DEER, MYOPIC MISCHIEF, AND NATIONAL DECLINE

DEER ARE EMERGING FROM HEAVY WINTER COVER

Friday, 8:00 AM.  39 degrees F, wind WNW, light to moderate.  The sky is mostly cloudy at present.  The humidity is 81% and the barometer is trending down, now at 29.44".  We are very fortunate that the melting has been gradual, with no rain, so that runoff has to this point been gradual.  The ground has been frozen hard and deep, and a lot of the snow melt will run off into the lake rather than percolate into the water table.
   Lake Superior water levels should rise considerably with all the snow melt, and in addition the lake has been mostly frozen over and will remain so for some time to come, greatly reducing evaporation, which lowers water levels in an open winter.
   Yesterday we saw five deer along Nevers Road on our way to Tetzner's Dairy to get milk and ice cream.  As the weather warms and the snow melts they will become increasingly visible, moving out of winter yarding areas to find fresh forage.
   Wednesday's Urban Forestry Council meeting at the capitol in Madison was filled with interesting information, some of which I will pass on.  The harsh winter will probably hold down some insect populations, such as Gypsy Moths and Emerald Ash Borers, but insects are so fertile that even under the worst conditions enough of the population overwinters that their numbers can soon return to normal.  Twenty-one of Wisconsin's 51 counties are now under EAB quarantine.
   A report was made on Leed certification of "green" buildings (those which pass stringent environmental standards of energy and water use, recycling, carbon emission and sequestration, etc.), which sounds like a good goal for all new or reconstructed building projects.  How could anyone object to such obviously virtuous standards and results?
   Ah, but as with any sales pitch, it pays to read the fine print and ferret out the unintended (or at least undisclosed) consequences.  In order to reach the highest levels of certification, a "green" building must be constructed of so-called local materials, i.e., produced within a five-hundred mile radius of the building site.  Who could argue with that, as it supports more-or-less local industries and labor?
   I could, and here's why.  I won't even argue the fact that it may increase the cost of the building significantly, and of course finance costs and real estate taxes as well.  My main objection to so-called local input requirements is that if everybody, everywhere adopted these draconian standards, interstate and international trade would be decimated and everyone, everywhere, would suffer.
   Case in point: Wisconsin's forest products industry adds approximately nine billion dollars to the state economy yearly, over 12% of the state's annual GDP. Approximately 2 billion dollars of forest products are exported annually to China alone.  If  environmentally "enlightened" Chinese adopted Leed standards, Wisconsin would loose that $2 billion dollars a year and drive the struggling forest products sector into further decline.  Add to that the fact that the wood products sector supports many highly paid jobs and established private sector businesses, and that decline is at the expense of the struggling middle class.
   The  environmental movement is rife with this kind of myopic mischief, and it is sucking the entire nation further and further into decline.