Biologist finds rare garter snakes in California

[GradStudentLeper]

Have you been to the central valley of California? I'm not talking about slashing and burning anything.

See above, I misread initial statement.

The farms are already here and well established.

And that was OK back in the depression. As it stands now their practices are not sustainable in the long run, and they are too shortsighted to change them. Perhaps economic necessity will teach them a lesson about growing crops that are not drought resistant in a desert. If not, perhaps they will die off and someone who has learned that lesson will take their place.

For now, I'm staying and enjoying the vast diversity California has to offer.

That diversity only exists because the state and federal government protect large portions of the state from the developers and the farmers wrecking ball. Even that is not enough though, because agriculture kills just about everything down stream and downwind. If current farming practices are allowed to continue, much of that diversity will not last long.

I am honestly tired of arguing with you... which I'm beginning to believe is your sole purpose here.

My purpose is to contribute to this forum. I happen to be an argumentative person, and do not view contribution as anything other than trying to spur on personal and intellectual growth in others. Doing this however has a tendency to ruffle feathers. I dont mind it.

I've came to the conclusion that you are young, idealistic, and refuse to look at the realism of living in this world and learning to work with others.

Science is not like politics. It does not bargain. It is a verifiable fact that the combination of water use, population growth, and poor farming practices used world wide are detrimental to effectively every multi-cellular organism known to man but the ones that have specifically co-evolved with us (like rats). This fact does not care how much it irritates others, or harms their interests to admit. It will not say "your opinion is just as valid as mine" it is reality.

When working with others comes into play, is at the negotiating table, where value and ethics come into play. Ethics and policy I have found is a matter of playing competing interests against eachother. I take a hard line for a tactical reason. I am competent and educated, most of the people in my side of the fence are not (read: Hippies who protest by camping in trees), and grandstanding emotional arguments do not actually win political battles. Intellect in policy making does.

I take a hard line in discussions for two reasons:

1) I am a formidable intellectual oponent (by my own standards anyway) and am capable of competantly defending such a position, my fellow environmentalists are often not.

2) When negotiating you make trade offs. Those on my side of the fence who actually make policy tend to argue from the middle. In other words they argue from the position of the tradeoff they hope to make, not their ideal scenario. If you have ever haggled over a price you will know why this is a bad thing tactically. The other side will argue from the extreme and demand concessions. This means that they get more of what they want than the environmentalists, and now you get to see why US environmental policy is so screwed up and how the word "sustainability" is basically a feel good word with no bite...

Hopefully that will come with time and experience. Perhaps when you have children you will learn compassion.

I do have compassion. I feel nothing but pity for poverty stricken farmers. On the other hand I cannot let that pity affect the results of a cost-benefit analysis. Their farming practices were poor, and have impacts that go beyond their interests. In my estimation those interests are bigger than theirs, given that alternatives to their current practices exist.

As for children, the only way that will ever happen is if a lesbian in a bar called the "Rainbow Rooster" gets so drunk she thinks I am Cameron Diaz, and I simultaneously think she is Christian Bale.

Perhaps you will learn to be accepting of others despite their beliefs and opinions.

See above about how science does not bargain, and then subsequent section on tradeoffs and negotiation over values. I can accept you for your beliefs and opinions, and still argue. The key point is that I do not take it personally. EX. I am a left wing technocrat politically. However I know several right wing neo-luddites who I get along with.

Nothing is ever going to go your way 100 percent of the time.

See above about negoatiation. I am actually a bitter and cynical person who is accustomed to having things distinctly NOT go my way. Have you ever seen a population of an animal you work with become extirpated due to development? I have.

Sure fight for what you think is right, but compromise and understanding can get you a long way.

ANd if you start from a position of compromise, your interests get shafted.

Again, you obviously have more time and passion to devote to arguing. I do not.

Once the semester begins and I have classes, research and teaching, I wont either...

[Stefan-A]

2) When negotiating you make trade offs. Those on my side of the fence who actually make policy tend to argue from the middle. In other words they argue from the position of the tradeoff they hope to make, not their ideal scenario. If you have ever haggled over a price you will know why this is a bad thing tactically. The other side will argue from the extreme and demand concessions. This means that they get more of what they want than the environmentalists, and now you get to see why US environmental policy is so screwed up and how the word "sustainability" is basically a feel good word with no bite...

The reason they argue from the middle, is that if they argued from extreme, they wouldn't get anything at all. Frankly, it's not like haggling over a price, it's begging, plain and simple and there's a reason beggars don't ask for a months wage.

Even if the reality of it is that listening to the environmentalists would benefit everybody in the long run, that's not how it's viewed and that's not something that holds a lot of weight at the negotiation table. The other side can afford to argue from the extreme. The prevalent notion is that they don't really have to make any concessions at all, unless it's good for business.

I agree that "sustainability" is a feel-good word, with very little bite. However, if you want any results at all, the only realistic option is to sell environmentalism as a system that doesn't completely ignore economic and social aspects.

My purpose is to contribute to this forum. I happen to be an argumentative person, and do not view contribution as anything other than trying to spur on personal and intellectual growth in others. Doing this however has a tendency to ruffle feathers. I dont mind it.

A commendable goal, but you really need to work on your methods. Right now it's not so much spurring growth, as stirring s***.