What is Digg?56 Comments
- adamfalkofske, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Three cheers for The Nature Conservancy!
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Grammar school.
- Shaggy6ster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Wait, there's a rain forest in Canada?
- Prototek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The Nature Conservancy is just a bear lobby trying to further the bear agenda.
- Hermitwise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Stephen Colbert is going to have a fit.
- kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12the spirit bear is a rare white godless killing machine
- Jessehk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Nice try. :)
- rig0rmortis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Doesn't work with the thumbs down, I used yours as an example :X.
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11eh dugg, because I love breathing ;7)
- orbanj, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15you can suck mine.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Now Dunder-Mifflin is going to go out of business.
- threemagic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9dugg! because it's about time someone who gives a damn about nature and an ecosystem won over money.
- Hoodwinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Good to know that my monthly donation helped them accomplish this.
- towca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Haha, I just saw this on CBC. I was expecting to see David Suzuki to pop up any second. But alas, he never showed. This is a great thing none the less; saving the few things that might save us in the long run.
- CeeJayDK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You can save more rainforest by clicking on the big button on http://www.therainforestsite.com
It saves rainforest in South America and not in Canada though.
It works by showing you ads from sponsors, who pay the site, that in turn buys a piece of the rainforest to preserve it.
Costs you nothing as all the money comes from the sponsors.
They also have sister-sites where you can click to feed the hungry , save animals , combat illiteracy, .. all sorts of worthy causes. The rainforest site was the first though. - kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Wait, there's a rain forest in Canada?"
Yeah, complete with exotic rainforest wildlife like Toucan-ada.... ba dum tchssss - unlimitedorb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yay! Now they can get 5 million acres from somewhere else. We are definitely making progress.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Im a Lumberjack and I dont care!!!!!!!!!
- deweyhewson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Did you notice when you press the "reply" link you can actually respond to a person's post directly? Amazing!
- Ishiguro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@threemagic
uh, actually money did win out. They had to buy the land. - appleswitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"...with lots of pictures after the jump."
After the jump, I feel like I'm going to be teleported or something. Well' I got to go check out those photos, see ya starside! *whoooo-shi* - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Hobano
you don't seem to know much about logging in BC. BC was once famous for it's enormous trees that were thousands of years old, and relatively easily accessible on valley bottoms. Those Trees have subsequently been mostly logged and now forest companies have to make due with much smaller harder to access tress. As for the organisms that depended on this ancient forest, they are now forced to live in new growth forest where they are poorly adapted, and many populations have become threatened.
There is much more to forest management that simply replanting trees.
As for the spirit Bears (which are just a black bear sub-species) mentioned in the description, the main threat to them is deforestation that displaces black bears into spirit bear habitat. The Black bears then breed with the spirit bears, resulting in a reduction of the spirit bear phenotype. While the black bear may not be extinct their genetic diversity would (and there for biodiversity) be reduced. Why is that a bad thing? I suggest you read up on the plight of the banana
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn9152.html - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if you just grow trees to chop down and sell, then you are not an envornmentalist!
Yes, chopping things down creates a need to chop things down so we should chop things down...... - WaterlooWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's a lot more to a forest than just trees (animals, ground cover, birds, habitats), and the impacts are especially felt on ecosystems that are relatively small, because the diversity of life that lives in that rainforest ecosystem doesn't have a place to go when the logging starts (and some forms of life can't move at all). Setting aside areas like this is key to maintaining species diversity, preserving ecosystems, and properly managing our forest resources.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I got dibs.
- Timdegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ Procure
There seems to be tons of credit here going to the "conservancy" where so many others need to be thanked first. I the early 20th century those old growth forests formed the backbone of the British Columbian economy. Communities on and around Vancouver Island sprung up on the back of the forest industry only to see there towns slowly dwindle with the forests industries migration to the far more environmentally sustainable region of central BC (now there is tourism). This coupled with the grassroots effort of those towns, the forest companies, aboriginal groups and the government of BC is the reason why the Great Bear rain forest has been preserved, not the constant harassment from the Sierra Club or Greenpeace from their plush office tower in downtown Vancouver. I am always dismayed to hear the arrogant attitudes of the environmental groups claiming that they are the reason for "victory" and ignoring the real players. The forest is an amazing renewable resource, that when managed sustainably with proper harvesting and silvaculture techniques can benefit the economy and society as a whole. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1damn. you beat me to the punchline.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2just don't look
just don't look - pearcewg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We need to create a bumber sticker: "Save the environment, buy a shotgun".
