Hullo Readers,

I've been thinking about an issue that touches every human being, but which has not had much discussion in Y2k circles.

I'm talking about the natural environment and conservation.

I think most people agree that a healthy natural environment is as an important and integral part of humanity's survival as, say, agriculture. In spite of this the rate of deforestation, pollution, soil erosion, ozone depletion, global warming, and a dozen other offenses in the 20th century alone has lead us down a path where the natural earth has reached a breaking point. However, through individual action and government policy over the last decade or so we are starting to slow down, and hopefully reverse, this trend.

Now there have been concerns raised that Y2k could induce various disasters, such as toxic spills or nuclear meltdowns; and no one denies that any such incidents would have grave repercussions for both the local human populace and the surrounding natural ecosystem.

But what worries me more are not localised calamities such as these; but rather the long term ramifications of major scale (7-9) infrastructure breakdowns. As I mentioned environmental issues have been hot for the last decade or so, and action has and is being taken to try and heal some of the maladies we've brought upon our planet. But if we have major breakdowns in our society then priorities could change. Important matters like kick-starting the economy, getting the power on, and stamping out those food riots will push such "secondary" matters as the ecology and conservation onto the back-burner.

Picture this: On the government level, the money for those tree planting and clean-up projects will dry up. In the corporate boardroom, consideration to pollution levels and hazmat containment will fade behind the struggle to counteract falling profits, especially if there's a loss of government regulation; mining, farming, and manufacturing sites will suddenly shed those costly, "wasteful" processes and controls which were put in place to minimise their impact on the environment. At home, worries about blackouts, blocked up sewers, and where the next meal is coming from will overshadow any thought given to limiting and recycling household trash.

Issues such as "conservation", "sustainability", and "eco-anything" will be doomed. This will be a major backward step, IMHO; and not just for our living planet, but for all humanity as well.

Now we all have in our minds the hope that a Y2k breakdown could actually issue in a new Utopia: Small self-sufficient communities, sustainable agriculture, a fair justice system, a sound economic paradigm, clean energy, honest government, sense of close neighbourliness, increased spiritual awareness.... and where the natural ecosystem can exist in harmony with, rather than in spite of, our man-made infrastructure.

But we have to be realistic here people. If Y2k brings sufficient socio-economic chaos, then it's more likely we'll see the kinds of actions I mentioned earlier; along with the scapegoat-finding and finger-pointing and buck-passing which will follow.

Of course all this could turn out to be a blessing in disguise! If resources which were once plentiful suddenly become scarce, it will force society on all levels to rethink how it uses (and abuses) these resources. Our wasteful, throw-away culture could find itself having to save and repair those broken items rather than popping down to K-Mart; and finishing off that plate of food just like grand-dad always told you to, instead of scraping it down the garbage disposal and ordering in a pizza later. And ultimately through this belt-tightening we may gain a greater appreciation of the planet on which we depend.

In conclusion -- and I'm climbing on my soapbox now -- if a Y2k breakdown is sufficiently widespread, then we will have an excellent opportunity to reconsider and correct many of the negative aspects of our Western society. We must include a place for the natural environment in this rebuilding process; or better yet, as part OF this rebuilding process. Otherwise our extinction is merely delayed somewhat....

Thanks for listening,

-- JQ (onca@hotmail.com), August 24, 1999

Answers

I agree with your concerns, JQ, but I think they will start earlier, with a death by a thousand cuts.

I have no doubt that areas where the infrastructure fails, there will be environment-threatening shortcuts taken in the name of self-preservation. Some advance knowledge would have gone a long ways to preventing them, but as a society grown dependent on the services of others there is too much learn in the time remaining.

I'm thinking, as an example, of improper sewage disposal or improperly installed wood stoves. Right now, we rely (and perhaps curse) the health and building codes which set the standards. The unwillingness of public officials to admit to the need for Y2K contingency planning is also preventing those officials from informing us which alternative methods are the most appropriate.

I see all of this as a start towards a relaxation of national and global standards to suit an economic downturn, since the true costs of pollution and waste disposal are difficult to compute and rarely factored in.

I have been very active locally in conservation and open space issues. My town is affluent enough to hedge its bets with respect to Y2K, assuming it believed there was any need. However, I am sure that a significant number are currently living on the edge with massive mortgages and other financial commitments. I anticipate that their self-imposed lack of economic flexibility will spell the death of these initiatives (generally important to the town, not just me).

The good news is that a recession usually means less building activity and less municipal waste generated. A new way of environmental stewardship would need to be accepted and implemented prior to the next economic surge.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 24, 1999.

Interesting question. I have a feeling that the population levels we are at now- both global and local- preclude any easy return to a more sustainable lifestyle. City life in particular is very technologically dependent- We have also embraced every new technology without any thought as to its ultimate impact- not just computers but also aviation, cars, agricultual and others. We have built a society dependent on these technologies. Just imagine for instance- trying to feed,water, provide heat to and remove waste from New York city without the level of technology that we now have.

