Environmentalist vs. Environmentalist

The confrontation may be coming soon in the environmental community over wind power -- it certainly would have occurred already had the President promoting wind been Republican rather than Democrat.  I might have categorized this as "all energy production has environmental tradeoffs", but wind power is so stupid a source to be promoting that this is less of a tradeoff and more of another nail in the coffin.  As a minimum, the equal protection issues vis a vis how the law is enforced for wind companies vs. oil companies are pretty staggering.

“It happens about once a month here, on the barren foothills of one of America’s green-energy boomtowns: A soaring golden eagle slams into a wind farm’s spinning turbine and falls, mangled and lifeless, to the ground.

Killing these iconic birds is not just an irreplaceable loss for a vulnerable species. It’s also a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines.”

“[The Obama] administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly. Instead, the government is shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret.”

“Wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan. His administration has championed a $1 billion-a-year tax break to the industry that has nearly doubled the amount of wind power in his first term. But like the oil industry under President George W. Bush, lobbyists and executives have used their favored status to help steer U.S. energy policy.”

“The result [of Obama energy policy] is a green industry that’s allowed to do not-so-green things. It kills protected species with impunity and conceals the environmental consequences of sprawling wind farms.”

“More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.

  • LarryGross

    there's a lot of misunderstanding with regard to turbines and bird kills and some of it comes from people who are not environmentalists who themselves do not understand environmentalism but think they do.

    for instance, take a look at this:

    http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

    Now I want you to tell me when we're going to outlaw , cars, cats, communication towers, and buildings?

    it's as if all along people believe that birds are not killed - unless we build wind turbines.....

    the only birds that we should be concerned about is the ones that are endangered but it really is ironic that the people who are not in favor of endangered species laws to start with now have newfound concerns about bird kills.

    animals get killed all the time - and mother nature replaces them. Purple Martins die by the thousands by flying into bridges -but I have never heard a soul - environmentalist or otherwise say that we should tear down bridges.

    let's get a grip on what the reality is... here and get away from the wedge politics.

  • Tim

    And, on the other battlefront, they're protesting wind turbines based on infrasound -- the sub 20Hz range causing "Wind Turbine Syndrome".

  • Russ R.

    I have no problem with wind turbines, as long as the owner/operator puts his own capital at risk, and doesn't collect subsidies at the expense of taxpayers or ratepayers.

  • HenryBowman419

    Cats are well-known, as shown at the link you provided, to kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year. But, they really don't kill many raptors (e.g., hawks or eagles) or cranes or other large birds, and I doubt that windows account for a large fraction of large-bird deaths, though I'm not sure about such. So, I think that the concern over the killing of birds by wind turbines is probably a real concern, as apparently the number of birds killed per year by turbines is comparable to the number killed by cats.

  • marque2

    Yeah the cats and cars tend to kill junk birds like sparrows. I have never heard of a cat catching a Bald or Golden eagle. Or anyone running into an eagle in their car.

  • Matt

    As I've repeatedly said, 99% of environmentalists would gladly exterminate every endangered species on earth if that would transfer a few billion dollars of corporate welfare to just one prog billionaire, or provide any momentary political advantage to a single prog politician.

    Ask people to make real tradeoffs, and you'll find out what they really value. "Environmentalist", indeed.

  • LarryGross

    we have eagle kills on a regular basis on some of the local interstates.

    the whole issue is bogus and based in large part on a lack of understanding of environmental issues.

    99% of endangered species are not the majestic eagles and most who do not care for environmentalism to start with, could care less about endangered species unless it gives them a good wedge issue on something like turbines otherwise, they could care less.

    it's just another wedge issue to be exploited...

  • marque2

    Hmm, then why are the laws so selectively enforced. I think it is wonderful you are so open about killing birds and flying mammals, but why do oil companies get fined millions for one bird, and the wind power folks - who really do kill disproportionately large numbers (I have run into 2 birds and 1 cat in 30 years of driving one windmill can kill 10,000 birds a year from what I have read) not get fined at all.

    If so many eagles and cranes, and geese are being killed just by housecats and cars, why fine the oil companies for what you say is just a good wedge issue?

