Had the Wetlands Engineer out to the place

[JimParker]

I am interested in knowing the locations that are not considered vulnerable by someone. Any names?
Bob

Well, it may be hard to define areas that are NOT vulnerable, but there are some that are SO vulnerable you almost have to laugh/cry about them. I used to live in Houston, TX. In the flood-plain of the Trinity River, there are a whole bunch of houses that get flooded out every couple of years. And each time, the government declares it a disaster area and helps them rebuild their houses... You'd think after 7-8 times, even the not-so-bright people would "get it" and take their insurance money and run... Nope...

Ditto all the "mud-slide" housing in California. Great view, super-expensive houses, but really dumb idea!

Oh well. I'm just trying to live my little dream...

 

[neverenough]

The environmental protectionist attitude toward the downed trees is that they should be allowed to rot in place where they fall to return their organic matter to the forest. Fires have been a major part of the natural landscape forever. Regions that have burned return to incredibly rich habitat in a relatively short time. -- Yellowstone is a prime example of how a burned area recovers. Mt. St. Helens is another. A more serious threat to Boundary Waters is the proposed motorized vehicle trail that runs just along the edge of the natural area. This thing, used by the 4 wheeler/snowmobile/dirt bike set, will spew exhaust and engine noise into the pristine cleanliness of the no-engine wilderness that has been Boundary Waters. That's presuming the trail users will stay on the trail. Around here, an awful lot of them don't. There are many -- not all, but more than enough to give the rest a bad image -- users of motorized recreational vehicles of this type who figure anywhere they can drive the thing is open to them. Lot's of city escapees build a house on a 2 or 3 acre plot then buy their kid a 4 wheeler. He can't drive it on the road, and mom and pop certainly don't want him tearing up their monoculture bit of suburban grass with it, so what does he do? Ride through the nearest field or woodlot, of course!

Regarding the wetlands --

Yeah, maybe I didn't elaborate enough... The problem is, 500 years ago, the amount of damage done in the BWCA would have been a drop in the preverbial bucket compared to today. Losing 1000 acres to blowdown is a much more serious problem today becouse of the amount of forest around. Blowdown and fire clearing are not even on the same page. To wait for trees to decay on dry land then have a new forest emerge will take more than a lifetime. That's not good management, or good protection of the land. Odds are, precious top soil will erode away long before a new forest could emerge through all the downed trees. Keep in mind, the ground was THICK with downed trees, almost carpet like in a lot of areas. It would have taken decades for a reasonable amount of trees just to emerge. On top of that, to risk lives trying to control the fires that do happen, is pure foolishness. It was a waste of time, resources, and taxpayers money. Poor management. Period.

You must not understand/know the story behind Yellowstone, maybe most don't??? What happend was, the "tree huggers" spent millions apon millions of dollars in our court system to keep people from "managing" the forest. They wouldn't allow fire breaks to control how much forest burned at any given time. They wouldn't even allow fire roads to be built in order to manage fires that did start. They wouldn't even allow controled fires to manage the forest either. Yet, when Yellowstone did start on fire, they, the tree huggers, demanded a record amount of resource to be used to STOP the fire, not understanding the effect the fire would have on the future of the forest. Poor management by ignorant people.

I'm a snowmobiler and I agree there are a selfish few, maybe many, that don't care and go where they want, when they want. It's a shameful black eye on the sport. It's not really that much different than our roads though. There are plenty of selfish people who think it is their right to ignore rules and laws for their own personal gain. Much like the people who abuse the courts for personal gain. Why does a tree hugger group get to use the courts to decide that public parks and lands should be used the way they want them to be used??? Why does company "Z" get to use the courts to allow them to cut down trees on public land for their own personal gain??? I thought that was what land management, the legislature, and voter referendums were for???

Your example about wetlands and the natural vs. man made is right in line with what I was saying. There is a bigger need to protect the natural wetlands becouse they are much better than anything man can make.

It's all about being "realistic". Like I said before, you can't be on either side of the fence, there has to be balance. Man just can not tip toe around every part of "nature", but they must look at the effects of what they do, before, not after doing it. There is absolutely no place for extremist in natural resource management. Extremist in either direction.

I do like this too, I think it is right on the money: "Try to live in harmony with your land. Don't try to subjugate it. If you don't like wetlands, don't buy one and try to drain it. If you like wetlands, don't buy high ground and try to flood it. If you don't like trees, don't buy a woods and try to clear it. If you like trees, don't buy a cornfield and try to forest it. Buy something that is close to suiting your dreams. It will save you a lot of work and headaches."