The only real solution is to kill a boatload of people. This isn't eden, and the idea of making it eden means we need most of the population to go away. And then who would be there to make the Starbucks?
I mean, what is going to happen when there are 12 billion people? And those people better be generally well off, because poor folks don't care about the environment, they are too busy trying to feed the kids. - johnlandes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another save for nature. Until someone finds oil in them thar hills
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7195164/ - Procure, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is one of the most breathtaking places I have ever seen. The photos are amazing, and the craziest thing is that 20 minutes ago I never knew it existed.
Amazing job by the conservancy. - nogami, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7There is, BTW, no such thing as the "Great Bear Rainforest". It's just a marketing slogan that the treehuggers came up with, and it annoys me every time I hear them go on about it.
Even the local media always refers to it as the "The so-called Great Bear Rainforest". - kadbarma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damned those treehuggers for trying to save "one of the largest remaining tracts of unspoiled temperate rainforest left in the world" (from WIkipedia). Who the hell do they think they are? So, exactly what is the name of this rainforest? I can't find an alternative to Great Bear.
- bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nope, works for me actually.
- unlimitedorb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Mochzr, and you want everyone to conveintly test that theory on your post...?
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm A lumber Jack, and I'm OK
I sleep all night; I work all day
I cut down trees; I eat my lunch; I go to the lavatory
On Wednesdays I go shopping; and have buttered scones for tea - bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You need to cite your sources, otherwise, the 'pwned teenage culture' is not going to believe you.
- visability, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2http://www.googolmaps.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownloaddetails&lid=1173&title=Amazonian%20Deforestation
- pearcewg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Since when are the people living in the rainforests allowed to grow food to feed their children? Wait, they are allowed to be free and do this?
In the rainforests, the problem is people needing to live, not logging and not "evil corporations". But understanding that would require the REAL "free thinking", not the brainwashing of the current evil environmentalist movement. - SorenG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ah, me too.
- mochzr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I swear it works. Don't try it on mine, try it on someone else's comments.
- CannedMango, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5just like Americans
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Where to I hang my hammock?
- pearcewg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Did you ever consider saving the donation and using the money to buy some land and not develop it? That would help more than paying a salary to someone with "sales" goals.
- hobano, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Doesn't anyone here realize that logging companies (most) replant all the trees that they remove? They would be out of business if they didn't. These logging companies are the 1st people to go out and "save" forests like these. The people that cause (most) of the problems are located in the amazon and alike, where slash and burn is a common technique for clearing land to raise cattle. These companies preserve the land and improve upon it.
It also amazes me that people are against this. Is your house not made of wood? Ever use a tooth pic? Unless you live in a house made of dirt, you can't say *****. Hypocrites.
Your a bunch of tree-huggers who think they are doing good.
Flame me if you will, but read up on it sometime. - brishchik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Dude your ignorance is brilliant, kudos to the ***** inside your head
- pearcewg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Hey, Canada is allowed to do whatever they want to not be globally competitive and hurt the economic soundness of their populace. On the other hand, this is disturbing news. Logging and the consumption of lumber only helps to encourage the need for timber resources. Protecting timber resources hurts forests in the long run, because it reduces the natural economic balance to grow more forests to meet lumber demand.
Hard to accept, flame me if you want, but economists can be environmentalists too, even if the argument may slightly differ from what is learned on campus. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2logging feeds my familly, plus isnt saving nature like a anti human thing to do? i dunno if you noticed but technology is kinda whats hapening on this planet, not plants.
- BT1000101, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Most logging these days in done in replanted forests anyway, stupid Eco-Nazi's. Also, I hate all these ***** who want to stop housing developments on hillsides and in canyons because of some ***** up little obscure frog or other little piece of ***** that no one has ever heard of! Or maybe their little view will now be obscured. ***** you and your view! It makes no ***** sense to not use these areas that just sit there, useless. What is the point of saving all this ***** if it just sits there doing nothing? I honestly hope wildfires wipe out all this protected forest crap. That would be Karma. "Congratulations, *****, you just protected a flamed out field of nothing"!
- mynameisdave02, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Canada is destroying America.
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is