It would take much reduction in population numbers worldwide I am afraid, before we could return to simpler ways. And yes- your fears re; environmental disasters are well founded IMHO- I would expect at least one major nuclear plant disaster out of all of this- as well as untold amounts of sewage problems, water contamination, etc. And let us not discount what would happen if bunches of people headed out to hunt Bambi, chop down some wood to heat their homes, etc- when their meat usually came via McDonalds and their heat supplied by the oil company. Not a pretty sight- doesn't take much of a demand on any particular commodity- fish, ginseng, goldenseal, etc- before natural populations get depleted by those who plunder it.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), August 24, 1999.

A quick look at the former Soviet Union will show you an ongoing ecologic disaster.

The rape of the rain forest in South America is similar. People will do whatever is necessary to survive and not think about the long term consequences(sp?)

I do not think that our situation will be much different unless some plague sweeps the nation and reduces the population by about 70-90%.

This is not a pretty picture either way you cut it. The overall outlook is I fear grim.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), August 24, 1999.

Thanks, JQ, for weighing in on the side of the Earth.

In February 1998, when I first proposed discussing Y2K vs. the environment on this and other fora, I was gravely disappointed by the dearth of interest it generated. As well was I disappointed in my green friends' lack of awareness and concern about Y2K effects. I still marvel at the irony of two viewpoints, famous for castigating others for their denial and ignorance, each wallowing in their own variety of D&I.

I see from your presentation that you have obviously given this much thought. Your take reflects a level of concern and subtlety I rarely see when this question is discussed---far ahead of my own first efforts. As an example, this is what I had to say about it last October:

[Over 99% of the posts in this and other fora which I monitor concerns the effects of Y2K on the human population. A rather anthropocentric viewpoint; but what should I expect? That's the way it is in this world, even without Y2K.

I've ranted before about the irony of the selective mutual denial of the environmentalists and the Y2Klan, even as they accuse everyone else of being in denial. Awareness is a funny thing. Non? I, among few others, have been trying to think about how Y2K might have an impact on the environment. Here's my latest take.

The opposing issues as I see them are the salubrious effects of economic curtailment vs the dangers of unmonitored nuclear materials and toxicants.

Caused by the oil embargo, the depression of the early 70s (recession if you had a job) reduced production, energy use and material consumption in general. According to ice-core evidence, it diminished pollution. It probably also attenuated population growth (though I'm too lazy to document this right now). In any case, it reduced the "A" (affluence) factor of Paul Ehlich's I=PAT equation. A major Y2K economic disruption will likely lead to an even more severe depression, even if social order is maintained. (Remember, the rest of the world is further behind than we are both in remediation and preparation.)

My parents, children of the 1929 depression, have been frugal all their lives. It's in their subconscious, part of their "story." It is conceivable to me that Y2K can reduce consumption enough to shift the Meadows' Curve to the right by a couple of decades, (see www.dieoff.org) a generation. Having survived a major economic dislocation, we may pass that "conservative" (literally) attitude on to our children. Remember it was a war that drove our economy back to the "consumption equals happiness" mentality. Y2K might have some effect in reducing population as well.

On the other hand, as Infomagic points out and I concur, reducing the societal mechanism below a certain minimum bodes ill for society and, by extension, the environment in a number of ways. I'm not too concerned about a desperate population deforesting the planet. We're doing a fine job of that already. But it requires the use of machines and fuel to do it; I'm not convinced that we can do a more complete job by hand. As for fouling waterways, most of the unprocessed waste we generate is of an organic nature. Environmental processes are in place to handle a surprisingly large amount. Should that become a problem, it won't remain one for long. I'm more concerned with the amount of anthopogenic chemical and petroleum effluent. Nature's self-cleaning apparatus are less efficient handling artificial pollutants, let alone nuclear.

I'm not going to address the possibilities of nuclear holocaust in this thread, although it would make a fine thread of it's own. Unlike radio-active leakage, should massive amounts of radionucleides be released into the atmosphere, all bets are off.

Jim Lord of Westergaard seems to be the only tech guy to weigh in on this issue. His column is at: http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Tip/Lord/lord9836.htm But he doesn't "get it" environmentally speaking. From comments I've read here, and judging from the feelings of some of the Yourdon-list respondents, I think many of you do. I'd really like to hear what you've got to say about Y2K and the environment, so I'm going to repost this as the start of another thread. Thanks for your input.]

Not much has changed my attitude in the last year. I see only a small and specific range of Y2K effects as being remotely able to have ameliorative effects on the environment. As you observe, JQ, with effects of 3 to 5 on most Y2K scales, corporations will whine and moan and probably be granted any environmental variance or waiver they request. Effects in the 7+ range will have people scrambling, with no other concerns but their own lives. (Who said' "There are no environmentalists with empty stomachs?") That leaves a very small window where production/consumption might be attenuated while still leaving sufficient economic and social stability to foster a recovery which might be gentler on Gaia.