 

[john_bud]

COOL!, maybe my reply will get deleted too. Below is what my email notice said and I say, VERY WELL SAID JOHN_BUD !!!!!!. not political, pure fact.
.

HB2 --> I do want to clear something up. "I" was the one that deleted the post. After posting and reading it, I thought it was too ...uh... harsh and so deleted it. In my younger days, it would have been left. As I age, the effects of the PC Police are becoming more apparent.

Again, this fine forum did NOT delete the post --- I did.


(actually, if you liked version that was posted (then deleted), you would have loved the first version ...

jb

 

[Timber]

Self discipline is a quality of maturity

 

[daTeacha]

My understanding of the Yellowstone fires is that the fires were originally allowed to burn as a historic part of the park system. It was when they continued to burn and began to threaten the buildings and other human development in the park (and after much public outcry) that the decision was made to contain or extinguish them. By then, they were impressively large and expensive to control.

Remember, it wasn't too long ago that Yellowstone was considerably different than it is now. The "Valley of 10,000 smokes" was a whole lot more active when the white man first entered the area. It is a geologically very young and changing area. Quake Lake got it's name in '59. You can still see houses sunk by the quake northwest of the park boundary. The slide scars in the same area make you feel totally insignificant.

The fires wouldn't have been so bad if not for many years of fire prevention activity that resulted in the build-up of lots of tops -- like your blowdown in Boundary Waters. Yellowstone, however, is quite a bit drier much of the year than Boundary Waters. I'm not saying there was not fire danger there, and it probably would have been prudent to clean it up, but the two are not quite the same.

A mature forest can survive and actually benefits from the occasional fire that burns the forest floor but doesn't get hot enough to ignite the crowns of the mature trees. The thing is, however, that we tend to prefer a forest that is not mature -- one with lots of undergrowth to feed the herbivores we like to look at and hunt. A forest populated by mostly mature trees has much less variety and quantity of animal life in the regions humans regularly visit than one in the young and intermediate stages. The canopy may be pretty busy, but we don't get up there much. If you look at any old deer camp pictures, you'll see lots of smaller trees and brush.

Here in Ohio, deer are getting to be serious pests as more and more people move out into the country and modify the landscape. The ODNR keeps tweaking the seasons and limits, but lots of communities have outlawed hunting for one reason or another -- even bow hunting -- and the anti's even try to prevent DNR control officers from shooting the things. Then they turn around and expect the DNR to pay for their shrubs that get eaten. It's the same "have your cake and eat it, too and then expect the rest of the people to buy you a new one" attitude that the flood plain dwellers have.

 

[HomeBrew2]

Again, this fine forum did NOT delete the post --- I did.

(actually, if you liked version that was posted (then deleted), you would have loved the first version ...

jb

10-4 on your deletion. One never knows on this fine forum.

Sorry I wasn't privy to your first draft but your 2nd was factual, straightforward and reserved

 

[john_bud]

Teach,

Good points.

I dislike people that bar simple low cost traditional solutions to their problems while demanding action be taken (at public expense).

Monthly birth control darts for deer as the preferred method of population control ($1000/deer) over bow / gun hunting. (was done as a trial in suburban Milwaukee). Using paid government sharpshooters (at @250/deer) to thin the herds while not allowing hunting. (Altoona WI) Letting the herds get so overpopulated that they eat the forests to death. South and Central WI -- soon to be Northern too). Hemlocks are only mature trees in WI, ALL the seedlings get eaten every year unless fenced. Thinking that hunting is cruel but 3 months of starvation and finally a painful lonely death are not.


And don't even get me started on flood plain dwellers. It should be paid once and then the land is federal property that can't be used for structures, ever.

ARghhh.

jb

 

[44trxfun]

Excellent thread! Lots of interesting perspectives. Some I agree with and some I don't but that's part of the balance that some said we should strive for. I read this thread from beginning to end. Maybe I missed it, but I never saw the word "watershed" mentioned.

I believe in private property rights but realize that my actions on my private land has downslope or downstream effects. I volunteer with a local watershed association. We are beginning to work with local governments (however evil some might think they are) to help them understand how watersheds work. Personally I don't think it's my role to tell them what they should do, but I think it's important that people understand the "links in the chain". In reality, I realize the solutions 1) are not easy / "black & white", 2) require stakeholders to work together, and 3) will ultimately be some kind of a compromise.