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.slyfield Matthew Slyfield

    I will note here that the protection of Bald Eagles predates the endangered species act and as far as I know, continues under that older legislation and not under the ESA.

  • LarryGross

    I don't know that they are selectively enforced. how so?

    I'm not in favor of killing any but it's a reality with built-infrastructure as demonstrated in the reference provided.

    it's dumb to jump up and down over turbines when they kill .1% compared to buildings, bridges, cars and cats.

    what you read about "windmills" comes from credible sources?

    the companies are not fined because birds fly into their infrastructure.

    can you give an example of a company that received permits and did what the permits required and then was fined?

    I bet you can't - from a credible source - only from the right wing echo chamber.

  • LarryGross

    well.. you cannot go out and wantonly kill an eagle... but if you accidently kill one while you were following the law - then you're not going to be charged.

    we have Eagles killed on I-95 and the drivers are not fined....

    I've seen Eagles killed from getting tangled up in fishing line that was entangling their prey but we're not outlawing fishing line.

    Eagles get killed on high tension power lines - but we're not fining the companies that put them up.

  • marque2

    Bet you can't get you 0.1% of all birds killed figure from a credible source either. You are playing the wedge issue card yourself.

  • LarryGross
  • LarryGross

    33,000 birds killed by wind turbines - about a billion killed from cars, buildilngs, high tension wires, communication towers, cats.

    33,000 / 1000000000 = .000033

  • Max Lybbert

    To be honest, I doubt that things will come to a head. The big environmentalist organizations have a 40+ year history of only complaining when the President belongs to the wrong party. There's no opposition to toxic waste from the companies that manufacture hybrid car batteries. I don't remember much opposition to Yucca Mountain while Clinton -- the President who actually decided to put nuclear waste in the mountain -- was in office; that only took off when Clinton's legacy was safely secure. If Gore had won in 2000 Yucca Mountain would be operating at
    full capacity today.

    Environmentalist organizations have been opportunists for decades, and I don't expect to that to change now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.slyfield Matthew Slyfield

    All true, but the ESA has nothing to do with any of that or with why and how Bald Eagles are protected.

  • Hunt Johnsen

    "This chart and the following text were prepared in 2003. Any
    updates would be welcome."
    The article was posted 2010, but the chart dates from 2003. Might be a few more windmills around now.

  • LarryGross

    I think you'll find that "environmentalists" vary a lot as a group.they are far from monolithic but those who think so sorta reveal their lack of knowledge.

    there is no toxic waste from hybrid car batteries guy - where did you hear that?

    there is not only opposition to Yucca but depending on which group of environmentalists, opposition to the use of nukes.because of the need to store the waste forever.

    but seriously - if you go look at the positions of the Sierra club, the union of concerned scientists, the Environmental Defense FUnd and the Natural Resources Defense Council - to name but 4 - you will see that they are no monolithic in their advocacies nor do they give Democratic POTUS "byes" on the issues.

  • LarryGross

    This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). "Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3)

    http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html

    nothing at all about wind turbines.

  • LarryGross
  • MingoV

    There is no misunderstanding of the environment issues. Cars and interstates have high value, and raptor kills by cars are rare.

    Wind turbines are worse than worthless, and raptor kills are common. Each bird a wind turbine kills was sacrificed for nothing.

  • LarryGross

    habitat is what affects raptors as much as anything else and of course DDT.

    I'm not convinced that there is no feasible way with lights and sound to chase them away but purposely conflating environmental impacts with pre-conceived notions of economic value plays out more to an "anti" agenda than real concern for raptors.

    but we know that, right? there is no real concern about the raptors, they're just "convenient".

  • marque2

    Hmm, your wiki article estimates 10 birds killed per wind tower per year, which seems mighty low. It also is estimating 100 million killed by cars, - which since my wife and I are average drivers would mean between us we kill about 1 bird a year.

    I only recall about 3 bird hits in my entire 30 year driving life. Lets assume I missed a few and there are six. One every 5 years. That would mean fewer than 20 million birds are killed by cars a year.

