Just what IS "Environmental damge"?

[DRM]

A continuation of a question I asked before, but this one hopefully will not be tied with any specifics of another thread <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

All I am asking for is a dialogue on what REALLY is "damage" and what is not.

Do we take a super strick view, or something more relaxed?
Is a gravel road "damage"? And if so, wouldn't the rock formations left by Native Americans be damage too?
Or, is everything some form of "damage", and our task is to figure out which ones are acceptable and which are not?
Maybe you think there is no such thing as envorinmental damage (Hey - some people still think the moon landings were in Arizona!)

So.... just what do YOU think? <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

[Curtis]

Oh come awn. I thought we beat this into the ground in the three page drilling thread. I'm still waiting for an answer I posed to you in that thread. I said and asked:

"As for roads, they are damage by definition unless you have some other definition of damage. Please tell us what definition you use. I gave examples of what I call damage. What do you call damage (specific examples please)?"

[DRM]

Still looking for a fight Curtis? <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0">

I already dispelled your little examples about one animal dying being "permanent damage" as you claimed - my reply was int he other thread.

So if a road is damage, should they be removed when possible?

And what exacly is "damaged" when you have a road there?

IS it "damage" when it can be "undone"?

And if a tree is struck by lightning, is that "damage", or just "nature"? And if that is not damage, then how come damage is now decided based on who did it, and what the "intent" is?

I am seriously looking for answers here, so if you are wanting to start a fight then don't reply.

[Curtis]

Still looking for a fight Curtis? <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0">

Why is it when someone you do not agree with takes a strong stand on their beliefs (like you always do), you think they are trying to fight? Come awn. And, please try to answer without using belittleing statements like "little examples" and such. It only angers those to whom you are writing. Show some respect and respect will be shown to you.

I already dispelled your little examples about one animal dying being "permanent damage" as you claimed - my reply was int he other thread.

You did? Tell me how it is not permanent damage again please. I mean that animal is permanently dead, period. Sure it may not affect the entire species (as you incorrectly interpreted my example), but it is permanent damage to that ONE animal as I argued in the first place. Please tell me how it isn't permanent damage to that ONE animal.

So if a road is damage, should they be removed when possible?

In some areas yes. But in other areas, like ANWR, they should never be built in the first place.

And what exacly is "damaged" when you have a road there?

As I said, as the road is built animals will be killed (permanent damage to those individual animals killed). You also can change erosion patterns like is happening on the Tahoe side of the Rubicon that are speeding up the process of silting Lake Tahoe. Yes I know it will eventually fill with silt, but why speed up the process?

IS it "damage" when it can be "undone"?

You can NEVER, EVER undo damage like building a road. Once a shovel or any piece of equipment disturbs the natural structure of the ground, it can never be returned to its natural state.

And if a tree is struck by lightning, is that "damage", or just "nature"?

Yes it is damage.

And if that is not damage, then how come damage is now decided based on who did it, and what the "intent" is?

As I said about the silting of Lake Tahoe, why should we speed up damage? Nature surely changes things by flooding, landslides, lightning strikes, etc. but why speed them up? Just take a look at the problems faced by hiway 50 in California every year. We built that road decades ago and then clear cut trees from some of the hillsides near the road. Now there are landslides EVERY year when it rains. Sure slides would have happened if that area were left in its natural state, but as even CalTrans explains, they would not have been nearly as destructive or as often.

I am seriously looking for answers here, so if you are wanting to start a fight then don't reply.

As I said, show some respect and you'll get some respect. Give straight answers without belittleing my comments and you'll get respect back.

Now, why don't you tell us how you define damage? I've asked you that numerous times without receiving an answer.

[JeepinIan]

IMO,
Environmental damage is ANYTHING that is done to nature, that is not natural.
What I think should be the question, is what are we, as human beings, doing to limit the damage that we do to nature.
The real facts are that extremists,on BOTH sides are the ones that get all the publicity, not the ones that are willing to balance the use of the trials that we love and the areas that should not be distubed.

