in even better shape than that in which it was received.  That is why we see wildlife thrive in areas where ranching is strong.

Just like the rabbits which provide food for carnivores, the cattle are destined to be food.  It is the way the natural system is designed and it is something that many fail to recognize today.  They see the rabbit and think, "what a cute bunny!"  They don't think about the high mortality rates due to it being a food species.  They see a newborn calf and think, "what a cute calf!"  Also, not accepting intellectually that it is destined to be food.  The movement toward an anti-meat society is as destructive of the environment as is the paving of our cities and suburbs.  It doesn't account for the required balance that must occur between plant eaters, meat eaters and carrion eaters.  Our children need to be educated in the realities of a natural system that is one of balance.

Being Genuine

Yesterday morning as I pulled out of the gate after checking cows I spotted several bugs on a goat weed (woolly croton) along the county road.  My first thought was ladybugs.  Since I'm always looking for things to photograph to use in this Blog I decided to pull out the trusty iPhone and take a couple of pictures.  As I zoomed in and really looked at them, I quickly realized they weren't ladybugs at all.  They were the right size and shape and had similar coloration, but these appear to be segmented -- similar to a roly poly or, pill bug that rolls up in a ball when threatened.  I didn't pick them up to examine closely, but I didn't see any legs either.  So, I don't know if they are actually insect or, something else.

I have posted these photos on a number of sites where there are groups who study "bugs" professionally.  So far, no one has identified them for me.  Hopefully, eventually I will get the answer.  Until then, they remain unknown.

Mimicry is an interesting phenomenon in nature.  It usually involves a species that is "highly palatable" to predators evolving mechanisms, such as coloration, that disguise it to look like something "less palatable" or, even dangerous to its natural predators.  It is a defensive adaptation to danger.

There are other types of mimics who look like some benign species but are in fact, something dangerous.  This is a bit like the "wolf in sheep's clothing" and is often used by predators to attract and catch their prey.  A Praying Mantis, or Walking Stick is a good example of this type of mimicry.  They look like part of the plants on which they wait for their prey.

People use mimicry too and for the same reasons.  Some are predators who appear benign and others try to appear "rough and tough" when they are "softies" at heart.  It is all part of the natural world and the survival mechanisms we have adapted over time.

I prefer genuineness.  It is rare in people.  Most folks either try to stand out, or to blend in -- depending on their personality.  It is great to find those rare individuals who just "are what they are" and don't pretend.  Be genuine.

In the meantime, if you know what those critters are in the photos, please comment and let me know!

More Thoughts on Food Production

It seems that across the world people are becoming more and more interested in food production.  I think there are a number of reasons for this:  1)  Growing populations need to eat and some are recognizing a real concern with the ability of our planet to feed everyone adequately.  2)  Environmental impact of food production.  3)  Global warming -- whether you subscribe to human-causation, or not, doesn't matter because enough people do to make it an issue.  4)  Periodic weather events that disrupt agriculture.

I have recently been working with some folks from England regarding a project which they hope eventually to take to the AIM market (Alternative Investment Market -- similar to NASDAQ in the U.S., but on the London Exchange).  They have indicated that the taste for longer-term investments in agricultural technology is something very popular on that market and seek to take advantage of it.  I find that interesting -- the words "longer term."  Here in the U.S. most investors are worried about quarterly reports and fear "long term" operational horizons for their investments.

I mention that because this morning as I perused the Reuters News I came across two articles related to food production.  The first had to do with a vertical greenhouse and the second with a global network of satellites to map heat which is expected to be a useful tool for agriculture.

The vertical greenhouse mentions some of the very ideas that I referred to in yesterday's post regarding proximity of vegetable production to the marketplace.  It is investment intense, yet the advantages on reduced transportation and reduced land-mass footprint are also large.  It allows for better control of pests and invasive plant species (weeds) than do traditional production practices.

The heat mapping is interesting because I believe it will show something that might be even more beneficial in surprising ways than the benefits to agriculture.  I believe it will also show the impact of urban/suburban development on trapping heat.  The earth is an integrated bio-physical "machine" in which what happens in one place affects what happens in others.  I suspect far too little focus has been placed on the impact of urban development than is needed.  Along with adressing some definite opportunities in agriculture production, we need to re-think how we build cities.

Anyway, just my thoughts this morning....

Observing Wildlife

If I had known more about the various career opportunities when I was in High School, I probably would have pursued a degree in Wildlife Biology, or something similar, upon graduation.  I had a very limited knowledge of such possibilities in the small town in which I grew up and my only exposure to anything along that path was to game wardens.  I didn't really want to be in law enforcement at the time so, I headed down a different road.

