Here's a link to the WMUK radio report that aired August 7, 2014:
http://wmuk.org/post/wsw-covering-environment-and-conservation
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Speaking out for conservation
An editorial from the Early August 2014 North Woods Call
When we first began publishing the revived North Woods Call two years ago, we imagined a time when the newspaper could be returned to the forests, lakes and rivers of northern Michigan.
After all, that’s largely what it’s about and where it belongs.
Yet, life events and family obligations have kept us from doing that and it doesn’t appear likely that we’ll be able to facilitate such a move anytime in the near future.
Unfortunately, we don’t know anyone else who is qualified, interested and willing to take over the operation. If we did, we might be open to some deal-making.
Publishing in the southern Lower Peninsula is OK, although it keeps our direct connection with the north woods inconsistent, at best. But with the help of those readers who provide news tips and contribute content to The Call—not to mention our numerous loyal subscribers—we have thus far been able to continue the legacy begun in 1953 by Marguerite Gahagan, and continued for many years by Glen and Mary Lou Sheppard.
We believe that Michigan conservation needs this publication, which is why we’ve been trying to keep it alive despite some personal setbacks during recent months.
In the end, though, it’s not about us. We’re merely a voice for others and a repository for divergent viewpoints that are sometimes overshadowed by more powerful voices in the civic arena.
It’s really the hunters, fishers, explorers, hikers, local conservationists, and numerous others who care deeply about the environment that are doing the heavy lifting out in the field.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has its role, to be sure, but the agency doesn’t always seem as effective as it once was. The DNR’s legendary field staff—arguably the heart and soul of many state-sponsored conservation efforts—are today so hampered by bureaucratic pressures and special-interest politics that they’ve been forced to keep their heads low to avoid the crossfire.
That’s why good journalism and active citizen participation are vital. We must keep errant public servants, businesses, industries and even the nonprofit sector in line if we are going to preserve both our endangered representative republic and rich natural heritage.
This has been our goal. We trust it is one you share.
When we first began publishing the revived North Woods Call two years ago, we imagined a time when the newspaper could be returned to the forests, lakes and rivers of northern Michigan.
After all, that’s largely what it’s about and where it belongs.
Yet, life events and family obligations have kept us from doing that and it doesn’t appear likely that we’ll be able to facilitate such a move anytime in the near future.
Unfortunately, we don’t know anyone else who is qualified, interested and willing to take over the operation. If we did, we might be open to some deal-making.
Publishing in the southern Lower Peninsula is OK, although it keeps our direct connection with the north woods inconsistent, at best. But with the help of those readers who provide news tips and contribute content to The Call—not to mention our numerous loyal subscribers—we have thus far been able to continue the legacy begun in 1953 by Marguerite Gahagan, and continued for many years by Glen and Mary Lou Sheppard.
We believe that Michigan conservation needs this publication, which is why we’ve been trying to keep it alive despite some personal setbacks during recent months.
In the end, though, it’s not about us. We’re merely a voice for others and a repository for divergent viewpoints that are sometimes overshadowed by more powerful voices in the civic arena.
It’s really the hunters, fishers, explorers, hikers, local conservationists, and numerous others who care deeply about the environment that are doing the heavy lifting out in the field.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has its role, to be sure, but the agency doesn’t always seem as effective as it once was. The DNR’s legendary field staff—arguably the heart and soul of many state-sponsored conservation efforts—are today so hampered by bureaucratic pressures and special-interest politics that they’ve been forced to keep their heads low to avoid the crossfire.
That’s why good journalism and active citizen participation are vital. We must keep errant public servants, businesses, industries and even the nonprofit sector in line if we are going to preserve both our endangered representative republic and rich natural heritage.
This has been our goal. We trust it is one you share.
All aboard: Railroads & the Environment
By Mike VanBuren
From the Early August 2014 North Woods Call
Many years ago, when I lived and worked in the Antrim County community of Mancelona, I often walked at night in an effort to relax my mind and think.
Many times, I trekked along the Michigan Northern Railroad line, stepping from tie-to-tie, scuffing along in the cinders, or balancing on one of the heavy steel rails. It was good therapy that reminded me of my childhood explorations of the old Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw tracks near our home.
I sometimes imagined following the rails across America, through the rural countrysides and urban areas, and actually thought that one day I would take such an extended hike. But, as it often does, life and work got in the way and this remains one of the unfulfilled dreams on my “bucket list.”
My fascination with railroads comes naturally, of course, because both my father and grandfather were railroad men—the former a locomotive engineer and the latter a hostler. I was a railroader myself—a locomotive fireman—for several months after I graduated from high school, until I became weary with the regular layoffs, and was pulled away by college and other pursuits.