"Only two things threaten our existence: A breakdown of society as we know it; The continuation of society as we know it." --- Jan Blum

If you've monitored TB2K you will have seen how few people are even capable of taking into consideration any but the most parochial views of their own security and recovery. One of the first questions I ever answered on a Y2K board (csy2k-Dec, 1997) was, "When will we get back to normal?" My reponse was, "It is likely that we WILL eventually get back to 'normal;' and THAT is the problem." The vitriolic and querilous responses that I received indicated a grievous lack of awareness and enlightenment. And, although I've seen an increase in the number of people like yourself who bring an Earth-oriented perspective to this discussion, I am not reassured of a beneficial outcome to this debacle---at least as concerns our relationship with our planet.

Hallyx

"What if from the beginning of life, nature were perceived as teacher, guide, source; as important to us as our families? How differently would we live?"---Anita Barrows

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Gee thanks, Hallyx, for your kind words!

Alas I'm not really filled with glee at the replies here though. It seems like a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". That is, if today's society emerges unscathed from Y2k, then the ecosystem will be no better off than it is now. Or if Y2k bites hard the ecosystem will be doomed as well. But in each case there is still hope....

I guess I'm glad I live in Australia where the popluation is much smaller than you guys in the States; we could conceivably "live off the land", for a while at least. Although the Aussie ecosystem is a lot more delicate than most... hey maybe if we need to hunt for food it could solve our feral rabbit problem...

But even though I live on an "island", it would be folly to believe its environment is immune to disasterous impacts in the rest of the global biosphere. Just as our economy is as vulnerable to screw-ups in the global economy as everyone else's.

Just some thoughts....

-- JQ (onca@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

I cannot help but get very, very angry when I read this thread. My perception is the mindless repetition of so much emotionally charged PR spin with all the PC buzzwords. Sorry, but IMHO, you people "don't have a clue."

You see, everyday I deal with the incredibly unrealistic, wastefull and misconceived regulations that do-gooder city people press upon their less populated rural cousins in the name of the "envornment." I have seen hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into the coffers of agency "administrative overhead" or some "pet" university professor's department for studies or modeling, while actual on-the-ground improvements go unfunded.

I have seen bureaucrats hoist their preconceived "appropriate" solution to a problem as incredulous jaws dropped in a room of resource users. (You sure you want us to install drip irrigation in those cow pastures? Really sure? ...Two years and you 4 agencies can't agree on the damned mesh size for the fish screens you want us to put in at $10-20,000 a pop out of our own pocket?)

It always bewilders me that a people who have paved over and poisoned their habitat so that species no longer can exist feel that they can assauge their guilt by calling hell onto the heads of those who still have the misfortune of hosting some rare reptile or bug on their private acreage.

If you believe that you see a problem in our neck of the woods, I am very very sure that you will let us know. But, please, let us work out our own solutions. For some reason, local people who get into solving problems together are more successfull in actually addressing them and the solutions implemented together by neighbors can be more holistic and intuned to the natural processes of the watershed. As an amazing by-product, those people actually learn a bit more about the environment and various resource use.

...oh, and if you should decide that we need an "appropriate" alternative or particular "best management practice" that makes our jaws drop incredulously; takes food from our childrens plates/empties our pocketbooks; and "jes don't pass the muster of common sense," please recognize that such largess heaps a sh*t load of pressure on a population that is already: (1)in very bad financial straits; (2) feeling betrayed, very angry and frustrated; (3) contending with a mountain of permit fees, new regulations and contending agency jurisdictions; and (4) will most likely be expected to feed you and yours in the next few years.

As for me, I just had to harvest a bunch of timber off my land to pay for the permits, equipment etc. needed to comply with another environmental regulation. The new equipment does not function as well as the old and there was nothing wrong with the old for my purposes. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I would have preferred to have kept my nice 50-80 foot firs and pines.

Yes, I hope y2k gives much needed relief from the intolerable regulatory situation that is growing worse every day. Our county is 65% "owned" by the federal government. It has endangered owls, salmon and human communities. It has: (1) double digit unemployment; (2) growing family and substance abuse; and (3) ghost timber-dependent towns surrounded to the horizon by green harvestable trees slowly dying of insect infestation, overcrowding and fungal parasites. Gee, thanks guys!

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 25, 1999.

Sorry Marsh, I didn't mean to raise your blood pressure. I'm sure that if every community were dealing locally within its own watershed or other natural border, and if they were responsible for their own livelihood and that of their children's children, a lot of this nonsensical, bureaucratic, micromanagement farce would be moot. But many of us see an overuse, abuse and mismanagement of resources by large-scale, industrial-strength, profit-before-people corporate entities. This bodes ill for the continuing welfare of "children and other living things."

