Republicans are against spending $650K in order to save $5 million

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

State and federal wildlife officials claim to have saved nearly $5 million last year in potential flood damage to farms, timber lands, roadways and other infrastructure through its Beaver Management Assistance Program ? the same one McCain was making fun of in Washington.

[/quote]


LOL. So those state and wildlife officials, who stand to benefit from the earmark, claim that they know how much money they saved in "potential flood damage" last year.

Thats good enough for me! :laugh:

Do you believe everything you read OP?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And I still want to be a beaver manager.

Sig worthy! Hee. :laugh:

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
McCain is right. We should take a much closer look at all this pork and if it's really needed or some return can be proven then approve it. If not cut it out of there and stop spending so much freaking money.

And I still want to be a beaver manager.

I'm all for cutting back on unnecessary spending but based on the article it sounds as though McCain is wrong.

Nobody really knows because they always frame it around "potential" losses. Robor pay me 10,000 and I will shield you from 50,000 in potential losses from internet fraud. How do you prove it is worth it? Because I made the claim and you didnt incur a loss?

But if you think about that frame of argument would anybody pay for an insurance policy that requires you to pay 10% of the assets networth? Most home policies are fractions of a %. For instance my home was worth about 230,000 and my home insurance policy was 530\year. Would I ever take out a policy that insures me for 230,000 that cost me 23,000 a year? That is essentially the argument the people defending the spenidng are making.

IMO it is a gray area when it comes to managing wildlife. The state certainly should be taking steps to protect private property when prudent. I cant pass judgement on this particular program based off one article. But I wanted to illustrate the difficulty in determining who is right and wrong and whether something is "worth" it.

McCani is banking that people will dismiss it as wasteful spending based on the name alone... "beaver management". It DOES sound wasteful and stupid until you find out what they actually do.

He doesn't even go into why he thinks it's wasteful.

I imagine if they have historical experience with floods due to beaver dams, it's probably worth taking care of.

The problem resulted from them reintroducing beaver to the state in the first place.
You want to clear some out? Have a contest with a $5000.00 prize for the Trapper/hunter that can trap or kill the most on a given one day saturday season. Or offer a small bounty for thier hides. I'll bet you get all kinds of takers. From the unemployed to landowners.
I've seen the same problem up here with beaver, except the state won't let you deal with problem beaver on your property.

 

[Thump553]

Politicians shouldn't twitter. It exposes them as twits.

 

[Fern]

Error 404 - Logic Not Found.

You're making the assumption that by not spending the additional $650K $5 miilion in loses will ocurr.

If the feds are to be believed they already know how to prevent the $5Million in damage from ocurring.

The question, neither answered or addressed herein, is of what benefit is the addiditional $650K of studies?

The workers think they already know how to handle the beaver problem and seem to feel the study is unecessary.

Shouldn't the real question be why does a politician feel he knows better then the professionals? And why is he/they pushing to spend the money when those involved feel it is useless?

Pretty much same thing as regards the volcanoes. We already have such info. I recall hearing about the various reports of the activity in the Alaskan volcano.

So the question should be, what is the purpose of this 'new' study, and does it make sense under a cost/benefit analysis?

You can't just say 'OMG, volcano/beaver studies are important' and justify any and all earmarks for them. (Well, if you're in government I guess you can.)

Fern

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

My Issue is why is the US government giving money to someone in Vancouver. Last I saw, that was in Canada. Let the Canadian tax payers foot the bill on that one.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

My Issue is why is the US government giving money to someone in Vancouver. Last I saw, that was in Canada. Let the Canadian tax payers foot the bill on that one.

Maybe because he's doing work in conjunction with other US institutions and studying US volcanoes.

Or what AtomicPlayboy said below.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

My Issue is why is the US government giving money to someone in Vancouver. Last I saw, that was in Canada. Let the Canadian tax payers foot the bill on that one.

Five seconds on Google can prevent even you from looking like a complete retard.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Fern
Error 404 - Logic Not Found.

You're making the assumption that by not spending the additional $650K $5 miilion in loses will ocurr.

If the feds are to be believed they already know how to prevent the $5Million in damage from ocurring.

The question, neither answered or addressed herein, is of what benefit is the addiditional $650K of studies?

The workers think they already know how to handle the beaver problem and seem to feel the study is unecessary.

Shouldn't the real question be why does a politician feel he knows better then the professionals? And why is he/they pushing to spend the money when those involved feel it is useless?

Pretty much same thing as regards the volcanoes. We already have such info. I recall hearing about the various reports of the activity in the Alaskan volcano.

So the question should be, what is the purpose of this 'new' study, and does it make sense under a cost/benefit analysis?

You can't just say 'OMG, volcano/beaver studies are important' and justify any and all earmarks for them. (Well, if you're in government I guess you can.)

Fern

I think that if one was to look at how these studies are built off the backs of previous studies one could then write up a grant and or some type of feasibility study as to why any organization would seek out and apply for government money/aid. Whether it would be for continued study or program application or some sort of research.