    Exaggerate the kills by everything else, and close a blind eye to kills by windmills and you can get some wonderful statistics. But even by their stats a Windmill kills 10x as many birds as a car on average, but my logical car scenario, I think it is 30x - if you assume the windmill kills 100 birds and bats (more reasonable) per year then it is about 300x

  • marque2

    Found the article on the nukes and coal. Totally bogus. They claim that birds are killed because coal is strip mined and long ago the land was lost to the birds, so instead of flying away they all just died, and since there dead birds they couldn't have children, so the baby birds that weren't born are also included in the figures.

    The whole thing is bogus. And wiki, while good on basic science is very left wing and distorted when it comes to the political sciences, like the merits of wind power.

    Check it out here. this is what the wiki claim is based on:

    http://www.nukefree.org/news/Avianmortalityfromwindpower,fossil-fuel,andnuclearelectricity

    And then laugh.

  • marque2

    DDT hasn't caused a single bird death.

    Show us the proof if you want to make bogus claims. The whole Rachael Carlson thesis which she basically pulled out of her ass, has been thoroughly discredited, and where birds were found to have issues with egg shells it was due to heavy metal poisoning. Surprised birds aren't also affected by punk rock :P

  • marque2

    Every time I look into your facts it is a bunch of distortion and lies from left wing groups. Count all sorts of bizarre stuff against conventional power, but ignore the bizarre stuff for windmills. For every strip mine for coal, there is a strip mine in China pouring out hundreds of miles of toxic waste producing rare earth metals and lithium - which also would probably kill a lot of birds. Is that counted, no.

  • LarryGross

    re: " That would mean fewer than 20 million birds are killed by cars a year."

    where did you get that number guy and what makes you a credible investigator?

    you can assume whatever you wish guy - but that's not the same as information form credible sources. I'll supply you with more than one source that come up with similar info...but you could do that also instead of using your own armchair analysis.

    but what is this really about anyhow? it's not about turbines and bird kills for sure.

    this is just more "stuff" that comes form folks who are opposed to wind turbines and will use every excuse they can come up with as an argument against them.

    right?

    be honest guy.

  • marque2

    I am just going by the number of birds my wife and I have hit over the years and the number of bird kills we have found our windows (zero). If 1 billion birds die every year from windows, I should see at least one, no? In the kill rate, they include territory lost to birds in roads, car factories etc, and assume all the birds that once inhabited that land all died instead of flying elsewhere and their children are included as well, of course on the windmill side, the factory and the rare earth mines toxifying the Chinese landscape are not included. "The number one killer of birds is habitat loss" per one of the zany articles.

    I am being honest that wiki page is totally bogus, just from an intellectual standpoint and when you start to look at the referenced articles, you see how awfully bad and biased the assumptions are and how they added things to the coal and nuke and car side that they didn't add to the windmill side.

    Sorry Larry, but thems the the facts. You should build your arguments on the truth. A windmill in a 10 year life will kill at least 30x the birds that a car does.

  • CJ

    The problem with your logic is that, unlike Wind Turbines, cars, bridges even cats have a real purpose that makes sense to people. Cars are needed to transport people about. Bridges are needed to carry people, goods and services over rivers. Cats get rid of rodents that carry disease and the birds they kill are usually the sick or injured. The truth is Wind Turbines serves no real purpose in fact they do great harm to the environment, are very costly and inefficient. Their manufacture requires the use of toxic chemicals that are polluting lakes in China that are poisoning Chinese farmers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz2T0tGpjgA Moreover the Energy Return On Energy Invested to design, manufacture, erect, operate, maintain and decommission (EROE) Wind Turbines is less than 0.29 making them an unsustainable source of energy!!! So your argument that so what if a few birds are killed if we get cheap and "green" energy from it is a bunch of poppycock.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rORiooCvMac

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/whos-a-conspiracy-theorist-then-paul-syvret/

  • LarryGross

    could it be that you're not a real researcher guy? Most folks don't even know when they've hit a bird... sometimes birds just fly into the side of cars.