I tried to explain this to you before. You're caught in the same box with a demented serial killer who has no concern for anyone but himself, who has no sense of honor nor fair play---who, left unchecked, permitted his precious freedom to carelessly exploit limited resources and spread waste is endangering the continued welfare of the species of which I am a reluctant member. I'm willing to bet that many of the regulations that weigh upon you were advanced by these very same entities, who find them less financially odious than you. They are waiting at the bank with cash-in-hand the minute you are forced to close your operation because of legislation they secretly support.

I would love to see the system revert to Adam Smith's ideal of smaller, considerate, honorable corporations, farms and communities who provide for their own welfare and who compete on a level playing field with full awareness of their responsibility to themselves, their neighbors and their world. There must be a way of promoting (I hate to say "forcing") responsibe behavior by large enterprise without trammelling the rights and choices of local businessmen and farmers. I really wish someone would come up with a solution that is commensurate with current legal standards. Or, failing that, change the law---hell, change the damn system---whatever it takes.

I really hated having to stay after school as part of a group-punishment for the misbehavior of a few miscreants. I hate having my freedoms abridged because other people have so little responsibility. And I especially hate being made to feel guilty because I can see no way of stopping those who don't care from despoiling my world, without inflicting a burden on people with whose perspective I most probably agree.

You may rightfully resent what I (in the person of my government) feel compelled to do to protect myself and my only planet. But please understand that my disgust is not with small entrepeneurs; it is not a reaction against you or your community. Your anger against environmentalists is misplaced. We want the same things that you do: Merely the chance to contribute to society and, in so doing, to provide for ourselves and our families and to live peacefully in a healthful, safe and reasonably secure fashion.

Hallyx

"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's easier to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs."

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

Marsh - I have seen you rant on the side of both too much environmental regulation (I agree) as well as too much environmental destruction (I agree with that as well). So I know you believe there is a right way and a wrong way to run your farms, but that it gets lost in how you are required to do it.

The question is how do we get to a sustainable situation that is also affordable. I see no indication whatsoever that it is intuitive, certainly not with our present throw-away, self-centered culture. And much of the current regulation reflects a belief a while back that there is an (as it turns out, an often extremely expensive) engineering solution to any environmental problem out there.

Agriculture should be our most important industry, and I have learned a great deal on this forum (particularly from you and Anita/farmer) about how threatened it really is, particularly by cheap(er) foreign imports. There are significant differences between acceptable land practices in crowded urban and surburban areas compared to rural communities, aggravated by an unfamiliarity of us urban/suburban folks in how to accommodate our most basic needs.

There will be avoidable problems next year because the government killed any real possibility for preparation in this area as in many others.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

Brooks, Marsh, Hallyx and others- First off- Marsh- I understand completely- been there, done that- both sides of the desk. It is so true that most of what gets asked or required for "environmental purposes" by a gov't agency, is neither a good idea nor a workable solution- but the particular person in charge of that project or dept thought it sounded good and all the other lazy staffers went along with it cause it seemed like a good idea or they wanted to go to lunch so let's get moving on it.... I spent 10 years doing environmental reg work as well as years in the private sector prior to that- now I farm- seen both sides and it's even worse than you many think.

but- it's also true that we would need to totally change our whole way of consumption to incur significant environmental change- and while I can see how that can be realistic in terms of rural and suburban areas- I don't know how to make it work in the cities.

I am a firm believer in local agriculture supplying local areas- with a coresponding decrease in shipping impacts as well as fresher products. I find it frustrating beyond belief that our local shaws supermarket, prevented by law now from advertising "local" when it comes from hundreds of miles away- now just calls it "New England" produce. The number of products they sell at this meg-store that are actually produced in-state are few and far between- and I can only believe that it's for one of two reasons- profit motives or convenience. This could change though- in a state such as mine, we could easily supply most of the food needed in the state without shipping in from elsewhere- a few exceptions of course- if items such as coffee, tropical fruits, cane sugar, rice, etc are desired.

I sell at two farmers markets as well as to several coops- I often envision a farmers market in every town- selling not just produce, but bread, baked goods, fish, dairy products, eggs, meat, etc- a tru thriving local economy all across the state. With the products produced locally and the money remaining local- not spent at large supermarkets to buy out of state products.

As well- I don't see recycling as the be all, end all of environmental concern. Why can't bulk purchases of products from salt to soap to maple syrup to rice be the norm? why have bags full of "recyclable" to take to the recycling center or put out for collection if you could merely reuse the container again and again by refilling it? Why not bring back glass milk bottles, orange juice, soda bottles, etc- they get returned, washed and reused. I think we've gone so far to the outer reaches of convenience- perhaps if we couldn't continue these practices, common sense would prevail?