BK, you are a very smart, educated person. Taking a stand is well and great. I believe that the stand you take, at times, is on the extreme side. Accordiong to your question, there should be one and one answer only. Unfortunately, there are different answers depending on what area you are talking about.
IE: Taking a tracked vehicle across the Rubicon would be an extreme method causing unnecessary & careless damage.
Taking that same tracked vehicle into the swamps here in So Fla is the preferred method due to the low ground pressure, deep water, and thick, bottomless mud. Taking a wheeled vehicle in those same spots would cause unnecessary & careless damage.

[DRM]

Originally posted by Curtis:
<STRONG>Now, why don't you tell us how you define damage? I've asked you that numerous times without receiving an answer.</STRONG>

Curtis, I have not answered because - as I said - I am just looking for YOUR opinions on what YOU consider to be damage. I had intended my lack of a response as a way to keep this from being an arguement, I hope you can appreciate my reasoning on that <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

I am asking the question because in all honestly - I don't know <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">

Contrary to what you may think, I am LOOKING for other's insight and information here. You know, the reason questions are generally asked <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Birfield King ]

[DRM]

Originally posted by JeepinIan:
IMO,
Environmental damage is ANYTHING that is done to nature, that is not natural.

But how can intent be the determining factor for what is or is not damage? That doesn;t make any sense to me <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

Accordiong to your question, there should be one and one answer only.

Sorry to correct you, but those were rather open ended questions... plenty of answers depending on who is attempting to do the answering <IMG SRC="smilies/tongue.gif" border="0">


Taking a tracked vehicle across the Rubicon would be an extreme method causing unnecessary & careless damage.
Taking that same tracked vehicle into the swamps here in So Fla is the preferred method due to the low ground pressure, deep water, and thick, bottomless mud. Taking a wheeled vehicle in those same spots would cause unnecessary & careless damage.

Ok, good point about the swamp buggies which brings me to a similar point on "damage" vs. "visually unpleasant". I saw a TV special about the swamp buggies down there, and they showed an arial camera shot of the swamp with a gazillion tracks leading all over. Sure, the arial shop was great for effect, but the fact that those tracks were "visually unpleasant" to look at, had no bearing on what actual damage there may or may not have been to the ground. but to many people, they see the arial photo and because they don't like the way it looks, they call it "damage" by default.

All I am after here is tryig to make a clear distinction in cases like this so we can all get on the same page about what "damage" really is. Not to say there was or was not damage there, but the existance of something that is "visually unpleasant" doesn;t mean it is "damaged". Am I making sense here to anyone else <IMG SRC="smilies/confused.gif" border="0">

[Curtis]

But you can't have one defintion of damage that fits everything. As I said in another post, damage can easily be defined as reducing the use of an area to any one person. So, if something is made visually unpleasant by vehicle tracks and that area is no longer of use to someone who revels in its untouched beauty, then it is damaged.

Basically, there's just too many layers here because damage can be almost anything to almost everyone.

[DRM]

Originally posted by Curtis:
<STRONG>Basically, there's just too many layers here because damage can be almost anything to almost everyone.</STRONG>

BINGO! And therefore my question is two-fold in it's scope...

1. Different personal definitions of damage makes it harder for people from different "sides" to see eye to eye, and consequently they find little common ground.
2. There has to be a point where just because someone has ain "opinion" on what damage is, does not mean it really is damage...

Perhaps how some of you can see my frustration over this... I see this as a BIG problem we face, when we can't even agree on what damage IS, how can we decide what to do about it? <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0">

[YellowSub1962]

Originally posted by JeepinIan:
<STRONG>IMO,
Environmental damage is ANYTHING that is done to nature, that is not natural.</STRONG>

<font color="yellow">Where do we draw the line on this? Are you referring to "man-made" "damage"? After all Man is part of Neture, so how can what we do be "not natural"?... Think deeply on this... Is it because we evolved more than say, apes and lizards, that we feel we know the difference between "natural" and "not natural"? Who decides on these definitions, and what makes them the deciding factor, since they are human and part of nature as well?
After all, since we are part of nature, how is anything we do "not natural"?

Some could say that things that would not be here without man are "not natural". Being animals, we are part of nature, therefore anything we do is technically "natural".

Following that thought, I guess there is technically no such thing as damage since everything we, as humans, do is natural.

