Originally Posted by the_dude
could not have said it better myself.
also it appears that the canucks don't give 2 shits about natural resources, what with all the tar sand development, pipelines across pristine watersheds, logging, etc. hate to paint with broad strokes, but in this case it seems to fit.
Yeah I know with all of the:
1) Progressive, innovative and largely successful projects involving protecting and expanding wildlife corridors
2) A largely successful private & public partnership system that actually leaves their national parks funded on a regular basis (this year they are experiencing major cuts, which is decades behind such actions in the US)
I assume you are largely talking about the McKenzie Pipeline project in the remark regarding watersheds. If we are judging proposals then Canada is no worse then well....just about any country in the world that has fossil fuel resources. Been to the Uintah Basin or Book Cliffs along the Colorado? Paid any attention to issues in West Virginia recently or the multitude of spills in SLC in the last decade? Ever heard talk about how Katrina's damage was largely a result of abuse and commercial damage to the fragile coastline? As with any country its about long term patterns and actual development as each country has proponents on both sides. It would appear that Canadians have a community with a robust sense of resource protection similar to the US. And not too shockingly the projects that due go through are often in rural or unpopulated regions. Studied much about a mercian resource protection? Humm, it would appear we have treated our desserts and unpopulated regions with similar disregard. It also doesn't bode well that the fossil fuels they are developing and transporting largely end up in the US, as they are the #1 supplier to our energy demands. Amerka, fuck yeah!
Broad paint strokes just don't paint an accurate picture in this case. Canada has a wealth of resource protection concerns and efforts. Hell, their citizens (not necessarily gov't or private sector) outshine our citizens any day in developing compassion and energy for limiting impact of their resource demands on the shrinking world of first nations. For the most part our outdoor recreation and conservation movement only cares about native tribes when it benefits our euro-centric policies.
To the question posted by the OP and why the above issue matters....we have a active and concentrated use of resources that has outpaced most of the world (until recently even in the energy sector when China caught up). We have commercially and privately exploited many rivers which zeal. The Grand Canyon is a prime example of concentrated pressure on a multi-day river environment and the Arkansas would be a good example of a daily. Management in its early forms was largely reactive which came with its own negative consequences. It doesn't take looking to hard to see how policies in the name of protection actually harmed the environment and resource. But many of these places where prime examples of "tragedy of the commons" until the modern environmental movement and its correlated government oversight/policies stepped in. Sucks for us modern boaters but I for one am happy to forgo unrestricted access for reduced fecal contamination, actually being able to find a campsite without boater confrontations and waiting lines at rapids. Its happening now but we didn't have a strong sense of self-regulation in the recent past.