    I see 12 or more bird strikes on my windows every year guy.

    you're playing armchair scientist here...

    the Wiki page has REFERENCES guy - more than one... a bunch but there are also other references beyond that.

    you believe what you want to believe right? that's standard operating procedure these days for a lot of folks...

    here's what I believe. If I look at 3, 4, 5, 10 DIFFERENT credible sources, not armchair amateurs - I'll put some credence in the agreements and I'll duly note the areas of disagreement - and I'm perfectly willing to accept that turbine bird mortality is still a developing story.

    but here's what I don't believe - that those who are predisposed against wind turbines are honest in their opposition when they latch onto bird mortality UNLESS those folks have a history of being concerned about bird mortality all along.

    otherwise, we know your game.

  • Doug Cotton

    All these issues of wind power or whatever pale into insignificance when one understands the Uranus dilemma

    Consideration of the planet Uranus very clearly indicates that radiative models (and any type of "Energy Budget" similar to those produced by the IPCC) can never be used to explain observed temperatures on Uranus. We can deduce that there must be some other physical process which transfers some of the energy absorbed in the upper levels of the Uranus atmosphere from the meagre 3W/m^2 of Solar radiation down into its depths, and that same mechanism must "work" on all planets with significant atmospheres.

    Uranus is an unusual planet in that there is no evidence of any internal heat generation. Yet, as we read in this Wikipedia article, the temperature at the base of its (theoretical) troposphere is about 320K - quite a hot day on Earth. But it gets hotter still as we go further down in an atmosphere that is nearly 20,000Km in depth. Somewhere down there it is thought that there is indeed a solid core with about half the mass of Earth. The surface of that mini Earth is literally thousands of degrees. And of course there's no Solar radiation reaching anywhere near that depth.

    So how does the necessary energy get down there, or even as far as the 320K base of the troposphere? An explanation of this requires an understanding of the spontaneous process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is stated here as ...

    "The second law of thermodynamics: An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system"

    Think about it, and I'll be happy to answer any questions - and explain what actually happens, not only on Uranus, Venus, Jupiter etc, but also on Earth.

  • CJ

    The truth is Wind Turbines do great harm to the environment, are very costly and inefficient. Their manufacture requires the use of toxic chemicals that are polluting lakes in China that are poisoning Chinese farmers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz2T0tGpjgA Moreover the Energy Return On Energy Invested to design, manufacture, erect, operate, maintain and decommission (EROE) Wind Turbines is less than 0.29 making them an unsustainable source of energy!!! So the argument that so what if a few birds are killed by Wind Turbines if we get cheap and "green" energy from it is a bunch of poppycock.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rORiooCvMac

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/whos-a-conspiracy-theorist-then-paul-syvret/

  • LarryGross

    Oh I agree and that's why I say the "concern" about the birds is totally selective.

    either you do care about bird mortality - across the board or you do not.

    otherwise, you're just using it selectively as a proxy for the things you believe in and against those things you do not.

    that's not logical at all but I do understand it.

    a principled person would admit that all infrastructure, vehicles have bird mortality - no matter whether you personally think those things have value.

    it's a separate issue as to whether something has value or not - which you argue on the merits not by selectively using things you really don't care about in other situations.

  • LarryGross

    have you checked into what coal power plants do with respect to mercury and mountaintops, guy? Nukes?

    they all have impacts. when did you care before?

  • CJ

    Unlike Wind Turbines, Coal is cheap and a very efficient source of energy. Wind turbines are the opposite. They are an unsustainable source of energy and thus there is no justification for their use other than to make a bunch of crony green capitalist rich off of the tax payers dollar. Coal companies are taxed and the money goes to the government to help pay for things people want and need. Just the opposite for Wind Turbines. Wind Turbines cannot exist without the outgo of tax payer dollars that could have been used to help the sick or other more useful purposes.

  • CJ

    In reply to a comment below about coal vs Wind Turbines. Unlike Wind Turbines, Coal is cheap and a very efficient source of energy. Wind turbines are the opposite. They are an unsustainable source of energy and thus there is no justification for their use other than to make a bunch of crony green capitalist rich off of the tax payers dollar. Coal companies are taxed and the money goes to the government to help pay for things people want and need. Just the opposite for Wind Turbines. Wind Turbines cannot exist without the outgo of tax payer dollars that could have been used to

  • LarryGross

    Is it cheap to destroy mountaintops to get it? Are you aware of the mercury that gets disbursed and it's effect on fish and air quality in urban areas?