The only question would be what is an acceptable amount of change? And what will have to be sacrificed (or disrupted) to achieve that change.</font c>

[EQuin]

Another interesting debate and good question!

I must admit that I like JeepinIan's definition of environmental damage. The term itself may be difficult, if not impossible, to define given the unique natural circumstance of the affected environmental area and the particular act in question, whether intentional or unintentional, that affects the environmental area.

I remember reading a court opinion on what constitutes "obscene" speech and, therefore, un-protected speech under the Constitution. One of the justices writing the decision (or concurring decision - I don't remember which) said something to the effect that "obscenity" is one of those words that cannot neatly fit into a set definition, but you know it when you see it. In the same vein, it may be that environmental damage is one of those terms that cannot be neatly defined, but most people know it when they see it.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) refers to what is known as "natural resource damage". This law allows federal trustees of property to sue responsible parties for "damage" done to the property. The "damage" in this sense is more of a legal term, as opposed to a scientific/ecological one. It entails the loss of use of natural resources for which the trustees can recover monetary damages. An example of loss of use can include fish kills. Fish kills cause subsistence fishermen, recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen to lose the opportunity to use (catch) the natural resource (fish).

Also, environmental damage can be both temporary or permanent. Of course, if it's temporary, it can be fixed or it may even fix itself over time, such as in the case of the natural attenuation of contaminated source material in sediments or ground water.

In any case, I can point to some specific examples of what I believe is environmental damage. In West Dallas, there is a EPA Superfund site called the RSR Superfund Site. RSR is a lead smelting company that operated a lead smelter in a residential area of West Dallas. For decades, the smoke-stack at the smelter spewed out small particles of lead dust into the air which eventually deposited in the surrounding neighborhood lawns and yards. In time, the concentration of lead particles in the soils of people's yards greatly exceeded the 500 to 1000 parts per million limit health standards. As most people know, minute amounts of lead ingested by children can lead to lead poisoning. So a lead concentration of 10,000 ppm or more in the soil of people's homes can pose a dangerously high risk of lead poisoning among children. I would consider such a high concentration of lead to be an example of environmental damage. Even so, the damage to the soil can be, and was in fact fixed by the EPA by simply digging up the contaminated soil, removing it to a RCRA compliant hazardous waste landfill, and replacing it all with clean fill.

Another example of environmental damage occurred at the Calcasieu River in southeast Louisiana. A petrochemical facility accidentally leaked millions of gallons of EDC (sorry, don't know the full chemical name, but I believe it's 1,2 dichloroethylene or 1,2 dichloroethane or something like that) into the river. EDC is a highly volatile organic compound, or "VOC", as the term is sometimes used in the industry. For some unknown reason, a diver with insufficient protective gear was sent in to evaluate the extent and depth of the spill into the waterway. The poor diver was rushed immediately to the emergency room after suffering severe burns from exposure to the EDC. Even though VOCs eventually disperse into the atmosphere at a rapid rate, I would consider this to be an example of environmental damage.

Speaking of the Calcasieu River, the Calcasieu Estuary itself used to be one of the most productive fishery zones within the state of Louisiana. However, due to both historical and permitted discharges of mercury, heavy metals (copper, nickel, lead, etc.), arsenic and other hazardous substances from various petrochemical industries in the area, the Louisiana Department of Health had no choice but to issue a health advisory on the consumption of fish, especially after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA - the government agency that also helps with weather reports and forecasts) finalized a report on the toxicity rates in certain parts of the estuary (toxicity rates don't necessarily determine the cause of toxicity, just the fact that something is killing the fish).

As most of you know, mercury can be deadly, even in small amounts, to both humans and animals. For this reason, emergency response teams wearing full protective personal equipment (PPE) are sent immediately to schools and homes whenever reports of silvery beads of mercury are found pooled up on the grounds. Also, mercury tends to bind itself in organic tissue, compounding itself along the food chain. This makes it even more deadly for those at the top of the food chain, such as us humans who can eventually consume mercury contaminated fish.

