tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post5518060440554793701..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Walker and wetlandsRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-61382395139394103032011-02-06T16:50:13.977-06:002011-02-06T16:50:13.977-06:00Clutch, sometimes the material writes itself. Oth...Clutch, sometimes the material writes itself. Other times, Rick writes it.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-61154536093522688922011-02-05T19:38:43.864-06:002011-02-05T19:38:43.864-06:00If your suggestion is that not one little bit of a...<i>If your suggestion is that not one little bit of anything that can be called a wetland because it has some measure of wetland indicia can ever be developed...<br /><br />Clutch amuses himself but, as per usual, fails to meet opposing argument by reducing it to a poor caricature.</i><br /><br />Putting those two things together in one reply is awesome.<br /><br />Anyhow. Recall:<br /><br /><i>what the DNR thinks is a wetland would not necessarily be recognized as such by the rest of us</i><br /><br />Parody justly ensues.Clutchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-74612400153065992732011-02-05T10:26:14.682-06:002011-02-05T10:26:14.682-06:00It isn't simply a question of whether wetlands...It isn't simply a question of whether wetlands meet the picture in your head and the discernment of a wetland is not the simple thing that some commenters here imply that it is. This is particularly so if one believes that wetlands should be protected for their functional role and not simply as sacred space. If your suggestion is that not one little bit of anything that can be called a wetland because it has some measure of wetland indicia can ever be developed, I disagree. Yet I am aware of a number of examples where DNR seems to have taken that position.<br /><br />Clutch amuses himself but, as per usual, fails to meet opposing argument by reducing it to a poor caricature.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-79478699945210979462011-02-05T10:07:35.644-06:002011-02-05T10:07:35.644-06:00Yep, if scientifically-informed policy definitions...Yep, if scientifically-informed policy definitions of "wetland" don't match up with the picture in your head, then by all means -- exempt away!<br /><br />Because that's the same approach we use for particles, fields, forces, work, significance, illness, causes, prediction, and a thousand other theoretically and empirically informed concepts, after all.<br /><br />I mean, what next? Some pointy-headed eco-nut claiming that bats aren't birds? When I picture 'em, <i>they've got wings!</i> Just like when I picture a wetland, it's big, and has shallow water, and some ducks, and reeds sticking out of it. So if some law or regulation or ecological scientist tells me something's a wetland but it doesn't have some of those things... well, I just remind myself that they're probably a liberal.Clutchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-45598069926313510762011-02-04T13:19:42.258-06:002011-02-04T13:19:42.258-06:00Ooooohhhhh!
The High Priest has spoken.
"Le...Ooooohhhhh!<br /><br />The High Priest has spoken.<br /><br />"Let it be said, so let it be written."<br /><br />Actually, DNR's review-decision was correct: it should be permitted.<br /><br />And, unlike High Priests, I prefer common sense. Just like most of this country's citizens--except the frogs.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-72073125994034443612011-02-04T08:59:44.277-06:002011-02-04T08:59:44.277-06:00Oh, I've had frog and snake, but I caught them...Oh, I've had frog and snake, but I caught them by hand. I preferred squirrel oven-baked, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj3QAzSWVA4" rel="nofollow">not fried</a>.<br /><br />Come on, Dad29, tell us how berms and dikes save property.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-56312256330454126092011-02-03T21:09:36.416-06:002011-02-03T21:09:36.416-06:00dad29: You wear your ignorance like a blinking ne...dad29: You wear your ignorance like a blinking neon sign on your chest. I'd bet you have absolutely no wetland or regulatory knowledge or experience, and have never seen or set foot on the site. And based on your asinine comments, you never read any of the application or permit material, or the appeal from the WWA. But then you wouldn't understand those concepts anyway. And by the way, this type of wetland wouldn't be classified as a swamp. Again, a concept far beyond your capabilities.<br /><br />Since you like quotes so much try this. With apologies to Mark Twain or some similar wise man:<br /><br />"Remain silent and be thought a fool. Open your mouth (in this case post on a blog) and remove all doubt".<br /><br />Rick:<br /><br />You are an attorney, so leave the wetland science to the pros. In this context, the water is still there, and in sufficient quantities and for sufficient time to develop hydric soils (centuries), support the plants, and show evidence of that quantity and presence. <br /><br /> -30-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-91292691869477333182011-02-03T16:20:27.316-06:002011-02-03T16:20:27.316-06:00John