I have long thought about railroads from a conservation perspective, as an environmentally friendly way to move freight and passengers. One of my college professors once claimed that rails were better than blacktop, because a set of tracks take up much less space per mile than the typical interstate highway favored by modern trucks and automobiles.
That sounded reasonable to a 20-year-old bachelor of science student at a state-funded university, but some transportation experts say trains present their own set of problems.
Not surprisingly, the American Railroad Association (ARA) says there are plenty of ecological benefits to railroads, which the organization says have a unique ability to reduce highway gridlock, lower fuel consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut pollution.
In 2013, for example, railroads reportedly moved a ton of freight 473 miles on a single gallon of fuel. According to an independent study by the Federal Railroad Administration, railroads are on average four times more fuel efficient than trucks.
If just 10 percent of long-distance freight that currently moves by highway switched to rail, the ARA says, national fuel savings would approach one billion gallons per year and annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by more than 10 million tons.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, says that freight moved by rail instead of highway is estimated to reduce emissions by two-thirds.
Furthermore, a single freight train can carry the load of several hundred trucks, freeing up space on the nation’s overcrowded highways and reducing pressures to build and maintain costly roads.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, passenger trains can efficiently move large numbers of people in comfort and safety—and at higher speeds—than are possible with other ground transportation options. More energy savings and reduced air pollutant emissions may be possible through development of high-speed rail systems, the agency says.
Critics insist that the biggest environmental threat produced by trains is the amount of carbon dioxide they emit, although the “carbon footprint” left by a train, compared to an automobile, depends on how many passengers are using it. A train full of passengers leaves a significantly smaller carbon footprint per capita than a car with just one person.
It is also said that, though trains are more fuel efficient than cars, they still consume a tremendous amount of non-renewable fuel each year. They can disrupt local ecosystems by interrupting migration patterns, destroying habitat and even killing animals attempting to cross the tracks. And railroads are often built with little or no consideration of the local flora and fauna, the critics say.
Then there is noise pollution, which often reaches dangerously high decibel levels that can irritate and stress both humans and animals.
There sometimes seems to be no perfect solution to our environmental problems short of exterminating the human race and giving the planet back to the apes. But more intentional use of railroads could probably help a lot.
My father has often lamented the steady demise of railroads, which were at their historical peak when he was growing up. I feel the same way and would much prefer to travel by rail than by plane—if trains could just get me where I’m going on time.
But maybe that’s the real problem with our society. We’re in far too much of a hurry.
From the Early August 2014 North Woods Call
Many years ago, when I lived and worked in the Antrim County community of Mancelona, I often walked at night in an effort to relax my mind and think.
Many times, I trekked along the Michigan Northern Railroad line, stepping from tie-to-tie, scuffing along in the cinders, or balancing on one of the heavy steel rails. It was good therapy that reminded me of my childhood explorations of the old Chicago, Kalamazoo & Saginaw tracks near our home.
I sometimes imagined following the rails across America, through the rural countrysides and urban areas, and actually thought that one day I would take such an extended hike. But, as it often does, life and work got in the way and this remains one of the unfulfilled dreams on my “bucket list.”
My fascination with railroads comes naturally, of course, because both my father and grandfather were railroad men—the former a locomotive engineer and the latter a hostler. I was a railroader myself—a locomotive fireman—for several months after I graduated from high school, until I became weary with the regular layoffs, and was pulled away by college and other pursuits.
I have long thought about railroads from a conservation perspective, as an environmentally friendly way to move freight and passengers. One of my college professors once claimed that rails were better than blacktop, because a set of tracks take up much less space per mile than the typical interstate highway favored by modern trucks and automobiles.
That sounded reasonable to a 20-year-old bachelor of science student at a state-funded university, but some transportation experts say trains present their own set of problems.
Not surprisingly, the American Railroad Association (ARA) says there are plenty of ecological benefits to railroads, which the organization says have a unique ability to reduce highway gridlock, lower fuel consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut pollution.
In 2013, for example, railroads reportedly moved a ton of freight 473 miles on a single gallon of fuel. According to an independent study by the Federal Railroad Administration, railroads are on average four times more fuel efficient than trucks.
If just 10 percent of long-distance freight that currently moves by highway switched to rail, the ARA says, national fuel savings would approach one billion gallons per year and annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by more than 10 million tons.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, says that freight moved by rail instead of highway is estimated to reduce emissions by two-thirds.