I have always enjoyed observing and learning about the behavior of wildlife.  I remember as a kid, Texas Parks & Wildlife published what I recall as single-page profiles of wildlife in the state.  It would have a photograph of the animal and describe habitat, behavior and how to identify tracks, etc.  I used to love studying those.  I seem to remember one that was covered with tracks and how to identify an animal from those tracks.

Many times, weekends would find me traipsing around the pastures of my granddad's place out on Runningwater Draw.  I would often be carrying a shotgun, or rifle, or be focused on finding an arrowhead or, potsherd.  Always, though, I would be looking for animals.  It didn't matter if it was a lizard, a dung beetle or, a coyote, I wanted to see wildlife.  Plants also interested me.  It didn't have to be animals.  Blooming yucca (which we called beargrass) or, various other growing things always found me bent down, looking at the leaves and the blooms.

I remember Grandpa telling me that with few exceptions, if a cow would eat it, so could I.  This is generally a good rule-of-thumb as long as the cattle have plenty to eat.  When forage is sparse, they will sometimes eat plants that should be avoided.

I still enjoy watching for and observing wildlife.  The other day we saw a young bobcat beside the road as we were headed out to our place in the country.  Yesterday, as I was returning to town, I saw a Crested Caracara.  It was scavenging road kill on the edge of the road.  It seemed relatively unafraid and flew to a nearby fence post as I drove by.  I paused and took its photo.

The Green Gambit

Gambit: a device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage. (Google Dictionary)

An example of a gambit is "The Green New Deal."

Many of the concepts expressed in the document have been around for a lot of years.  I enjoy reading science fiction and in that genre there are generally four basic scenarios for the future of earth.  1)  It becomes one massive, all-encompassing city and we exploit outer space to support it.  2)  Through war, or other global catastrophe, we devolve to a more primitive age of small tribal enclaves surviving against an extremely harsh environment and fighting each other for the limited resources.  3) There is some scientific breakthrough in the realm of energy research that provides unlimited power without dependence on fossil fuels.  4)  Some form of power such as nuclear energy is utilized to power the cities while the agricultural sector is dependent on horses, oxen and people for food production.

All of the scenarios focus on energy/fuel/power -- whatever you want to call it.  Utilization of energy drives our economy.

Fossil fuels such as coal and oil (or, its derivatives) is problematic.  Burning it (which is the only way the energy is released) frees carbon that has been sequestered into the earth, to circulate back into the carbon cycle.  Too much carbon, or other particulate matter, pollutes the atmosphere in a manner that causes a slow and general rise of temperatures.  It is basic science.

This heating occurs in natural cycles which can be detected through examination of the geologic record through time.  Part of it is connected to solar activity and part to volcanic activity on the earth.  It also has been theorized that a meteoric impact could cause a sudden escalation of the effect and may have contributed to the demise of various life forms such as dinosaurs at some time in the distant past.

The science and logic behind an effort to curb or, virtually eliminate the release of sequestered carbon is sound.  Many of the predictive models, however, are just that, predictive.  Predictions, by their nature, are often inaccurate.  They are "educated" guesses.

In the case of "The Green New Deal" we are seeing an exploitation of a developing global mindset that is properly motivated to reduce dependence on the release of sequestered carbon to fuel our economy.  It is much like profiteers who exploit any global event of a catastrophic nature.  In this case, it is a move toward communism (not socialism which is a pie-in-the-sky concept that has never been achieved on a large-scale basis.)

Gambits are often designed to exploit ignorance.  In a business deal it is frequently the knowledge by one side of some piece of information that materially affects the outcome which is believed to be unknown by the other side.  It is a high-stakes bet based on perceived advantage that may, or may not, be real.  "The Green New Deal" is a high-stakes gambit designed to expand power.  The groundwork has been laid over the past 30 years.  We are just now seeing the opening moves of the "game."

Yes, we need to find alternative sources of energy.  It doesn't need to be wind turbines, or ethanol.  Nuclear is a much better bet.

We also need to be vigilant against those who would exploit ignorance in an effort to gain power.  "We the people" are being manipulated by those we have elected to serve.  They in turn are being manipulated by those who have power and wish to expand it.  We must become better informed of both the science and the political systems that seek to exploit us.  It is all about power and control of it.