I like and will follow the suggestion to print this thread off and use it as a starting point for discussion in my area as our watershed group works with local communities to solve some of their flooding problems.

 

[N80]

Yes, watersheds are an important concept. But involving the government is not necessarily the answer. Case in point:

I have 250 acres in central SC. In the middle of my property is an 8-10 acre 'watershed' lake built by the government in the 1950's to help control flood, and as a hedge against drought I suppose. Up until a number of years ago the county maintained these watersheds. Guess what happens when poor counties get poorer? First, they quit maintaining their projects. My lake is silting in. The dam (this thing is huge) is becoming overgrown. The spillway (which is unecessarily complex) now has rusted, inoperable valves and I have no control over water levels. This is a concern for my B-I-L downstream who waters his cows in the creek. Two years ago they sent a crew to clear the dam, then the budget was gone. It is overgrown again and again has TREES growing on it. Okay, so now it is my responsibility as landowner. That's fine, but I have nowhere near the kind of cash required for that sort of upkeep. My B-I-L has wisely spent hard earned cash on a couple of new deep wells to feed some cow ponds.

But that's only part of what happens. The other thing that poor counties do is to let people who will give them some cash get away with things they shouldn't. About five miles upstream from me they allowed a church conference center to put in a series of dams on the creek to create a series of lakes. Don't ask me why but this has lead to the creek flowing into my lake to be bone dry about half the year but then to rise 15 Feet at a time when we get a big rain. Floods my creekbottom from hill to hill and the lake comes out of its banks. The whole purpose of the watershed system is shot. The cycle now consists of two phases, flooding or dead dry.

None of this really gives me any trouble. I mention it only to demonstrate that having the government (at any level) involved is not an answer, it is just another part of the problem. Governments are just groups of people who are looking out for themselves with the added advantage of having more power to do so than the rest of us.

 

[CDsdad]

I just caught back up with this thread after over a month. I must say to you N80, I'm very impressed with the loquatious skill in which you express many of the very same opinions I have. I could go on a rant about big government and how they take our money (I'm 35, reckon I'll get any Social Security I'm paying?), don't even kiss us and then leave us totally scrued. But, you have done such a good job I'll just leave you with a "You're the man".

 

[N80]

Thank you. I have strong opinions about these things. I realize that at times I probably sound like some lifetime subscriber to Soldier of Fortune living in a 'compound' somewhere in Idaho. But I'm not like that. I'm not anti-US, or even anti-government. I strongly believe the government should have a many crucial authorities over its citizens. I also believe that when they assume authorities that they shouldn't that it is usually 'our' fault. 'We the People' have gotten lazy and irresponsible and tend to want to solve any complicated problem by passing a law or creating an 'agency'.

I'm also not anti-'green'. I support several groups that might be considered environmentalists. They tend more toward conservationism but at least one of them uses activist (but legal and ethical) tactics to achieve its goals.

As a landowner I consider myself a steward of the small portion of 'nature' that it represents. I hope to use it responsibly and to protect it. I hope to be considerate of my neighbors and downstream landowners. And as I've said before, the folks who are reading and responding in this thread are not the problem when it comes to wetlands, watersheds and land stewardship. Its corporations, big developers and at least around here, the paper companies who have needed regualtion and more regulation. Problem is, the laws that apply to them, apply to us. And when you over-regulate the people who already desire to be responsible and obediant, then you start turning the good guys into bad guys. I guess all-in-all, that's my biggest concern.

 

[jimmysisson]

N80, do you think the church group paid off the environmental commission (or whatever oversees the stream), as it sounds like you do? Do you disagree that some entity other than yourself should make them take responsiblity for what they did to your waterway? Have you approached them (the church) yourself? You said it's not a big burden to maintain the dam yourself but you don't have the funds to do it right. And your BIL had to drill a couple wells to get back the water he used to have for nothing.
I don't see how it wouldn't be better to have a permitting process or other system to make sure one person doesn't jam up another's life or property. Most people can't or wouldn't take care of such a problem themselves, and I don't think they should have to live with the consequences of someone else making such trouble for their neighbors. It's not assault, but it is robbery.
I might have about the same environmental viewpoint you have, and I live in a maybe more-regulated state (Mass.), but I try like heck not to do anything negative my neighbors have to "live with". I don't think you do either.
Jim

 

[N80]

N80, do you think the church group paid off the environmental commission (or whatever oversees the stream), as it sounds like you do?

