Reply to a comment

Really, you cannot find examples of a rules or regulations that create a morass? If you want a real world experience I will be glad to forward one to you.

My point is to not confuse those who actually engage in environmental remediation with organizations purporting to encourage such. How much money from the Conservancy is actually benefiting the removal of non-native species or is it to the benefit of legal proceedings and winning an interpretation of contract law? If I recall, the time line, the Conservancy was quick to pull the trigger with regard to contract issues. Or is theirs to be an educational model and monitor.

I strongly believe in protecting the environment but I sense the Conservancy has demonstrated its legal might (i.e. activist) at the expense of protecting and restoring the environment i.e. environmentalist.

I may not have been clear or perhaps you missed my point by my introduction of Silent Spring. There was a time when an environmental activist actually represented the interests of nature and not man's ability to creating contract law or regulations with unintended and sometimes meaningless or ambiguous rules.

In this case, the environmentalist and the activist are not the same and may in fact, work against the restoration of a natural ecosystem.

In the end, it takes money to restore the land, and pursuing legal contract issues miss the mark to goal of removing invasive non-native species. And this under a ruling that may actually favor the Conservancy (legal contractual basis), but does it further the cause of environmental remediation.

The inner workings of nature are such that non-native invasive species interact with native specifies. They do so in a way that competes, interrupts, and eventually disfigures and destroys, its native host plant and environment.

To those that complain of existing Australian pines, I would actually raise the position that these plantings were initiated hundreds of years ago, before Key Marco was developed. And the initial logic of those that brought seeds many hundreds of years ago, was to stabilize the coastal areas and minimize shoaling.

http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/...

I guess the envisioned benefits of years past may have been ill conceived. So are we not to question the practices of the Conservancy environmentalists (or is it activists) today?

But then again, nature has its own regulations and man has his. And from my viewpoint, the Conservancy has lost its zeal for the protection of native species. Even if you believe that non-native species can be removed without impacting the native species.