The greatest appeal of "The Green New Deal" is to those who are most isolated from the beauty that is the natural state of this earth.  Those whose lives are surrounded by concrete, people and pavement -- i.e. live in the cities -- long for the opportunity to touch that natural beauty.  Those in the country still get to experience it on a daily basis -- if they are paying attention.  The appeal of "The Green New Deal" is to those in the cities.  It is also the environment most ripe for a reform of some kind that would improve their lives -- even for the most affluent.  "Socialism" appeals to those trapped in inner-city ghettos.  They also vote.  They are frequently ignorant.  They are angry at their circumstance yet feel powerless to escape.

We need to do something about it.  Instead, we complain about their ignorance, their violence and their perceived unwillingness to do something about their circumstance.  When you have no hope, it is nearly impossible to change without help.  The promise of socialism is a life preserver floating just out of their reach, but visible.  We must provide an alternative.

Ashes and Dust

In yesterday's post I mentioned that we need to "look at ourselves as part of our environment rather than looking at our environment as an object outside ourselves from which we must extract a living."  The idea is Biblical.  It is one we typically only hear at funerals, but one that is applicable far beyond that most solemn of occasions.  I refer to Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 which says:

Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both:  As one dies, so dies the other.  All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.  Everything is meaningless.  All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.  Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth? 

We usually think of these verses in the term "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" rather than looking at the broader passage quoted above.

Within these verses is basic biology and chemistry.  The very same substances -- minerals, water, etc. -- make up all living beings.  We are literally built from the soil of this planet.  Genesis 2:7 says:

...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

The body that we inhabit is in turn host to many other creatures.  It is estimated that there are at least as many non-human cells living within your body as there are human cells.  This includes bacteria, viruses, fungi and other organisms.  These same organisms are often found in the soil which is often the source of introduction into the human body.  We are one with the soil.

When we die, of course we must first discount the fact that most people choose to be encased in a concrete vault at death, our bodies are broken down by chemical action and by the action of the many creatures living within it into the basic chemicals and compounds of which it is composed.  It literally returns to become a part of the soil.

Throughout our lives we eat the products of the soil.  Whether it be directly in the form of plant tissue, or indirectly through animal tissue which is grown from plant tissue, we are eating the soil, although in a much more palatable form.  That soil which is created through the natural processes of various creatures living within it such as worms who digest plant and animal material into a form that can be used by new plants is incorporated into our bodies.

Most of us make some attempt to care for our bodies.  We need to care more for our soil -- the earth -- from which our bodies come.  When I voiced concern for the "trashing" of our environment in yesterday's post, I am not just referring to the aesthetic aspects; I am referring to the impact it has on our very lives.  The chemicals we release into the environment come back to us through that very soil.

Getting Rid of Dead Wood

There is something satisfying about burning brush piles.  Most of them on our place have been there for about a year.  That's about how long it takes for them to dry down to the point they will burn.  We also have to wait until the weather is "right" so the chances of a stray spark catching the woods or the pasture on fire are reduced to near zero.

With the recent rains we have had, the conditions are good.  Now, it is just a matter of catching a day with no wind, or only a slight breeze from the appropriate direction.  The winter grasses are short and the summer grasses have been grazed down so there is little to no excess fuel to worry about.

Why is it satisfying?  I suppose it is because it leaves the landscape cleaner, more open.  It gets rid of an eyesore -- a nuisance pile of decaying debris.  It's a little like spring cleaning except in the fall.

Some of the wood in the brush piles is from my clearing or, trimming trees and brush, but much of it is dead fallen branches from diseased trees that have died over the previous year.  This is a good time of year to drag it out of the woods and pile it for burning as well.  I have a long way to go to get our place in the kind of shape I want it, but each day I have the chance, I like to get out and work at it.  This is the best time of year because it is cool enough to put in a day of labor in the woods.  During the summer it is like an oven with high temperatures and high humidity.  During the spring it rains almost constantly and the humidity is so high you need scuba equipment in order to breathe.

Ideally, I would set a match to it and let the fire clear all the deadfall out of the woods.  That's the way it would naturally be kept in control.  That's how the natives and early Anglo settlers handled it.  They would clear the forest with fire.  It was efficient, it was fast and it left the basic nutrients on the soil to be absorbed by the grasses and other forbs that quickly followed in natural succession.  Today's attitude of leaving the forest detritus to decay in place has led to a dangerous situation in areas where dense forests cover the land.  It has caused an extreme accumulation of fuel to be available for any stray spark to create a conflagration that is unstoppable.  It is a primary reason for the devastating fires which so recently have ravaged large swaths of California.  Now they will have to deal with the erosion that will follow because of the loss of cover on the land.