Frogs and snakes are good eating.John<br /><br />Frogs and snakes are good eating.jpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-29026441997175052362011-02-03T15:18:46.764-06:002011-02-03T15:18:46.764-06:00I wouldn't consider spring snow-melt to be an ...I wouldn't consider spring snow-melt to be an "Unusual, Rarely-Occuring Weather Events", but then again, maybe Dad29 is no hydrologist.<br /><br />Let's conduct a little Gedankenexperiment, <i>Herr Hochland</i>. Take the average natural river and install your dikes along the full length of the river. What happens in spring? You like the notion of pushing your property's problems to those downstream?Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-83773978240066438172011-02-03T14:01:44.957-06:002011-02-03T14:01:44.957-06:00If our environmental review processes are overly c...If our environmental review processes are overly cumbersome and unnecessary, then by all means let's amend them so that they protect the environment but also don't pose unnecessary impediments to job-creating economic development. Or let's repeal them entirely. Want to fill a swamp? Fill away! But the laws, whatever they are, should be there for everybody, not just big Walker campaign donors.<br /><br />The speedy passage of this bill confirms this: under this administration, government benefits go to big donors. The Wisconsin Constitution contains a clause, Article I, sec. 9, whose origins date back to Magna Carta: "Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries, or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character; he ought to obtain justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformably to the laws." If development is going to be subject to environmental review, every citizen, not just John Bergstrom, should get a prompt and efficient environmental review of proposed developments. Exempting the projects of the well-connected, only, from review is offensive. We shouldn't have to buy justice. And, it shouldn't be for sale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-66004245304995899962011-02-03T11:52:59.871-06:002011-02-03T11:52:59.871-06:00If you had any common sense at all (not just an id...<i>If you had any common sense at all (not just an ideology), wetlands saved a lot of property.</i><br /><br />I hear there's a lot of wetlands around New Orleans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-46391526889678741052011-02-03T09:31:34.855-06:002011-02-03T09:31:34.855-06:00Let's talk about 'hydrophitic, hydric, and...Let's talk about 'hydrophitic, hydric, and hydrology'.<br /><br /><i>“In the case of economics there are no important propositions that cannot, in fact, be stated in plain language… Complexity and obscurity have great professional value; they are the academic equivalents of apprenticeship rules in the building trades… They exclude outsiders, keep down the competition, preserve the image of a privileged or priestly class. The man who makes things clear is a scab. He is criticized less for this clarity than for his treachery.</i> --J K Galbraith<br /><br />Which is to say: a swamp is a swamp is a swamp.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-41435203880801363922011-02-02T15:45:30.226-06:002011-02-02T15:45:30.226-06:00Anon
Those things essentially mean that water has...Anon<br /><br />Those things essentially mean that water has been there. What role the land plays in the local ecology and whether it must be preserved is another matter.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-11335491426529884142011-02-02T13:57:23.052-06:002011-02-02T13:57:23.052-06:00You apparently were not here iln 2006 and 2008, wh...<i>You apparently were not here iln 2006 and 2008, when we had the massive floods. If you had any common sense at all (not just an ideology), wetlands saved a lot of property.</i><br /><br />Ooohhhh! That smarts!!<br /><br />You now propose that "wetlands" saved "a lot of property" during "floods."<br /><br />So do berms and dykes--but not MMSD. <br /><br />Every 10, 20, or XX number of years, an unusual precip-event occurs. So what? You propose that swamps be preserved, in their entirety, for Unusual, Rarely-Occuring Weather Events?<br /><br />Be serious. <br /><br />Swamps overflowed then, and in the far more devastating 1990's floods. Maybe you're too young to remember those, but I'm not. I was cleaning out homes of my friends for quite some time.