HomeBrew2
Banned
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.
mike69440 said:
Had the Wetlands Engineer out to the place
- Thread starter Timber
- Start date
- Views: 13451
williekioti
Gold Member
Can I get an amen?
N80 AMEN!
DITTO to Iowachild & HomeBrew
The reason most European countries take such a heavy handed oversight of silvicultural practices is becuase they had cut off and/or burned off almost every stick of timber centuries ago before realizing the idea of sustainability. We are no where near there yet, though we do need to improve our forest management practices in many parts of the country. One could argue that we did learn from our Western European friends and our own mistakes in unrestrained, short sighted timbering around the turn of the last century. Best Management Practices are being utilized on most large scale timberlands.
WK
N80 AMEN!
DITTO to Iowachild & HomeBrew
The reason most European countries take such a heavy handed oversight of silvicultural practices is becuase they had cut off and/or burned off almost every stick of timber centuries ago before realizing the idea of sustainability. We are no where near there yet, though we do need to improve our forest management practices in many parts of the country. One could argue that we did learn from our Western European friends and our own mistakes in unrestrained, short sighted timbering around the turn of the last century. Best Management Practices are being utilized on most large scale timberlands.
WK
Last edited:
daTeacha
Veteran Member
Keyword is management. Quite a few people prefer a forested area that is not managed by human intervention. A few years a farmer near here who could afford to do so donated 200 acres of woods to the State of Ohio. This piece of ground had not been logged or even had firewood removed from it for over 100 years. The state has built a simple network of hard surface raised trails through it so people can walk it without getting lost or damaging the woods. It's very different to walk through Johnson's woods than to walk through my FIL's woods, which have been professionally managed -- i.e. logged periodically under the guidance of a trained forester who decided which trees to remove and supervised the operation to minimize damage to the woods. The two areas are very different from a biologist's viewpoint despite being in close proximity. They contain different species, numbers of species, and numbers of each species of plants and animals, have different characteristics of the soil and its inhabitants, different levels of light, moisture and temperature and so on.
I'm not saying which is better -- the whole point is that everyone has different ideas about how to best treat this land we live on, whether you think of yourself as owner or temporary custodian. We have laws to settle the differences of opinions. And we have lawyers and courts who try to interpret those laws in the best way they can. Unfortunately, everyone is human and thus prone to err now and then. Even more unfortunately, some are more human than others.
If you don't like the way things are being done by the people in positions of authority, challenge them for their jobs. If you don't want to get involved directly in the government, support your favorite candidate with your time, money, and vote. If you don't want to get behind someone, at least vote. If you don't vote, you have no basis to complain, but get out there and raise a stink if it makes you feel better. By my count, if you aren't willing to work and sacrifice for change it means you are willing to settle for the status quo. This is most definitely government by the people, but only by those people who are willing to put some effort into it.
More than half of the eligible voters will not vote in the coming elections, but you can rest assured that they'll sit around and complain about the results anyways.
For my money, if you don't get involved in making dinner you shouldn't complain about the way it tastes. You've always got the option to not eat it.
I'm not saying which is better -- the whole point is that everyone has different ideas about how to best treat this land we live on, whether you think of yourself as owner or temporary custodian. We have laws to settle the differences of opinions. And we have lawyers and courts who try to interpret those laws in the best way they can. Unfortunately, everyone is human and thus prone to err now and then. Even more unfortunately, some are more human than others.
If you don't like the way things are being done by the people in positions of authority, challenge them for their jobs. If you don't want to get involved directly in the government, support your favorite candidate with your time, money, and vote. If you don't want to get behind someone, at least vote. If you don't vote, you have no basis to complain, but get out there and raise a stink if it makes you feel better. By my count, if you aren't willing to work and sacrifice for change it means you are willing to settle for the status quo. This is most definitely government by the people, but only by those people who are willing to put some effort into it.
More than half of the eligible voters will not vote in the coming elections, but you can rest assured that they'll sit around and complain about the results anyways.
For my money, if you don't get involved in making dinner you shouldn't complain about the way it tastes. You've always got the option to not eat it.
jand38
Silver Member
I have a lot of thoughts on all items covered but this last thread ( da Teacha ) is 100% correct we must,must,must vote and if the citizens do not USA will pay a very high price.
neverenough
Silver Member
Well, I read the whole thread....
Fact is, if you are on either side of the fence, your wrong. Balance is the only feasable solution to any enviromental issue.