There is an interesting book out there- can't reall the title, but it's written by one of the partners in a garden tool catelog company-Hawkins perhaps? anyone recall this? anyway- he proposes that the true costs of production be factored in- ie: transportation- the true costs of the roadway, maintainance, gasoline refining, pollution, etc be factored into the cost of California carrots- if so- these carrots would NOT be cheaper than New england carrots if sold in Boston for instance. Likewise- the true costs of conventional agriculture- groundwater contamination, illness among workers, caner, harm to wildlife, etc would be factored in- organic produce would cost less this way. Interesting way of thinking IMO.

Anyway- enough of this I guess. I get frustrated by the curent system as I see it as being profitable for a few, but not those doing most of the work, and the consumers don't get a really good product for the most part either, but don't know the difference for the most part anymore.

So- how does this get turned around? Will y2k do this? I don't think so- it would have to be a serious 9 or 10 IMO to have a significant effect on the system- most people will just be trying to continue business as usual... and get back to it as soon as possible...

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), August 25, 1999.

Yes Farmer, from your description I infer that you were referring to Paul Hawken ("Ecology of Commerce" is the book I read). I think Marsh, as well as the rest of us, would get a lot from his perspective. This guy is a hard-core capitalist businessman, not some soft-handed, sweet-smelling, treehugging eco-whiner.

[Businessman, environmentalist, and author Paul Hawken has founded several companies and written several books, including the bestsellers Growing a Business and The Ecology of Commerce, as well as Seven Tomorrows and The Next Economy. Hawken also produced and hosted a 17-part PBS TV series, now shown in more than 115 countries, based on Growing a Business. He currently serves as chairman of The Natural Step, an educational foundation that assists world government and business leaders in achieving long-term competitive advantage through environmental sustainability. He is presently writing Natural Capitalism: The Coming Efficiency Revolution (New York: Hyperion Press, 1998) with Amory and Hunter Lovins.]

He says:

"A hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, it did not seem urgent that we understand the relationship between business and a healthy environment, because natural resources seemed unlimited. But on the verge of a new millenniums we know that we have decimated ninety-seven percent of the ancient forests in North America; every day our farmers and ranchers draw out 20 billion more gallons of water from the ground than are replaced by rainfall; the Ogalala Aquifer, an underwater river beneath the Great Plains larger than any body of fresh water on earth, will dry up within thirty to forty years at present rates of extraction; globally we lose 25 billion tons of fertile topsoil every year, the equivalent of all the wheatfields in Australia. These critical losses are occurring while the world population is increasing at the rate of 90 million people per year. Quite simply, our business practices are destroying life on earth. Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife reserve, wilderness, or indigenous culture will survive the global market economy. We know that every natural system on the planet is disintegrating. The land, water, air and sea have been functionally transformed from life-supporting systems into repositories for waste. There is no polite way to say that business is destroying the world." Paul Hawkin, THE ECOLOGY OF COMMERCE

It has always amazed me to hear the so-called conservatives whining about welfare queens when, as you are aware and Hawken among many others point out, the orders-of-magnitude greater largesse blandished upon the large corporations in the form of write-offs, subsidies, waivers, exemptions and lax enforcement. And then the corps' government protectors go after the little guy who can't afford the baksheesh and bribes.

Farmer points out, and I agree, the root of the dilemma is the pattern of consumption practiced unthinkingly by an ignorant populace. But when population and lifestyle are taboo topics seen as "infringing on my freedoms," we haven't begun the first step toward awareness let alone assessment or remediation.

Hallyx

"Shamed, dishonored, wading in blood and dripping with filth, thus capitalist society stands. Not as we usually see it, playing the roles of peace and righteousness, of order, of philosophy, of ethics--as a roaring beast, as an orgy of anarchy, as a pestilential breath, devastating culture and humanity--so it appears in all its hideous nakedness."---Rosa Luxemburg

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

Some might find this funny; others will only shake their heads.

Conservation is a Luxury Good. When you are freezing to death you will cut down the tree and worry about atmospheric concentrations of CO2 later.

There are more trees in the U.S. right now than there were 100 years ago. This may change very soon.

This was an actual letter from and a reply to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan:

 

Mr. Ryan De Vries
2088 Dagget
Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W,
Sec. 20, Montcalm County

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above-referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted.

The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31,1998.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division

---

RESPONSE Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20;
Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to.

You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan De Vries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan - I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervised their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris." I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451of the Public Acts of 1994,being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated.

I have several concerns. My first concern is - aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation - so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing flooding is proof that this is a natural occurrence which the department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names.

If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition - please contact the beavers - but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter-being unable to read English) -- be sure they are read the Miranda rights first. As for me, I am not going to cause more flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers-be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this State-I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy - or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears. Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office via another government organization - the dam USPS. Maybe, someday, it will get there.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Tvedten

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

IMHO, Raymond Firth, in Human Types, An Introduction to Social Anthropology, The New American Library, c1963, gives and excellent overview of the elements that comprise "culture". According to Firth and other experts, one key to defining culture is the identifiable manifestations or "lifeways" of a group in responding to or living with their natural environment.