    Coal has significant impacts - ALSO. No source has no impacts. All of them have impacts. Even hydro has impacts.

  • http://EasyOpinions.blogspot.com/ Andrew_M_Garland

    Wind farms are killing our eagles
    Eastex Advocate - 05/27/13 [edited]
    === ===
    Federal officials claim that there have been more than four dozen golden eagles killed in Wyoming since 2009. Almost all are protected under federal laws. For this, oil and gas companies have paid millions of dollars in fines over the last five years.

    BP was fined $100 million for killing or harming migratory birds along the coast after their oil well spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

    In 2009, PacifiCorp was fined more than $10.5 million because 232 eagles were electrocuted along power lines at its substations. PacifiCorp operates coal electric plants.

    PacifiCorp also operates a wind farm in Wyoming. In the last few years, there have been as least 20 dead eagles found on site. They have never been fined or prosecuted. Does this mean that it is against the law to electrocute an eagle but it is all right to hack one to pieces?

    The Obama administration has proposed that the wind industry get decades of protection for killing eagles. The proposal would let companies apply for a 30-year permit to kill a set number of bald or golden eagles.

    Why would our government do this? Administration people say the longer permit was needed to “facilitate responsible development of renewable energy while continuing to protect eagles.”

    What is the real reason behind this? Without a long-term authorization to kill eagles, there may not be many investors interested in financing an industry that is in violation of the law.
    === ===

    AMG: $10.5 million in fines for 232 eagles is $45,000 per eagle. As the official externality cost for the destruction of that wildlife, then both coal and wind energy producers should be charged that amount. Let them both fold that cost into their costs of energy production. That gives the correct incentives to both industries.

  • LarryGross

    links please. were these companies doing anything DIFFERENT from all the other companies who were never charged with these crimes?

    usually/normally - if the act was considered avoidable that is viewed differently if it was not.

    e.g. if you purposely shoot an eagle, they're going to get you.

    if you accidently shoot one - it's not the same.

    I find it a bit unbelievable that ANY company that owns a high tension line is fined for eagle deaths unless they were doing something they were not supposed to be doing.

    otherwise, power companies everywhere would be routinely fined for bird deaths and that's simply not the case so there is something else going on ...

  • CJ

    Again, Wind Turbines are not only harmful to the environment they are also an unsustainable source of energy. The tax payer dollars spent on Wind Turbines could be better spent on more useful purposes. As to coal harming the environment think about what you are saying. Without a source of cheap and reliable energy humanity will be forced back into the dark ages when life was short and brutal. if you really believe that is a good idea than you are welcome to go live in a cave with no light and heat but please stop imposing your idea of utopia on the rest of humanity.

  • LarryGross

    are they as harmful as coal? in terms of unsustainability - they may not be cost-effective, right now - but they can generate power and if you check out some major islands in the world that do not have coal - and have to transport it - their electricity costs fifty cent kwh. would you change your mind in their case?

    I'm not advocating that we go back into the dark ages. I'm saying it has impacts - and it does and they are more significant than wind if you look at the scope. Mercury is a serious issue as is mountaintop removal.

    I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone. I'm basically saying that the charges against wind are a double-standard and that coal also has impacts.

  • marque2

    Did you read any of the Wiki references? I did, because I was curious how they can get such distorted numbers. They are all obviously bogus when they describe how they came up with the data, and are from dubious groups.

    Please. I may be an armchair amateur, but I am not an armchair idiot.

    I know, blah blah blah, change the subject, blah blah blah, blather blather - you don't have to reply, I got it.

  • LarryGross

    ALL of them are bogus ? and you can't find any credible ones at all on GOOGLE?

    really? are you serious guy? I'm suspecting here that you're weaseling...

  • marque2

    YOu have a reading problem, I said in the Wiki articles referenced. You go do your own work searching for bogus material on all of google.