Anyway, since mercury was found in fish tissue samples from fish in the Calcasieu Estuary, the news devastated the local fishing industry and left many in that industry out of business and bankrupt. The fishing industry sued one of the petrochemical facilities in the area, but lost in a jury trial. Some say they lost the trial because the fishing industry could not prove that the mercury found in the river sediments and fish tissues came specifically and exclusively from that particular facility. It turns out that various facilities had federal NPDES permits to discharge mercury into the river as long as water column samples showed zero detection limits.

Despite the water column detection limits, mercury has been detected nonetheless in the river bottom sediments. The benthic organisms, such as worms, crabs and shrimp, that live and feed on and along the river bottom sediments, then became contaminated with mercury. The fish that feed on these organisms also became contaminated with mercury. The fishing industry that depended on the fish and shrimp for economic survival then went bankrupt.

I would consider this incident to be an example of environmental damage. However, this damage can be fixed by dredging up the sediments and tightening up the permits, which will hopefully come about when the controversial Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits are finally set by the states.

By showcasing these examples I do not mean to imply that industry deliberately, intentionally or with reckless disregard damaged the environment. It just so happens that in some instances industrial operations can have certain environmental consequences. It goes without saying that the processes and consumer products manufactured by industry are necessary to maintain today's fast-paced technological society. However, a balance should be achieved to ensure the least amount of environmental damage as possible.

As for examples of environmental damage done by off-roading, I don't know. I know some bad apples like to litter and stray off the trail and blaze a new trail by tearing down vegetation. I don't know if littering can be considered environmental damage, but I guess it could be, especially if the material being littered is not biodegradable or has an inherently hazardous substance in it, such as used waste oil or used car batteries. I would also think the act of blazing a new trail is considered environmental damage since it results in trampling and killing vegetation and habitat. However, I would think the vegetation would grow back if the act were not repeated by others who may want to follow this "new trail". Some argue the vegetation may never grow back or that the landscape has been scarred forever by off-road trails. I don't know if that argument is true.

Well, that's my humble opinion on this interesting subject. Take care,

[JeepinIan]

...swamp buggies ..."damage" vs. "visually unpleasant". I saw a TV special about the swamp buggies down there, and they showed an arial camera shot of the swamp with a gazillion tracks leading all over...but the fact that those tracks were "visually unpleasant" to look at, had no bearing on what actual damage there may or may not have been to the ground...

What you may not know about the photos that are being circualted is that some of them were "visually enhanced" before they were made public. The water in the 'Glades is not blue, never has been, never will be. There is just too much muck on the bottom and the water is too shallow to allow it to turn blue. The tracks that are on that picture were superimposed from a departure site that is next to a high ground camp site that was set aside for private use by landowners to store their buggies.
Some of those trails are also air boat trails. Air boats will skim on a wet sponge, and some will even move on dry asphault, that's how little the ground pressure is.

Actual damage is there, the plants have been damaged, the bottoms of the trails will not support life due to their use. Even so, it is better to keep these trails open so others are not made that will damage more plant life.
The animals in the 'Glades have adapted to our intrusion into their habitat, and are prospering.

The unfortunate reality is that most of the damage done to the 'Glades and the Florida Bay, on the southern tip of Fla, is due to the Army Corps of Engineers who made 30 foot deep canals to drain the 'Glades so that people could build and live where there was once water. today,they are trying to correct that, but due to the amount of sugar industries, and their political power, not much can be done.
The spread of cities also has a very negative impact on the 'Glades, and I assume, everywhere else.
In the last 10 years, we have lost 1,000's of square MILES of land to developers.

[DRM]

Sorry about that Ian - but what I saw was video footage of the area shot from a low flying plane - I doubt it was doctored... besides, I seem to recall everything looked pretty brown, not blue <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0">

[JeepinIan]

Originally posted by Birfield King:
<STRONG>Sorry about that Ian - but what I saw was video footage of the area shot from a low flying plane - I doubt it was doctored... besides, I seem to recall everything looked pretty brown, not blue <IMG SRC="smilies/wink.gif" border="0"></STRONG>

Ok, like I said, some pics were doctored. I haven't seen the video yet.

[Kyron]

To me enviromental damage is when plants will not grow where they once did... be it from chemical or even a road... Because if plants will grow back the land/trail can then start to "regow" its self ..