To me, it is easy to see how people who work with natural resources on a daily basis become shaped by them.

Western "cowboy" clothes such as jeans, boots and hat are a functional response to interaction with nature. A loggers suspenders and "high water" jeans are another. Both wear chaps.

Ranching is one cultural approach to survival in response to natural grassland systems unsuitable to intensive cultivation. The practice has obviously shaped a unique culture. Some of its aspects are seen in social gatherings (BBQ and rodeo); skill games (roping, riding; youth education (4-H, FFA, Junior Rodeo); art - coboy poetry, whittling, country music and dance; transportation - horseback, ATV. There is even a style of architecture related to ranch lifestyles.

Firth discusses the cultural characteristics of social organization: creation of a sense of kinship or "tribe"; social position; status or function - all of which act as the motivation for behaviors and other cultural manefestations.

In the introduction of change, he observes that people of a community will tend to respond to stimuli that have continuity with their traditional values and forms of organization. Members of a cultural group will manifest observable signs of strain in adaptation to change that fails to validate their values/lifeways and undermines their sense of control over their own destiny. Such behavioral signs are: reactions of protest, affirmations of personal dignity, assertions of knowledge or power, sabotage, "personal" attacks, combativeness/militancy or protest.

To many ranchers, a grazing allotment is far more than just a piece of land where vegetation is biologically suitable for grazing. It is an historic site where certain cultural practices traditionally take place and from which individuals and families derive identification and orientation as to their significance, value and place in society.

I suggest that in order for others outside the culture to introduce changes in management of natural resources, such as a grazing allotment, they must first seek to utilize the exisiting cultural system to implement the winds of change. Regulatory dicta causes immense friction against existing social systems and traditions, ignores existing social hierarchies and is a brutal way to attempt to force change. I would hope those seeking change would take the opportunity to recognize this.

It might be interesting to consider how city-folk and suburbanites may find themselves unfolding a new culture based on the type, quality and necessity of interaction with and dependance upon available natural resources.

For instance, in cities, will the local park or city vacant lot become a communal site for cultivation? Will the culture evolve around the carrying capacity of that resource and defending it from use by "strangers"? Will greenways become edible strips; will golf courses? Will people who live around lakes develop a different culture from those who live on the ocean shore? What of those in the desert or chapparal? How will people identify who is "of their community/tribe" or a stranger? Will the agency be successful in its attempt to change the manner in which the beaver culture has evolved to utilize local natural resources? Will the beavers inherit the dam world?

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 27, 1999.

"It might be interesting to consider how city-folk and suburbanites may find themselves unfolding a new culture based on the type, quality and necessity of interaction with and dependance upon available natural resources. For instance, in cities, will the local park or city vacant lot become a communal site for cultivation? Will the culture evolve around the carrying capacity of that resource and defending it from use by "strangers"?"

I have served on my local conservation board for several years. Although my town is remediating its systems, there has been no y2k contingency planning whatsoever. Therefore, no directive to the individual boards to explore how that board's resources might help ease the town through potential hard days ahead.

My board manages the town-owned open space areas. This includes a small community garden which, for lack of greater current interest, could be made much larger. It includes large hayfields which have been preserved (mowed annually) for their cultural and aesthetic significance in a suburban town that is approaching full build-out. It also includes the "town forest" which, until the last couple of decades, was occasionally harvested for firewood (there has been no recent interest in doing that.)

At the beginning of 1999, I thought my board has a potential role if a food or heat emergency were to develop, by opening up these areas. A contingency plan was needed to let the town know ahead of time what could be.

There is no interest whatsoever by my board, by any of the other boards in town, or by town management to take a proactive approach. (And ESPECIALLY not the multiple board group which is presently redoing the town's Master Plan.) We could have spent 1999 exploring the possibilities and wrestling with the alternatives. I know what happens in my town when decisions like this are made on an emergency or ad hoc or arbitrary basis, and it ain't pretty. It certainly won't be a townwide decision, and almost noone will be happy about it.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

I love it! As soon as I started reading the state's letter- I knew it was those dam beavers! That is too much!! Too true too- wonder how it turned out? You know- it's funny but here in my state, beavers are a serious problem- and I have the blessing of the State wildlife guys to destroy their dams, trap, shoot, whatever the beavers- they have put acres of my land under water and cut off my whole back pasture from the rest of my land- cute huh. But in some other states, Massachusetts for instance, I believe it would be a $25,000 fine to nmess with the beaver dams- if a beaver builds them, they are sacred- until of course the beavers build one by Logan airport and flood the sucker out......

and yes- that is the book I referred to- Ecology of commerce- a good and interesting read IMO- thought provoking.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), August 27, 1999.

