BLASKA BLOG

David,

I have reviewed the report and I have to say that I do not find its proposed remedies to be overburdensome when set in the context of what is being saved.

The fundamental problem conservatives face as they struggle to relocate their relevancy is the recognitiion that the environment is far more complex than anyone except a PhD level expert can fully appreciate.  Are we going to limit what "personal responsibility" means to only those things that the average high-school graduate can assess and appreciate?  This strategy might work when assessing what constitutes legal negligence.  But what you see as overburdensome regulation, I see as helping citzens recognize how to minimize their negative impacts on our shared environment.

It might be valuable for your readers to ask themselves the following question:

How much damage should the average person be allowed to cause to our shared environment before they need to apply some personal accountability to mitigate further impacts?

"The fundamental problem conservatives face as they struggle to relocate their relevancy is the recognitiion that the environment is far more complex than anyone except a PhD level expert can fully appreciate.  Are we going to limit what "personal responsibility" means to only those things that the average high-school graduate can assess and appreciate? "

Yawn.  Smarmy and elitist. God, you are so full of yourself.  Do you actually read the words you trowel out?   

...the environment is far more complex than anyone except a PhD level expert can fully appreciate.

Really??? How so? Is this limited to certain PhDs? Do we not have naturalists without higher degrees that MAY disagree with this statement? I think I "appreciate" the complexity of the environment (without the "requisite" degree). Who are you to say otherwise?

I think Matt has something here.  We need more regulations around who can vote. Only people with 4 year degrees should be able to vote.  After all, things are more complex then the average high school graduate can understand.  I mean, we can't have these 'average' people impacting the earth.  We have to regulate these 'average' people before they ruin everything.

Now, let me pull my tongue out of my cheek.  Hey Matt, I bet the average high school graduate could balance a checkbook, more then I can say about our average politician.

And there goes the point, whizzing right over (or on?) everyone's heads. Y'all are just sore because you're some of the folks who aren't able to fully understand the complexity of our environment. I'm one of those folks, too, but I at least recognize it without getting my undies in a twist. And then I do my best to learn more.

Heck, I'd even argue that those "expert" PhD holders don't all even fully appreciate or understand the complexities of the natural world. It's an awful lot to take in. But we need people to try.

I'd note the difference between being able to "appreciate" the complexity and "understand" it. Anyone (PhD or not) who claims to understand the intricacies of the environment and ecological relationships is only fooling himself.  By appreciating the complexity, one comes to the realization that fully understanding it is not possible. How many times has "man" tried to "fix things" in our environment, only to cause greater problems?

That said, we need to look to our "experts" for advice on such issues. Assuming the "citizen representing Madison" on the commission identified as John Magnuson is the local Professor Emeritus of Limnology from UW, I'd say we have some extremely capable individals investigating the issues involved.

"We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations, the important thing is not to achieve but to strive."
-Aldo Leopold

Ah, yes, Progressive Dane makes its comeback with that stirring rallying cry: "You're too stupid to understand. Leave it to the experts!"

This one must be set to music; perhaps the Marseillaise. 

Leave environmental policy to the limnologists.

Leave Wall Street finance to the experts!

Leave foreign policy to the State Department lifers.

Leave military policy to the Pentagon brass.

Leave business decisions like minimum wage to business school graduates.

Leave constitutional issues to the lawyers.

Leave voting to political science professors.

-- Not that everyone within those classes agrees with each other. And, finally ...

Leave health care to ... (well, let's not get carried away). Leave health care to the Obama Administration.

What does this have to do with PD? So, you're avoiding the issue and trying to refocus it as an attack on PD? How convenient (and SO unlike you).

Let me get this straight. It is perfectly legitimate to reference Wilson and Kelling on their "broken windows" theory when discussing problems in our neighborhoods, but not our local ecological experts when discussing environmental issues. How so?

Well, we left war to the Cheney Administration and look where it got us. BTW, that photo at the top with Ol' Four Deferments has to be a Photoshop job - even the slightest thought of getting into actual combat probably scares him as much as the thought of a trip to The Hague.

Mike McConnell,

"Yawn.  Smarmy and elitist. God, you are so full of yourself.  Do you actually read the words you trowel out? "

Not only do I read them, but I actually use higher reasoning skills to frame the concepts that the words are intended to convey.  I am a big fan of Thomas Jefferson and the role he played in bringing the concepts of "the enlightenment" ( The belief that the full application of man's intellect could rescue society from the forces of despotism. ) to the American dialogue.  I am also especially impressed with Jefferson’s determination in ensuring his daughter got a world class education at a time when such a thing was unheard of (he did so in large part because he didn’t trust that a potential husband would have sought a sufficient level of education.)

Jefferson wrote: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

You had a choice Mike: you could pull out the emotionally charged political shibboleths, or you could have engaged the fundamental question that I posited at the end of my post which I shall state again:

“How much damage should the average person be allowed to cause to our shared environment before they need to apply some personal accountability to mitigate further impacts?”

I believe that one of your options represented the application of the principles of the enlightenment, the other represented the forces of despotism.  The option you chose speaks volumes about how long it is going to take for the Republican party to return to relevancy.  As for me, I think it is time that I put more effort into ensuring my daughter receives a world class education because not much about the human disposition seems to have changed since Jefferson’s time.

Well, I'd like to applaud Mr. Blaska for providing a fairly accurate and concise description of the overall proposal in his post above, and for quoting from the report itself.  Thank you as well for posting the link to the official county website.  I would certainly echo Mr. Blaska's suggestion that people read the report and decide for themselves, rather than depend on misleading information provided by groups with a political axe to grind.

