dhwert’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Why are some "conservationists" so dumb

  when it comes to conserving the whole?  And when it comes to anthropology, sociology, and economics?

  I highly recommend the link Jonas posted: "Cashing in palm oil for conservation".  It is up and is free, so go read it and then see whether the "prohibition" mindset offered by so many big enviro-NGOs (and this original post) is really the only option.

  C'mon, people.  Think broadly, and don't get so caught up in the emotional "save the ___" mentality that you think that complex problems driven by huge consumer demand can be solved simply by demonizing a product (and, in turn, a livelihood for many).  What are the alternatives?  Soy?  Heard of Brazilian rainforests?  Olives, canola?  Is there a lot of unused land just waiting for more acres of these crops?  What effects will shifting increased production to these crops do to other crops and available land?

  The point I get from the food crisis and oil crisis that we're seeing is that it all comes back to overpopulation and overconsumption.  So until Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace and the rest spend 95% of their time working on those issues with the demographic that causes the biggest impact (their members? and other Americans/Europeans?), their "campaigns" to stop economic activity in developing countries will continue to look like so much neo-colonialism.

  I am so tired of "conservationists" that can't seem to do anything but run "campaigns" and call for boycotts and be oppositional.  For gosh sakes, use all that youthful energy and creativity to do something new, something that works, something that might help all the parties involved.  Koh & Wilcove's proposal would do that.  Heck, RAN doesn't even need to think creatively; they could just follow the Koh & Wilcove proposal, run palm-oil plantations in a model sustainable manner, and use the revenues to protect more primary forest.

  Until NGOs in rich countries put up the funds to both help developing countries economically and protect the lands that they (and I) consider worth protecting, I'm afraid I can't respect or support their efforts.

  DaveOn New website shows which shampoos, foods kill lovable primates posted 1 year, 5 months ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Definitely use the enzymatic cleaners

  I guess the specific question was about dry-clean only alternatives, but the source of the question was cat pee.

  In my experience (and my cat has unfortunately supplied me with ample experience), the enzymatic cleaners that claim to remove cat pee odors are very good.  (Make sure to check with your local pet store to find a good one, though.)

  I haven't tried vinegar, but I do know that washing with regular detergent is not a useful option (and I wouldn't be sure "wet cleaning" would be any different).  The odors remain, and the cat is tempted to use the same location again.  Whatever you use has to wipe out the odor, and enzymatic cleaners have done the trick for us.

  Be sure to "spot test" the cleaner in an "out of the way place" on your item, to be sure it doesn't change colors or otherwise adversely affect your fabric.

  And, as all the good cat veterinarian sites will point out, if your cat is peeing inappropriately, make sure to get the kitty checked out for possible urinary tract infections.

  DaveOn Umbra on cat-pee stains and dry cleaning posted 1 year, 8 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  How to respond to a necessary but sad thing?

  I read a news brief in the Sunday paper about the need to "cull" elephants, and was quite disturbed by the part that said they would be killed in family groups to avoid the psychological trauma that Gay Bradshaw has documented.  Thus I was drawn to this discussion with emotion and interest, albeit quite late.

  As an ecologist, I understand that the killing of elephants is likely necessary, but it is just so terribly sad.  Your arguments all seem right, Whiskerfish, and I appreciate your local, "on the ground" information and perspective.  And I can hear canis and Wolverine's grief underneath their righteous indignation.

  But whatever happened to mourning, folks?  Isn't it okay to grieve without assuming that the reason for the sorrow must be changed/stopped?  Why the "denial of death" that leads to unrealistic views of the natural world?  Animals die.  Other animals, fire, weather, and people kill them.  People die too, at the hands of other humans, animals, starvation and disease (overpopulation?).  These are sad events, especially when we love the beings that die, or when it seems brutal or unnecessary.  But to say "killing canNOT be the answer" either 1) denies that animals should kill each other (how to stop that, I wonder?), 2) thinks that humans should behave differently from animals, even though we are animals, 3) or rejects all death as bad and wrong.  And that is possibly the most anti-nature thing a person could believe, in my opinion.

  Here's a related article about elephant-caused habitat depletion (and subsequent starvation) in the 1960s in east Africa.  It leaves the question open regarding the need for managed killing.

  Here's to the elephants, and wishing we humans could be less ravenous.

  DaveOn South Africa to resume elephant culling despite criticism posted 1 year, 8 months ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Janszen is saying it will lead to a recession?

  Jon Rynn:

  You say, "this guy is talking about how investment in alternative energy and infrastructure is going to lead eventually to an economic recession, which is ridiculous"

  Where exactly does he say this?  He says specifically that "bubbles" (a term he doesn't like) can end rapidly or slowly, so they don't necessarily have to be catastrophic.  Nowhere in the Q&A do I see any assertion that they inevitably end in an economic recession.

  DaveOn Q&A with Eric Janszen on whether an alt-energy bubble is in the making posted 1 year, 9 months ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  More on "Direct Trade"

  Chris, I think you're probably right to be skeptical about direct trade's non-verifiable claims.  However, I am still intrigued by the concept, and comparing this to the certified organic debates, I know there are good farmers out there who don't want to get certified, but still grow things at a higher standard than certified organic.  It does require more openness and more trust, though, on both the company's and consumer's parts.

  Here's an interesting take on Direct Free Trade from another good coffee company, Level Ground Trading Company.  http://www.levelground.com/direct_fair_trade

  DaveOn A review of six Central American coffees posted 1 year, 9 months ago 18 Responses