We need to recognize that fire is a management tool.  Some environmentalist will argue that fire releases carbon into the atmosphere that should remain stored in that fallen debris.  They fail to recognize that the carbon is being released anyway through the decaying processes.  It just takes longer.

The carbon stored in that debris is part of the free carbon on our planet which is part of the carbon cycle.  It is constantly being released and then reincorporated into plants and animals.  It is part of how nature works.  Much of the carbon on this planet is in longer term storage in the form of coal and oil which is buried deep in the earth.  This is sequestered carbon -- carbon that has been set aside by natural processes.

The human-centric global warming alarmists need to distinguish between free carbon and sequestered carbon.  We certainly are releasing a lot of sequestered carbon through burning fossil fuels and need to explore ways to reduce that process, but it is the problem, not dead wood lying on the ground in a forest and certainly not agriculture which captures carbon continuously through the growth of crops which become food for a rapidly growing and hungry world population.

Sometimes getting rid of dead wood takes time.  In the case of my brush piles, it takes about a year for me to get rid of it.  In other cases it seems to take longer....

Sometimes I ramble....

Rambling Musings on Quality

I admire craftsmanship.  When you come across something that is extremely well made, it is obvious.  A true craftsman, or craftswoman, puts a part of themselves into the work and it reflects an exacting demand for perfection.

Craftsmen are rare these days.  We live in a world of disposable everything.  Homes, cars, furnishings, clothes -- all are designed with obsolescence in mind.  They are built with cost-saving techniques rather than a focus on durability.

One of the few places this is not the case is in art.  Most artists express themselves in their work.  There are exceptions such as what I call "Motel Art" which is mass produced with a focus on volume, or themes rather than self-expression.

Even among artists though, there are those who are first-rate, whose work is exceptional.  It is obvious to anyone that the talent to create is coupled with the ability to create on a level far above the norm.  There are others who create art as a release of pent-up energy to create that is left unexpressed in their normal occupation.  I would call these recreational artists.  Some of them are very good, others may never have had the chance to fully develop their talent.

It seems that in much of our life we are satisfied with less than the very best.  Generally it is an economic decision -- after all, the cost of exceptional workmanship is very high and most believe they can't afford it.  This has led us to become a "disposable" society.  We pay less, we use, we replace.  The consequence is overflowing landfills.

If we were to establish a mode of thinking that sought high-quality that would endure, we could help alleviate at least some of the environmental issues we face.  A simple example would be a high-quality hand-crafted coffee mug rather than the disposable paper or Styrofoam cups which are everywhere.  Rather than getting a new disposable cup each time you went into your preferred coffee shop, take your hand-crafted mug and have them fill it.

We could very simply alleviate some issues if we would consciously choose first-rate quality rather than settling for good, or adequate, second-rate.  Long-term, first-rate is much less expensive.

Wheels and Wheels

I hear a train this morning,
It's lonesome whistle blowing,
The sound of diesel motors
As it rides the shiny rails.

It wakes the lazy sleepers
On this early Saturday
As it drags the cars of commerce
Across this hungry land

That cries for more and more --
The newest and the best --
Discarding what was barely used
Into the earth again.

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

We frequently hear celebrities on the "bandwagon" about some cause or the other.  They typically are poorly informed about their subject but believe themselves to be experts.  The article linked below is an exception.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2851

I appreciate the fact that Costner put up $21 million of his own money to develop the system.  I wish him well as it is deployed.  It is a worthy use of some of that box-office cash he has raked in.

Now, if we could just get a few more of them investing their money intelligently instead of putting it in the hands of a bunch of lawyers under the guise of a benevolent charity such as HSUS (which is probably the worst wolf in sheep's clothing out there in my opinion).  They play on the heartstrings of gullible people with their appeal for money using images of pitiful dogs and cats that have been mistreated.  Less than 1% of their $100 million warchest has been spent on rescue efforts.  In fact, their stated goal is to eliminate animal agriculture in the United States.  They use deceptive practices to raise that money.  It mostly goes to advertising, lobbyists and for huge salaries for a handful of individuals.

We Can Do Better

We frequently see the debate between “environmentalists” and the rest of us as framed in an “us” vs. “them” manner. Business people feel that the environmental movement is nothing but a roadblock to progress. People in developing countries see environmental groups preventing them from experiencing the luxuries of the west because they hinder the utilization of the natural resources at hand.