I would also like to sincerely apologize to those, like Mr. Blaska, who wanted to speak at the two public input sessions held this week, but were unable to do so due to time and space constraints.  Quite frankly, the turnout was a surprise to those of us at the county, since previous public meetings on this topic were sparsely attended.   Although I deplore their use of inaccurate and inflammatory language, I suppose we can thank the Realtors Association for at least raising public awareness of the project.  By the time the Realtors' postcards went out, there was no time to reschedule the meetings and still comply with the state open meetings law.  So, we were stuck with venues inadequate for the size of the crowd.  Thanks very much to the staff of the Verona Senior Center and the Sun Prairie City Hall who worked very hard to accommodate us as best they could.

I would also ask for patience if you have called the county board office or county agencies on this topic and have not yet received a response.  As you might imagine, we have a large backlog of calls, some of whom wanted to just to register an opinion, while others were expecting a call back.  County staff are working hard to respond to everyone, but it may take some time.

Rest assured, there will be plenty more public meetings, hearings and opportunities for public debate before any of the recommendations in this report are implemented.  Nothing is pending before the county board, and no regulations or rule changes are imminent.  County staff are working closely with the Lakes and Watershed Commission to work out the details and timing of future meetings.

For those of you who missed the meetings this week, or if you couldn't get in, presentation materials from both meetings, the full text of the report, excerpts and much other information is available at:

http://www.danewaters.com/management/water_body_classification.aspx

You can also provide comments to the Lakes and Watershed Commission at that website.  If you do comment, please take the time to read some of the informational materials first, so you are working from accurate information.  There are a lot of recommendations in the report, some of which you may agree with, and some of which you may not.  Please be as specific as you can, and feel free to offer alternatives.

I think we all need to take a step back from some of the rhetorical exaggerations that have been flying around.  Dane County has the difficult task of meeting its legal obligation to protect and steward public waters, while at the same time avoid creating an unreasonable burden on private landowners.  The question is, do the proposals in the report strike an appropriate balance between these two often conflicting objectives?  Are they reasonable and cost-effective?  Are there better alternatives?

Obviously, as the primary author of the report, I have my own opinions, but I certainly don't claim to have a monopoly on good ideas.  I, for one, look forward to a vigorous and informed debate on the best way to care for our waters.

By the way, one point of clarification.  The proposals in the Shoreland and Riparian Management plan would apply only to public, "navigable" waters, as defined in state law.  Mr. Blaska, its likely that "retention pond" in your backyard does not meet this test, and so would be exempt from proposed rules.  Feel free to contact me during business hours, and I can check into that.

Matt-

I'm curious. What higher reasoning skills were employed in making the "the environment is far more complex than anyone except a PhD level expert can fully appreciate" claim? Seems to do little but feed the notion of elitism and fuel the skewed proclamations of Blaska, etc.

Blaska,

The really funny part about that teleprompter video is one of the fake anchorwomen is a former FoxNews anchorwomen.

Talk about easy job transitions...

Jeremy,

You ask:

"What higher reasoning skills were employed in making the 'the environment is far more complex than anyone except a PhD level expert can fully appreciate' claim?"

Ahh yes, the fatal flaw of electronic communication - taking one piece of a paragraph and looking at it in isolation can be a tempting way to prove somebody doesn't possess higher reasoning skills.  Except that what it really does is call into question the higher reasoning skills of the accuser.  I could certainly put more effort into creating better sound-bite sentences that were more bulletproof in this regard.

But to answer your question:

The point I was trying to convey in the paragraph that contained that sentence was that the environment is a complex thing, probably more complex than a person with "lowest common denominator" environmental expertise can appreciate. That in turn suggests the possibility that while a person might wish to act in an accountable way toward the environment, they may not understand what they need to do to protect the environment to whatever standard they feel is appropriate.

For example, if I didn't understand that heavily fertilizing my lawn tended to make the algae problem worse on a nearby body of water, I might not make the connection that my desire to reduce algae levels required limiting my use of fertilizer.  If the government stepped in and regulated my use of fertilizer without my understanding the algae-fertilizer link, I might then be upset at my property rights being taken away for what appeared to be no reason, even if there was a reason I would agree with.

In the fertilizer case, I think it is easy enough for the general public to understand the concept that a yearly mailing to shoreline residents would be enough to maintain an adequate water quality level.

But the issues in the proposed shoreline zoning resolution are far more complex and less likely to be effective via an education-only approach.  You can count me as one of the folks who does not consider himself an expert in this area.  I had no idea that property undergoing major construction would produce the incredible level of sediments that it does.  Worse, I suspect that most people have neither the time, nor the long term memory to retain this information long enough to apply it during their next major home construction project.

And that is why it may make sense to add water quality protection measures the construction permitting process.   Would it be enough to include water quality protection materials in a packet of information as part of the process?  Or will this require some kind of follow-up inspection to ensure an adequate level of compliance?  It all depends on what turns out to be the most effective way to balance out protecting water quality against preserving individual liberty.

Hey Logan, blow it out the other end!

I'll try this again (surely without hope of a response):

Let me get this straight. It is perfectly legitimate to reference Wilson and Kelling on their "broken windows" theory when discussing problems in our neighborhoods, but not our local ecological experts when discussing environmental issues. How so?

ML- As much as I agree with your assertions, I still think you're only feeding the "elitism" accusers with statements like that.