    Like I said change and twist the subject blather blather, blather.

    Over and out.

  • LarryGross

    re: " They are all obviously bogus when they describe how they came up with the data, and are from dubious groups."

    what did you mean when you said "all"? there are 90 references guy. I'll agree that some are sketchy - but others are not.

    the entire point here is that all power sources have impacts - to include wind.

    but why would you hold wind to a different standard?

    how much eagle habitat is destroyed when you remove mountaintops to get to coal?
    how much eagle habitat is destroyed when you dump the acid-rock from mountain-tops into stream beds that in turn - make the stream too acified to support fish or birds that eat fish?

    how many eagles end up with mercury poisoning by eating fish that have been poisoned by mercury deposition from coal-burning plants?

    do you know any of this? does it make any difference when you COMPARE wind to other energy?

    I'm NOT advocating for wind here. What I'm doing is pointing out the one-sided, double-standard that opponents use - that at best is a sound-bite approach to something that deserves a more reasonable look.

    if you are on an island that has no coal - would you at least admit that the cost of transporting coal to burn might be as high as wind turbines? honestly? Would you totally rule out wind energy in all situations?

  • Max Lybbert

    > I think you'll find that "environmentalists" vary a lot as a group.they

    > are far from monolithic but those who think so sorta reveal their

    > lack of knowledge.

    You may notice that instead of talking about "environmentalists," I referred to "the big environmental groups." That was no mistake, although I was perhaps wrong to think people would notice.

    > there is no toxic waste from hybrid car batteries guy - where did
    > you hear that?

    From Argonne National Lab: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/378.PDF . Starting on page 61 of the off (the page labelled 45). Yes, it mentions that little waste is produced, but it's more than for regular cars. Additionally, there at more batteries to dispose of later.

    > there is not only opposition to Yucca but depending on which
    > group of environmentalists, opposition to the use of nukes
    > behause of the need to store the waste forever.

    There is opposition today. But there wasn't when Clinton was in office. Why not? Why was Greenpeace silent about the Keystone pipeline through Obama's first term? Since when can environmental issues wait years to be addressed?

  • Max Lybbert

    > Wind turbines are worse than worthless, and raptor kills
    > are common. Each bird a wind turbine kills was sacrificed
    > for nothing.

    This is a great statement. And to simply clarify: wind is caused by the sun heating the earth unevenly. Wind power involves capturing the energy from that, but it's a very inefficient form of solar power. It makes more sense to me to capture solar energy and skip a wasteful step.

    Of course, so far, solar energy has also been an incredibly expensive way to get energy. But I have more hope for it because it skips an expensive energy transition.

  • Max Lybbert

    > but here's what I don't believe - that those who are
    > predisposed against wind turbines are honest in their
    > opposition when they latch onto bird mortality UNLESS
    > those folks have a history of being concerned about bird
    > mortality all along.
    >
    > otherwise, we know your game.

    What I find interesting is that the groups that worked to get those laws passed are perfectly fine with them being ignored for the "right reasons." But they don't like it when people point out their blatant opportunism.

    I can understand the idea that strict liability could kill wind power research before it has a chance to develop. But, it could kill a lot of other promising technologies that aren't as popular with politicians. Why not formalize process of getting permits to kill as many eagles as you want? Why Montreal the laws?

  • Max Lybbert

    I'm getting tired of fighting autocorrect. The last question should have been "why not repeal the laws?"

  • http://EasyOpinions.blogspot.com/ Andrew_M_Garland

    Larry Gross: "Eagles get killed on high tension power lines - but we're not fining the companies that put them up."

    I posted a news story which reports the fines levied against power companies for eagles killed on their power lines.

    Your response is **I don't believe it. They must have been doing something special. There are all sorts of nuances.**

    You have no doubts about your position. Your position is not refutable. That is the characteristic of a religious, not an open mind.

    If there are nuances, you find them. I've done my part. Report back on how the EPA is actually even handed about levying fines.

    By the way, where do you get the idea that accidentaly shooting an eagle is not fined? That would be nice and reasonable, but how do you know? Is your base position that all government action is nice and reasonable?