Environmental groups often carry names like “Friends of the Earth” or “Save the Wildlife.” Those types of names carry with them a stigma that immediately sets on edge the typical businessman.

What if the debate became a completely economic one?

There is within the economic community the idea that when external costs are internalized into the price of a good or service, the decision to allocate resources to that good or service often changes. An example of internalizing these externalities would be the impact of a uranium mine on the Navajo Reservation. In order to avoid the potential complexities of the decision, let’s limit it to one possible issue – or, external cost -- the impact of the mining activity on the water supply of a community.

Suppose that the mine is located within the watershed of a Navajo community. To fully understand the cost to develop the mine, the potential pollution of the community’s water supply must be examined. Such examination would need to include preventative measures and possible remediation in the event of contamination. It also would need to look at long-term effects to wildlife residing in the watershed. Wildlife might provide hunting lease income to the reservation. It might also be of significant cultural value that would be difficult to price. It might affect tourist income from photography or viewing. It might impact local artisans who utilize specific clays located within the watershed.

With the exception of preventing and remediating potential contamination, none of the impacts mentioned are direct costs to the mine owner/operator. They are however, external costs to the community of locating the mine in their watershed.

How does one determine the value of natural resources? We can estimate the value of mineral deposits. We can value land based on the transactional market for similar properties. But, how do we value the less obvious things such as: filtering the water supply, tourism, hunting and fishing, recreation, moderating effects on climate, flood protection, erosion control and other items about which we don’t currently understand?

Hopefully in the near future, we will see attention paid to such values. Such things must be part of an overall land use plan before disruptive activities are begun. We need oil, natural gas, wind energy, solar energy, coal and we need minerals that can only be obtained through extractive activities. Surely we have learned enough of the complex interactions of the environment to begin to make sound evaluations of our activities in a broader sense. We must learn to utilize our resources without destroying our surroundings. Let’s drill – but let’s do so in an environmentally informed manner. Let’s build windmills for electrical generation – but let’s situate them in a manner that retains the benefits of our wild lands. Let’s learn from the unintended consequences of our past mistakes – such as ruined lakes and streams from coal mining or oil and gas extraction. We can do better.

A New Blog For Your Enjoyment

I have added a link in my sidebar to a new blog to which I contribute. It is called Blue Island Almanack. The focus of the blog is the environment, economics, education and ethics. Drop by and take a look. Feel free to comment. Be sure and add it to your favorites.

Blog Action Day for the Environment

October 15 is Blog Action Day for the Environment. There is a button with link in my sidebar. I would encourage everyone to join in this particular Action Day. Most of you who read this blog are very conservative. So am I. Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his fiction film on Global Warming doesn't sit too well with me. I think it devalues the Nobel. Although, I guess that Jimmy Carter receiving it some years back pretty much soured me on its value anyway.

On this Blog Action Day there will be thousands of posts by liberal environmental activists crying "doom and gloom" about the environment. We need to make certain that more conservative views are represented.

Don't misunderstand me, I do believe that we need to care for the environment. Water, air and other pollution are health hazards. We are commanded by God to be good stewards of the resources that he places in our care -- which is the earth and all that is in it. However, stewardship implies Conservation -- not Preservation. There is a big difference.

Preservationists want to depopulate the earth. They also desire to see those few who are left living in a "natural" state -- being one with nature. It's interesting to me that the only ones they feel deserve to live on this planet are members of their small but very vocal clique. It is a very elitist position. If most of them were placed in nature without their gadgets and gizmos they would starve to death. Many of them are totally dependent on the technology that they condemn. Al Gore is a prime example. What would he do without his jet to travel around the world?

Conservationists on the other hand are focused on sustainability. It is a concept that makes sense. Conservation is caring for resources in a manner that will provide maximum benefit for now and future use. Conservationists are in favor of sustainable hunting and fishing. They believe in the utilization of natural resources such as land for farming and forests for lumber. The idea of conservation walks a fine line just short of Preservation. Conservationists wish to maintain bio-diversity. The demise of species is potentially detrimental to human populations. Therefore they are proponents of natural reservoirs to maintain viable populations of plants and animals. Their view is that such reservoirs provide a research laboratory that may yield future miracle drugs. They also understand the interlocking web of dependence between each and every plant and animal community. I consider myself to be in the Conservation camp -- sounds a lot like Conservative doesn't it?

We all should be sensitive to environmental issues. I'm sure that none of you would choose to live in a cesspool. That is why I believe it is important to get a Common Sense view posted on this Blog Action Day.