I like to look at the old picture of the Little Sluice and then compare it to ones from last week, Come Awn, can you imagine the amount of TNT and sledge hammers the labors had to do to make the road that SMOOTH?

Someof the areas I mountain bike ride in where clear cut of just about all Redwood trees in the 1880's (they built the San Fran pensuila with em')-anyhow- The made massive roads and skid roads going straight down the steep hill sides so the oxen could drag these massive Redwoods out....

To go there now, the place looks prestine and like man has never been there..... because it all grew back!

I also think the Eviro-Nazi's concider damage as "ANYTHING CAUSED FROM SOMTHING OTHER THAN THERE SHOE'S"


P.S .... I think the picture of the little sluice is in the photo alubm... it's some where, just look <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

[Kurtuleas]

Swearing is NOT allowed in the landuse forum. Either is trolling

If you want to go make useless posts, see chit chat

[Stonebone]

I watched Mt. St. Hellens explode when I was a kid. I have since seen the way so much of it has came back. I have caught many fish, and seen salmon in small creeks where supposedly they should not have been. In the big picture what we do as wheelers is not damage, even if we kill some tree's in the process. What we do may be ugly to purists, but they have plenty of land to hike on that doesn't show signs of man. Let them have their area's, and let them leave us to ours.

[1966Scout800]

If we have this attitude of, let them have their areas and let us have ours, we will continue to lose our access. The truth is we are all environmentalists. The way to save our land is going to be to compromise with all the groups to ensure we save all of our lands. I hate that this is the case, but truthfully this is inevitable in this day and age. The environmentalists need to be educated about our sport. Until then they will continue to find a way to show us destroying the environment despite our best intentions.

[cj7sswampers]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Still looking for a fight Curtis? <IMG SRC="smilies/frown.gif" border="0">

Why is it when someone you do not agree with takes a strong stand on their beliefs (like you always do), you think they are trying to fight? Come awn. And, please try to answer without using belittleing statements like "little examples" and such. It only angers those to whom you are writing. Show some respect and respect will be shown to you.

I already dispelled your little examples about one animal dying being "permanent damage" as you claimed - my reply was int he other thread.

You did? Tell me how it is not permanent damage again please. I mean that animal is permanently dead, period. Sure it may not affect the entire species (as you incorrectly interpreted my example), but it is permanent damage to that ONE animal as I argued in the first place. Please tell me how it isn't permanent damage to that ONE animal.

So if a road is damage, should they be removed when possible?

In some areas yes. But in other areas, like ANWR, they should never be built in the first place.

And what exacly is "damaged" when you have a road there?

As I said, as the road is built animals will be killed (permanent damage to those individual animals killed). You also can change erosion patterns like is happening on the Tahoe side of the Rubicon that are speeding up the process of silting Lake Tahoe. Yes I know it will eventually fill with silt, but why speed up the process?

IS it "damage" when it can be "undone"?

You can NEVER, EVER undo damage like building a road. Once a shovel or any piece of equipment disturbs the natural structure of the ground, it can never be returned to its natural state.

And if a tree is struck by lightning, is that "damage", or just "nature"?

Yes it is damage.

And if that is not damage, then how come damage is now decided based on who did it, and what the "intent" is?

As I said about the silting of Lake Tahoe, why should we speed up damage? Nature surely changes things by flooding, landslides, lightning strikes, etc. but why speed them up? Just take a look at the problems faced by hiway 50 in California every year. We built that road decades ago and then clear cut trees from some of the hillsides near the road. Now there are landslides EVERY year when it rains. Sure slides would have happened if that area were left in its natural state, but as even CalTrans explains, they would not have been nearly as destructive or as often.

I am seriously looking for answers here, so if you are wanting to start a fight then don't reply.

As I said, show some respect and you'll get some respect. Give straight answers without belittleing my comments and you'll get respect back.

Now, why don't you tell us how you define damage? I've asked you that numerous times without receiving an answer.

OH SHIT. He picked it apart line by line!!!!


Can DRM recover??!!

Will this be the END??!!


























































edit: OOF 10 year old thread