posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:36 AM
No one chose "big corporations" over anything in this. Stop and think for just a moment, pretty please with a cherry on top. Just throwing out
knee-jerk talking-point platitudes is keeping you from thinking, and it's not something I'm innocent of either so bear with me a moment, this isn't
being insulting or mean or trolling.
Removing the protected status of a lot of fresh waters with no, repeat, no human threats on them now or truly in the forseeable future frees up money
to (rimshots please!, thank you drummer) spend the money on waters/other natural resources that ARE under threat, And Canada has a LOT to protect.
They cannot spend every dime protecting everything, everywhere, all the time with same intensity.
Best analogy I can think of offhand is a particularly incompetent Union General named McClellan, I'm sure most people on ATS have at least heard the
name but here's why he was Lincoln's second biggest mistake after choosing Johnson as a VP. He tried to do exactly what I was descibing above, only
from a military standpoint. He tried to give "full" defensive protection to every place, all the time, And he got his azz kicked repeatedly, over and
over. He outnumbered his opponent in every engagement, and still lost. Why? Because he did not focus on what needed his attention most AT THAT TIME.
By spreading himself thinner than he needed to be over and over again, both tactically and strategically, he repeatedly led losing battles.
Not spending money where it's not needed isn't being reckless, it's being prudent. Canada may have a lot of Maple trees but they don't have any that
grow Loonies. And nothing in this recent move prevents responsible oversight from taking place if/when any of these waters do come under
edit on 13-12-2012 by Snoil because: typo