Furthermore, a single freight train can carry the load of several hundred trucks, freeing up space on the nation’s overcrowded highways and reducing pressures to build and maintain costly roads.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, passenger trains can efficiently move large numbers of people in comfort and safety—and at higher speeds—than are possible with other ground transportation options. More energy savings and reduced air pollutant emissions may be possible through development of high-speed rail systems, the agency says.
Critics insist that the biggest environmental threat produced by trains is the amount of carbon dioxide they emit, although the “carbon footprint” left by a train, compared to an automobile, depends on how many passengers are using it. A train full of passengers leaves a significantly smaller carbon footprint per capita than a car with just one person.
It is also said that, though trains are more fuel efficient than cars, they still consume a tremendous amount of non-renewable fuel each year. They can disrupt local ecosystems by interrupting migration patterns, destroying habitat and even killing animals attempting to cross the tracks. And railroads are often built with little or no consideration of the local flora and fauna, the critics say.
Then there is noise pollution, which often reaches dangerously high decibel levels that can irritate and stress both humans and animals.
There sometimes seems to be no perfect solution to our environmental problems short of exterminating the human race and giving the planet back to the apes. But more intentional use of railroads could probably help a lot.
My father has often lamented the steady demise of railroads, which were at their historical peak when he was growing up. I feel the same way and would much prefer to travel by rail than by plane—if trains could just get me where I’m going on time.
But maybe that’s the real problem with our society. We’re in far too much of a hurry.
Undocumented consequences
An editorial from the Early August 2014 North Woods Call
Now that our national borders seem to be dissolving—a baffling occurrence apparently orchestrated by leaders who lack both common sense and respect for the citizens they serve—it may be a silly time to think about population control.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when a plethora of environmental problems were routinely blamed on “just too many damned people.” That doesn’t seem to matter, anymore—at least to those who see political and economic gain for themselves at the expense of the nation’s legal immigration system and sovereignty.
We’ve said this before and it’s worth repeating: You’d think conservationists on all sides of the ideological divide would recognize that more people mean greater pressure on our natural resources—and the public treasury.
Instead, the left-wingers seem to be happily supporting the continued influx of illegal immigrants, while the right-wingers are trying to slow it down (or so they say). And the so-called progressives—both Democrats and Republicans who have complained the loudest about the devastating impact of human activity on the environment—are apparently unconcerned about the social and ecological consequences of millions of uninvited guests moving into the United States without proper certification.
This is quite stunning to us. If ever there was an issue on which conservationists of all stripes should be able to agree, it is this one.
While we sincerely believe in helping those in need and fully understand the quest for a better life, uncontrolled immigration is not the answer. It would be better to assist the fleeing masses by establishing more just and equitable governments in their home countries. The real problem lies in the despots and dictators that have ruled those nations with an iron fist for far too long—oppressing their people, destroying economic opportunity and keeping the fruits of everyone’s labor for themselves.
“But it’s about the children,” we are told. “We must be compassionate, and care for them and their families.”
Yeah, right. Tell that to the millions of aborted souls that have been denied similar compassion and concern here at home.
Now that our national borders seem to be dissolving—a baffling occurrence apparently orchestrated by leaders who lack both common sense and respect for the citizens they serve—it may be a silly time to think about population control.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when a plethora of environmental problems were routinely blamed on “just too many damned people.” That doesn’t seem to matter, anymore—at least to those who see political and economic gain for themselves at the expense of the nation’s legal immigration system and sovereignty.
We’ve said this before and it’s worth repeating: You’d think conservationists on all sides of the ideological divide would recognize that more people mean greater pressure on our natural resources—and the public treasury.
Instead, the left-wingers seem to be happily supporting the continued influx of illegal immigrants, while the right-wingers are trying to slow it down (or so they say). And the so-called progressives—both Democrats and Republicans who have complained the loudest about the devastating impact of human activity on the environment—are apparently unconcerned about the social and ecological consequences of millions of uninvited guests moving into the United States without proper certification.
This is quite stunning to us. If ever there was an issue on which conservationists of all stripes should be able to agree, it is this one.
While we sincerely believe in helping those in need and fully understand the quest for a better life, uncontrolled immigration is not the answer. It would be better to assist the fleeing masses by establishing more just and equitable governments in their home countries. The real problem lies in the despots and dictators that have ruled those nations with an iron fist for far too long—oppressing their people, destroying economic opportunity and keeping the fruits of everyone’s labor for themselves.
“But it’s about the children,” we are told. “We must be compassionate, and care for them and their families.”
Yeah, right. Tell that to the millions of aborted souls that have been denied similar compassion and concern here at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)