<br /><br />And guess what? There were floods LONG before "development" occurred; swamps did not save property then, either. Think the 1950's.<br /><br />But let's take your idea seriously and restrict development of ANY kind to holy-ground: <i>hochland</i>. That'll fix it. About time that downtown Wauwatosa and the villages of Elm Grove and Brookfield (not to mention downtown Milwaukee) got flattened and returned to the rightful owners: frogs.<br /><br />As to AnonyII: when you examine the actual facts in the Hy. 41 issue, you'll find that the amelioration was on CONTIGUOUS land, and included most of the existing swamp.<br /><br />You define "holy land" much differently than most folks with common sense.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-82356293175956043392011-02-02T12:23:41.224-06:002011-02-02T12:23:41.224-06:00Coming up next from the power-drunk Republicans: a...Coming up next from the power-drunk Republicans: a new bill that creates a new hunting season for frogs and snakes, with different zones for shotgun and rifle. You think I'm kidding?Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-71785836203621836262011-02-01T20:59:19.341-06:002011-02-01T20:59:19.341-06:00It doesn't matter if we screw up the environme...It doesn't matter if we screw up the environment, God is coming soon anyway.<br /><br />-Typical Republican.AnotherTosaVoterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16530969681712342705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-60687278784920956192011-02-01T18:47:11.140-06:002011-02-01T18:47:11.140-06:00You are right, you aren't an environmental law...You are right, you aren't an environmental lawyer, or a wetland scientist. So don't go making judgements about the functions and values of wetlands, however small they may be. <br /><br />To be a wetland a site must meet 3 tests: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology. This site has all 3, so is a wetland by definition. So let's put that issue to rest.<br /><br />There are a lot of functions and values inherent to wetlands that the layman (or woman) would be unaware of. Flood retention, filtration, and groundwater recharge to name a few. This site provides those functions, so is a valuable part of the landscape, even if in an urban situation.<br /><br />No matter how hard you argue, creating off site replacement wetlands (mitigation to the knowledgeable) doesn't provide the same value at the site, and often are of a different type. And contrary to popular belief, aren't that easy to successfully build.<br /><br />Dad29: I hope some day you are put in the position of the frogs you seem to despise. Your neanderlithic roots are showing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-53762447927370686042011-02-01T18:25:36.233-06:002011-02-01T18:25:36.233-06:00You apparently were not here iln 2006 and 2008, wh...You apparently were not here iln 2006 and 2008, when we had the massive floods. If you had any common sense at all (not just an ideology), wetlands saved a lot of property. If it were not for the wetlands we would have had an even worse hit on our economy. That's common sense--now on the issue of putting through one Bill after the next to benefit campaign donors--it would be illegal if Doyle had done it, but that's only if you're a Democrat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-91876322248174776452011-02-01T16:32:55.599-06:002011-02-01T16:32:55.599-06:00When the going gets tough, the frogs get moving, a...When the going gets tough, the frogs get moving, all the way to the next swamp. So much the better if the next swamp is contiguous and better-maintained.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-13088743282505872382011-02-01T16:10:13.555-06:002011-02-01T16:10:13.555-06:00If it is unconstitutional, as a violation of equal...If it is unconstitutional, as a violation of equal protection, to condone county-by-county differences in interpreting hanging chads, such that a recount must at all costs be ended,<br /><br />is it unconstitutional to exempt Walker campaign donor Bergstrom, alone, from the nuisance of complying with environmental review?<br /><br />Or can the two matters be harmonized under that ancient maxim, "Quod necessarium eligere Republicanos, licet est"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-41301465615111857492011-02-01T13:03:02.278-06:002011-02-01T13:03:02.278-06:00There is a reason for that
But I was told that &#...<i>There is a reason for that</i><br /><br />But I was told that 'reason' would not be part of the course-requirements.<br /><br />--Signed,<br /><br />EnviroWackyDad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.com