Farmer - Massachusetts' Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife issues permits for breaching beaver dams and also for shooting them if they come back and continue creating a nuisance.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

1) In a 7-10 situation, a lot of people may decide that the best thing to do is a lot of hunting and fishing...which will seriously deplete wildlife stocks. Some species may be hunted/fished to extinction. (Of course, since we all believe in evolution, this should be no problem, since new species are evolving as we discuss this...)

2) A new ecological balance will (eventually) emerge, with other species occupying the ecological niches that the extinct species used to fill. This is happening now, but much more slowly than will probably happen in the next 20-30 years. Where this balance will emerge is an open question. What species will thrive? Good question. Preditors will be competing with man. Large game animals will be the prey of both... I'd bet on rats, mice, and hunting birds (e.g., hawks) as some of the survivors. Pelagic (deepwater) fish will probably do ok if there is little or no fuel available to go after them. Tasty, freshwater fish will be on the brink.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 27, 1999.

Great thread gang.

Marsh,

One of your last posts inspired me to share a trusim that my husband quotes " A conservationist is someone who built their summer home last year".

Mad Monk,

I'd beg to differ about so many more species currently evolving. What I see are technical changes in taxonomy. I don't know how many bird identification guides I have on the shelf that are obsolete because one species has been split into subspecies, or other such refinements to classifications.

People love the romanctic vision of man versus apex predators in the classic sense. What happens in the natural world when a species has populated beyond carrying capacity is much more mudane, such as viral and bacterial onslaughts.

-- flora (***@__._), August 28, 1999.

Sorry, didn't mean to kill off a perfectly good thread.

[My grandaddy laid out much of the LA highway system, daddy helped engineer the aqueducts, & I interpret natural systems for a living. I can be quite awe inspired & doomy on the best days].

In financial terms we know that past performance does not predict the future probabilities, however I think we can take certain clues in order to wager biologic possibilities.

I predict certain adaptable insect species to thrive, as well as many small mammals and their reptile predators, and ancient bird forms - such as the loons.

What say you about amphibians?

-- flora (***@__._), August 28, 1999.

Great thread, covers lots of ground.

My concerns re environment in a hard hit y2k scenario are legion.

Landfills. Granted they might be filled at a slower pace, but if things get bad will they be sealed? Will the surrounding streams and underground water be monitored for leached chemicals?

Strip mining aftermath landscapes. Will there be monitoring for leached chemicals in streams that support a web of life?

Nuclear processing plants, waste disposal facilities, retired buildings, spent fuel rods, etc. We are having trouble now, what happens if even our minimal attention is withdrawn? Contaminated groundwater? Contaminated rivers, estuaries, ocean currents?

HAZMAT areas represent significant challenge to management in preventing accidents and plain old entropy conditions detrimental to animal and plant life downwind and downstream. Oil refineries, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, plastics plants, pipelines, metals refining facilities, used tire dumps, dead car graveyards, compressed hydrocarbon facilities and distribution points, compressed elemental gas facilities and distribution points, paper products manufacturing facilities, slaughterhouses of all types and the meat production industry.

Water & waste processing. Beaten to death recently :o), but still a valid concern.

If people go hungry it will take only a short time to deplete all wildlife right down to bugs and twigs. There a plenty of contempory examples.

Firewood scavaging is a great environmental degradation in large areas of Africa now, a big threat in Asia. Europe has few forests left.

Besides the general overall environmental problems one can easily forsee highly localized environmental problems. Homeowners unable to repair a storm damaged house roof. Frozen pipes in house or in landscaping. Entropy within the water well pump system. Higher than normal possibilities of fire damage to house, infrastructures, gardens, and land. Fire deaths, human and livestock.

If there is a long term sustained y2k hit it is very easy to see how we could loose our technological knowledge and expertise base - since so much of both are concentrated in urban areas.

First World Health care is being touted as a main y2k hit industry. This will undoubtedly change our American idea of death and disease. It will alter demographics, the very young and the elderly and those who are now dependant upon the health system for life - all will be impacted adversly. Since the mortuary business is dominated in the USA by a handfull of corporations able to charge the sky for their services I would expect that y2k will impact that industry. Same for elderly retirement communities, geriatric medicine. Medical treatment for premie babies will become something of the past. The distribution of population by age will change how we view the individual, the family, and the worker. It will change our marriage and divorce realities in some fashion.

I will raise my hand first. How many of you would not be here in your adult years if it weren't for modern medicine?

I wear glasses. Anyone given any though as to whether LensCrafters will still be in business? Links in that chain: frames from italy: metal, plastic, employed designers, shipping. Plastic lenses: a functional petrolium industry, shipping, plastics industry, machine tooling, molding industry. Glass lenses: raw materialss, energy for glass melts, molding industry, shipping, grinding and polishing industry, grits, polishing compounds, highly specialized lapping machinery and urathane polishing laps, energy out the wazoo.