No. I'm not suggesting anything technically illegal. I'm suggesting that the conference center represented a substantial tax income for the county and was given leeway for that reason. Such 'exemptions' may even be legal, but that does not make them right in terms of how we treat our downstream neighbors, right? Really makes it worse. Second, the watershed commission went broke and likely had no input into matters in which they were responsible.

Do you disagree that some entity other than yourself should make them take responsiblity for what they did to your waterway?

No, I don't disagree with notion of having an authority assist in such matters. My point is, and this needs to be clear, that in this situation the authority dropped the ball in a manner that lead the situation to become exactly the situation they were there to prevent and therefore, it is not practical or wise to assume that authorities will behave in everyone's or anyone's best interests.

Have you approached them (the church) yourself? You said it's not a big burden to maintain the dam yourself but you don't have the funds to do it right.

I probably didn't make myself clear on this. I don't have the funds to do anything in this matter. I was just saying that the effect of the problem doesn't impact me much. The effects are more significant downstream from me. In that regard, I have not contacted the conference center.

And your BIL had to drill a couple wells to get back the water he used to have for nothing.

Yes. And that's a two sided issue, but cogent to the discussion. The first is concern over not having enough water but second that one of the poorest counties in the US would jeopardize its primary economy (agriculture) by banning cows from the creeks due to e coli concerns. I do not know if he has approached the conference center.

I don't see how it wouldn't be better to have a permitting process or other system to make sure one person doesn't jam up another's life or property.

Well, that's my whole point. Such a process was in place and it utterly failed. Again, my point is not that we can't have any third party oversight. The point is simply that such processes are not the solution most people wish to assume they are.

Most people can't or wouldn't take care of such a problem themselves, and I don't think they should have to live with the consequences of someone else making such trouble for their neighbors. It's not assault, but it is robbery.

Agreed. But this is an example of where oversight has failed.

I might have about the same environmental viewpoint you have, and I live in a maybe more-regulated state (Mass.), but I try like heck not to do anything negative my neighbors have to "live with". I don't think you do either.
Jim

I'm not sure there is a more regulated state on the eastern seaboard than Mass. I just don't believe that 'one more law and everything will be fine' is the formula for achieving the balance that you and I both probably desire. And just for clarity, the situation on my watershed is not dire. No one is angry, there's no feuding, no lawsuits. Folks here tend to go with the flow for a long time before they get to the breaking point. The idea of being ever more self sufficient is appealing to my B-I-L so he likes the idea of his wells as security against rough times.

 

[CDsdad]

The idea of being ever more self sufficient is appealing to my B-I-L so he likes the idea of his wells as security against rough times.

Large govt has hurt this country most in what you just spoke of: self sufficiency. I realize changing times and technological advance have also had a part in this, but dependency upon govt services is at an all time high, at least here where I live. We do need some govt regulation, especially for large, wealthy corporations who would run roughshod over any and everything to make a buck. However, ultimately it is up to ME to protect MY family and MY property as well as provide for MY family.

This was never clearer than in the aftermath of Katrina. I will only speak of where I live locally: If only the strong survive hard times, when the govt is stretched to the limits of what it can do as after Katrina, only about half of us will be left to run the place if it ever gets real bad. The rest will starve from either inability to provide for themselves or just plain laziness.

 

[daTeacha]

N80 -- In many places there is a concept called riparian rights, which can differ in details from locale to locale. Basically, you have the right to work with the the water flowing through your property so long as what you do does not disrupt the water usage of your downstream neighbors. It sounds like the church has violated your riparian rights by substantially disrupting the natural flow the stream. Perhaps they just got some dozer jockey in there building dams with consulting a soil scientist or hydrological engineer to see what impact their dams would have on stream flow. I would think you should be able to convince to at least experiment with keeping their lakes dry one at a time over a summer to see which one(s) cause the majority of flow disruption. You might get a more favorable response if yoru send them a nice letter to that effect with a copy to some official or legal entity such as an attorney or Department of Natural Resources.

You might find that government also serves the function of making sure no is treated unfairly or illegally by their neighbors. If you find out they just had someone pile up dirt to make their dams, ask them who will be to blame if a groundhog or something causes the dam to fail, allowing all that pent up water to come rushing down to your place, overwhelming the county built dam, breaking it and flooding everyone downstream as a consequence.