Border Fence Plan Riles Environmentalists

[daniel1113]

http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,104672,00.html

LOS ANGELES ? Environmentalists in California are trying to block a federal plan to build a new security fence to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into the United States from Mexico.

The 14-mile fence would accompany an existing 40-mile fence that has been credited with causing a massive drop in illegal border crossings since its construction in 1993.

Supporters of the fence say that the increasing number of terrorists who are at large means the United States must be even more vigilant at its borders.

But environmentalists argue that the construction of a fence would disrupt the local ecosystem, cause erosion problems and damage the area where the Pacific Ocean meets the Tijuana River (search), now inhabited by rare birds and insects.

The dispute could pit the California Coastal Commission (search) against the will of the White House, which has the authority to overrule the state body, but could find itself in a legal fight.

 

[Fencer128]

Maybe they could discuss and find a way to build the fence without having a large impact on any particularly rare species?

(Thought I'd get that comment in before the inevitable deluge of "go away hippy demidiots" posts flood in )

Cheers,

Andy

 

[miguel]

LOL. Rare birds and insects? Aren't those trampled by the thousands of illegals running across the border now?

 

[Zebo]

Rigght. That's why "enviromentalists" call for fences to keep californians OUT of every public place from Gamis, to Pismo beach, to mono lake. Need more info though.. its a fox story after all.

 

[gsaldivar]

damn tree-huggers

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: miguel
LOL. Rare birds and insects? Aren't those trampled by the thousands of illegals running across the border now?

LOL

I'm sorry, but one of the benefits of rising to the top of the food chain is not having to play second best to an insect. Study the bug, garner what knowledge you can, and then move on. Don't let it block progress.

 

[rjain]

Erm, if you're at the top of the food chain, you rely on the survival of what's below you on the food chain. Your pseudo-Darwinism isn't working too well.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Maybe they could discuss and find a way to build the fence without having a large impact on any particularly rare species?

(Thought I'd get that comment in before the inevitable deluge of "go away hippy demidiots" posts flood in )

Cheers,

Andy

Yes, lets build a fence with many holes in it. Great idea.

 

[Witling]

PaperClipGod (how appropriate), You say: "I'm sorry, but one of the benefits of rising to the top of the food chain is not having to play second best to an insect. Study the bug, garner what knowledge you can, and then move on. Don't let it block progress."

This statement caries the implicit assumption that you know what "progress" is. One idea of progress was to eliminate forest fires. We now know that that was a mistake. Another idea of progress was cement dams. We now know that in river systems they silt up so fast as to make other solutions more appropriate. Another idea of progress . . . well, you get the idea.

The Fence: The article doesn't reveal where the 14 miles of fence is to be built but I infer that at least part of it is to be built from the Pacific inland. The Tijuana River flows in Mexico down past Tijuana but then comes over to the U.S. side to form a fairly sizable estuary. Anyone familiar with real rivers wouldn't realize this is a river, but the flow is dramatic when it rains. This area on the U.S. side is undeveloped and will probably stay that way. The era of progress by draining swamps is over in the U.S. (hey, there's that concept of progress again). Originally the U.S. had agreed with Mexico (circa 1970) to build a cement lined channel to channel the flow of the Tijuana River. The Mexican side was lined with cement. Environmental concerns kept the U.S. from completing their end of the agreement. The foregoing is simply a description of the physical environment from Tijuana to the sea.

Most biologists think that insects will be around long, long after humans.

 

[PaperclipGod]

Originally posted by: Whitling
PaperClipGod (how appropriate), You say: "I'm sorry, but one of the benefits of rising to the top of the food chain is not having to play second best to an insect. Study the bug, garner what knowledge you can, and then move on. Don't let it block progress."

This statement caries the implicit assumption that you know what "progress" is. One idea of progress was to eliminate forest fires. We now know that that was a mistake. Another idea of progress was cement dams. We now know that in river systems they silt up so fast as to make other solutions more appropriate. Another idea of progress . . . well, you get the idea.

The Fence: The article doesn't reveal where the 14 miles of fence is to be built but I infer that at least part of it is to be built from the Pacific inland. The Tijuana River flows in Mexico down past Tijuana but then comes over to the U.S. side to form a fairly sizable estuary. Anyone familiar with real rivers wouldn't realize this is a river, but the flow is dramatic when it rains. This area on the U.S. side is undeveloped and will probably stay that way. The era of progress by draining swamps is over in the U.S. (hey, there's that concept of progress again). Originally the U.S. had agreed with Mexico (circa 1970) to build a cement lined channel to channel the flow of the Tijuana River. The Mexican side was lined with cement. Environmental concerns kept the U.S. from completing their end of the agreement. The foregoing is simply a description of the physical environment from Tijuana to the sea.

Most biologists think that insects will be around long, long after humans.

We also thought tomato's were poisonous once. And that the earth was flat. But let's not go back and forth for 15 years over when humanity was right and when it was wrong, because its a boring and tedious example that proves nothing.

Why people care about the environment so much, i have no idea. The earth is a pretty resilient object. Life has evolved and died off countless times since the planet was formed... including cataclysmic events like asteroids wiping everything clean. Yet life returns again, ready for another cycle. Humanity and every other lifeform we currently share this planet with likely wont be around in a few hundred million years, so why should we care? Might as well make the most of what we've got, and not spend time and energy saving something thats unsavable to begin with.

 

[rbV5]

Why people care about the environment so much, i have no idea

Because they live in it.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: rjain
Erm, if you're at the top of the food chain, you rely on the survival of what's below you on the food chain. Your pseudo-Darwinism isn't working too well.

or you could clone your food.

 

[SuperTool]

If White House wanted to keep illegals out, they could do it. I bet we have more people guarding the Iraqi borders than American.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Maybe they could discuss and find a way to build the fence without having a large impact on any particularly rare species?

(Thought I'd get that comment in before the inevitable deluge of "go away hippy demidiots" posts flood in )

Cheers,

Andy

Yes, lets build a fence with many holes in it. Great idea.

Yes - that's it - I must have said

"Build a fence with holes in it."

Give me a break! Are all your problems black and white? I'm saying there *might* be a way around the problem. Say move the fence one way or the other a little to minimise impact. Use different construction technique or materials in the sensistive area, relocate some of the wildlife, etc.

Please learn some manners,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Why people care about the environment so much, i have no idea. The earth is a pretty resilient object. Life has evolved and died off countless times since the planet was formed... including cataclysmic events like asteroids wiping everything clean. Yet life returns again, ready for another cycle. Humanity and every other lifeform we currently share this planet with likely wont be around in a few hundred million years, so why should we care? Might as well make the most of what we've got, and not spend time and energy saving something thats unsavable to begin with.

You're assuming we won't achieve the technological prowess to inadvertantly cut short our little holiday here by killing ourselves. I would think that too big an assumption - especially considering the global warming arguement (that I guess you don't hold in high regard) - to bank on myself.

Cheers,

Andy