Late in '97 on the efn.y2k bbs (Eugene OR) is started a thread on Voluntary Simplicity & Sustainable Resources. Broke the whole idea down to 4 or 5 different levels of what a person might call living within VS&SR. Problem was that for a person at level 1, level 5 appeared to be a Luddite tree hugger crazy, and vice a versa, a level 5 would look at a level 1 and say that person was sucking the corporate techno-tit. Yet, I would say that I arranged even level 1 to be considerably more independant and less impactful than most of us here.

I was under the impression at that time that y2k would give us an opportunity to reorganize in a fashion that would leave a less deep footprint in the environment. I no longer believe y2k has anything to do with that, if we want to practice our version of VS&SR we are already well into doing that, and given will & good luck, will continue those practices in a post-y2k world. I am not of the mind that a period of societal chaos is a time in which a new paradigm for living of the masses can be instituted. These practices have been put forth into society on and off for over 200 years, the last major thrust being promulgated on the USA West Coast since the mid 60's. At best the movements gain a few adherents for a while, but overall the movement fades away against the tide of luxury consumerism.

I live a rather spartan life, I try to live outside corporate culture to a considerable degree, I am frugal in my consumption. Yet, medicine saved my live in 87. I buy clothes from a store. My beater Toyota truck runs on gas and oil. I use electricity. In other words, my recycling (actually reusing as much as possible, or fully utilizing as much as possible), my food habits, my lifestyle as simple as it seems I've been able to achieve in my effort to not be a consumer so as to contribute to sustainability, none of that is really that much different than a full blown consumer. I still am tied to the coporate techno-tit.

So I came up with the metaphore, Darwin's Doorway.

Darwin's Doorway being a person's total pre and post y2k experiences. I envision that Darwin's Doorway as the ability for the individual to maintain centeredness, groundedness, flexability, and right action in the passage thru the certain changes already in process. As can already be seen on some Forums and BBS, some are having trouble maintaining prior to y2k. Only afterwards will any of us be able to say that we made it thru the Doorway; just too many variables totally outside of our personal control will work their ways upon our lives to confidently assert "I know I'll make it thru".

All prep is personal, site specific, & may have to be completely discarded.

We can control only a very few things in our lives: Living simply with few wants. Living close to Source. Smiling and Laughing regularly.

ciao, mitch

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), August 28, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

farmer said: the true costs of production be factored in- ie: transportation- the true costs of the roadway, maintainance, gasoline refining, pollution, etc be factored into the cost of California carrots- if so- these carrots would NOT be cheaper than New england carrots if sold in Boston for instance. Likewise- the true costs of conventional agriculture- groundwater contamination, illness among workers, caner, harm to wildlife, etc would be factored in- organic produce would cost less this way.

I haven't read Paul Hawken, but this is what I was getting at in the Getting Back to Normal thread, although the paraphrase of Paul Hawken is much more elegant.

As a founding member of the recycling taskforces in my current and previous communities, I'm especially observant of these activities when I travel. When my husband and I went to Japan a decade ago, I noticed that they had recycling down to a science. Each day a couple different things would be put out. In the course of a week 15-20 different items would be picked up. Being on such a small island, nothing had to go far. If Y2K brings us local economies, recycling and reusing may make even more sense for us than it already does today.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 21, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Trying again...

farmer said: the true costs of production be factored in- ie: transportation- the true costs of the roadway, maintainance, gasoline refining, pollution, etc be factored into the cost of California carrots- if so- these carrots would NOT be cheaper than New england carrots if sold in Boston for instance. Likewise- the true costs of conventional agriculture- groundwater contamination, illness among workers, caner, harm to wildlife, etc would be factored in- organic produce would cost less this way.

I haven't read Paul Hawken, but this is what I was getting at in the Getting Back to Normal thread, although the paraphrase of Paul Hawken is much more elegant.

As a founding member of the recycling taskforces in my current and previous communities, I'm especially observant of these activities when I travel. When my husband and I went to Japan a decade ago, I noticed that they had recycling down to a science. Each day a couple different things would be put out. In the course of a week 15-20 different items would be picked up. Being on such a small island, nothing had to go far. If Y2K brings us local economies, recycling and reusing may make even more sense for us than it already does today.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 21, 1999.

If there is a 7-9 event in 2000, I do not see enough people surviving the event to cause additional polution. I forsee no industry, Little agriculture and no recycling. If you hold in your habd the last roll of Al. foil you are likely to ever see, won't you use a smaller piece and clean it off for reuse? If you eat the spaghetti sauce, won't you keep the jar for future use? I currently live in a very rural area of Pennsylvania. There are three stoplights in the entire county! But it is accessible (barely) on one tank of gas from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and Buffalo. I expect an influx of people in January. I just hope that whatever wildlife they kill they make full use of. Then maybe we will last through this winter and the next one.

-- pamela (jpjgood@penn.com), October 31, 1999.