In other words, beaver managers would have to justify why it is they need to manage beavers before the government cuts them a check. I am sure part of that justification would include some sort of fiscal impact from previous years and a forecast on what the current year and future years would look like both with and without beaver managers. It is not a matter of knowing how to prevent $5mil worth of damage, it is a matter of knowing that without beaver management, based on an analysis of previous years, the government would be looking at approximately $XXX of damage caused...and then go from there. Also, it isn't simply a matter of saying "Beaver Management is IMPORTANT" (although I think it is... :evil: ) the program would have to be justified on paper and in an application. As for whether Beaver Managers think a "new study" is necessary...I am not expert in beaver management (unfortunately) so maybe the beaver management society or whatever it is they call themselves need to develop a clear "scope of services" moving forward into the current year and/or future years. Sounds like those beaver managers aren't all on the same page.

I think it is perfectly logical for a program to argue that without said program the government (or any government local or otherwise) would be looking at approximately $XXXXXXX worth of damage annually. Of course, they would have to have the research/analysis to back that up.

This would probably go for most programs that apply for government funding.

BTW- I think "beaver management" would be a great area of expertise!

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

Yes, let's just stop having people live in the Pacific Northwest because it's too close to volcanoes. Or California because there are Earthquakes. Or the Southeast because of hurricanes. Or the midwest because of tornadoes. Or the Northeast because of blizzards. Or the south because of fires. Or Hawaii because of tsunamis. Or Appalachia because of mudslides. Or Kansas because of sinkholes. Or the Rockies because of avalanches. Or the moon because of meteors.
There is absolutely no place on Earth, not one single place, that is free from any potential natural disaster. Your claim is therefore the most singularly stupid response we could possibly have to any natural disaster efforts we would think to engage in. Are you really this stupid?

I guess you haven't read very many of winnar's posts...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07
One could also ask why this is even a federal earmark? Why isn't this being handled by the state fish and wildlife department?

by the sounds of it it crosses state lines

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Hmmm. By your logic here, lets see.

Obama smokes, therefore, Democrats smoke.

Got it.

That's how everybody thinks, ever, don't you remember?

 

[Wheezer]

why the hell spend any government money at all?

If they are so damned sure that spending 650k will save 5 million in damages that are SURE to occur, just turn some guys loose with guns to kill the bastards?

No one spends a damn dime except the hunters for ammo, and licensing.

So, the state makes money off the hunters for permits, the retail stores make money off the sale of ammo and hunting supplies, AND we save 5 million without spending a dime.

maybe that makes too much sense?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

wow i guess you didn't check the link in the OP. I guess that makes you look like a moron. Unless you think nobody should be living in about 10 states.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: halik
"saved nearly $5 million last year in potential flood damage to farms"

Sorry but

1) shouldn't that be funded by the state?

2) "potential flood damage" != money saved

x Infinity.

/thread.

Chuck

 

[her209]

Hmmm... makes you wonder how much money goes to earthquake and tsunami monitoring.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

My Issue is why is the US government giving money to someone in Vancouver. Last I saw, that was in Canada. Let the Canadian tax payers foot the bill on that one.

Five seconds on Google can prevent even you from looking like a complete retard.

:laugh:
I have an image of that dude judo-chopping JeffreyLebowski upside the head.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

Seriously, why aren't you banned from this forum? Your quality:crap ratio is about 1:1000. I've seen nothing but snide remarks and trolling posts from you. There are maybe 3 insightful posts you've made in the past 8 months. You're a joke.

 

[jagec]

Reminds me of Palin's "Fruit fly research" comments.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
why the hell spend any government money at all?

If they are so damned sure that spending 650k will save 5 million in damages that are SURE to occur, just turn some guys loose with guns to kill the bastards?

No one spends a damn dime except the hunters for ammo, and licensing.

So, the state makes money off the hunters for permits, the retail stores make money off the sale of ammo and hunting supplies, AND we save 5 million without spending a dime.

maybe that makes too much sense?

Then you'd have all the tree humping liberals up in a tizzy protesting the cruel killing of canadas national mammal.

 

[sammyunltd]

Some ownage coming this way.

Dr Jeffrey C. Wynn (aka Jeff Wynn), is a research geophysicist with the US Geological Survey. He has served most recently as the Team Chief Scientist for Volcano Hazards, USGS [1] , and is based in the Cascades Volcano Observatory [1] in Vancouver, WA, one of the five USGS volcano observatories in the United States [2].

To the guy who talked about Vancouver, Canada.

'Nuff said.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

You do realize that the US is pretty much on the largest volcano in the world, and we all pretty much die when it goes up right?

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: winnar111
Yeah, living next to a volcano sounds absolutely brilliant.

Seriously, why aren't you banned from this forum? Your quality:crap ratio is about 1:1000. I've seen nothing but snide remarks and trolling posts from you. There are maybe 3 insightful posts you've made in the past 8 months. You're a joke.

Ya know, I don't think Lossar actually believe anything he writes, He just posts it just to entice a reaction and gets his jollies.

 

[palehorse]

When I was little, I always wanted to be a Beaver Manager...

 

[mugs]

1. You're assuming that $650k is the entire budget of the department that manages the beavers. Is it?
2. If it saves $5 million/yr, the state shouldn't have a problem paying for it. It's not the responsibility of the federal government to pay for it.

Your thread title is inaccurate. Please change it to "John McCain is against the federal government spending $650k on a state-level expenditure that is outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government by the constitution to save various groups of people some amount of money