We can't have government control of personal property, yet a reasonable watchful eye must be maintained. A private land owner can't be allowed to dump toxic waste in their yard, yet if they want to move dirt or cut a tree on their land, it's not the governments place to to yea or nay.
I alway's find wetlands and forest management to be a true oxymoron.
The forest issue...
Yellowstone park was left "natural", and it burned down. We have a place here in MN called the Boundry Waters Canoe Area. A few years ago a lot of trees got blown over in a big storm. Becouse motorized vehicles are not allowed in the area, the trees layed there and dried. A large portion of those trees burned this year from lightning strikes. They took fire fighting equipment in there to "save the forest". That situation is a true and pure example of how blatently stupid the "natural enviromentist" really is. The least they could have done was make some paths and have the Amish go in with their teams of horses and clear fire breaks. They really should have allowed a logging company to go in there and take the trees out so they didn't have to cut trees that were alive and well someplace else. But, alas, that requires logic and common sense, something 'tree huggers" do not have.
As far as wet lands goes....
That issue is a little more difficult than the forest issue. There is a much greater need for balance in wetlands, and it effects people and animals with a much greater impact. If we are allowed to fill in every swamp/wetlands area, then what happens to our water table??? What happens to the soil??? What happens to peoples basements??? Roads??? Wildlife??? Developers are allowed to fill in swamps to build houses becouse the land is cheap, yet here in MN, the Department of Natural Resources will nail you if you remove or damage cat tails. Where is the balance in that??? My swamps/wetlands have to take all the run off from the development down the road so Mr./Mrs. Donald Trump wannabe can make money??? IMO there needs to be balance and restrictions with swamps and wetlands, but they must be balanced. A developer filling in a swamp to build houses, then digging a "water retention pond" is not even close to the same as leaving the swamp stand, and building in a corn field. In short, filling in a little wetlands to gain more yard, is doing more damage, than the value of that dry land will ever make up for. I just hope as governments start to control the wetlands more and more, they look at the whole picture they allow or disallow changes to wetlands.
Whew, my fingers hurt, so I'll step down off the soap box now.
Fact is, if you are on either side of the fence, your wrong. Balance is the only feasable solution to any enviromental issue.
We can't have government control of personal property, yet a reasonable watchful eye must be maintained. A private land owner can't be allowed to dump toxic waste in their yard, yet if they want to move dirt or cut a tree on their land, it's not the governments place to to yea or nay.
I alway's find wetlands and forest management to be a true oxymoron.
The forest issue...
Yellowstone park was left "natural", and it burned down. We have a place here in MN called the Boundry Waters Canoe Area. A few years ago a lot of trees got blown over in a big storm. Becouse motorized vehicles are not allowed in the area, the trees layed there and dried. A large portion of those trees burned this year from lightning strikes. They took fire fighting equipment in there to "save the forest". That situation is a true and pure example of how blatently stupid the "natural enviromentist" really is. The least they could have done was make some paths and have the Amish go in with their teams of horses and clear fire breaks. They really should have allowed a logging company to go in there and take the trees out so they didn't have to cut trees that were alive and well someplace else. But, alas, that requires logic and common sense, something 'tree huggers" do not have.
As far as wet lands goes....
That issue is a little more difficult than the forest issue. There is a much greater need for balance in wetlands, and it effects people and animals with a much greater impact. If we are allowed to fill in every swamp/wetlands area, then what happens to our water table??? What happens to the soil??? What happens to peoples basements??? Roads??? Wildlife??? Developers are allowed to fill in swamps to build houses becouse the land is cheap, yet here in MN, the Department of Natural Resources will nail you if you remove or damage cat tails. Where is the balance in that??? My swamps/wetlands have to take all the run off from the development down the road so Mr./Mrs. Donald Trump wannabe can make money??? IMO there needs to be balance and restrictions with swamps and wetlands, but they must be balanced. A developer filling in a swamp to build houses, then digging a "water retention pond" is not even close to the same as leaving the swamp stand, and building in a corn field. In short, filling in a little wetlands to gain more yard, is doing more damage, than the value of that dry land will ever make up for. I just hope as governments start to control the wetlands more and more, they look at the whole picture they allow or disallow changes to wetlands.
Whew, my fingers hurt, so I'll step down off the soap box now.
Willl
Elite Member
We've got an initiative (I-933) coming up in the next vote that deals with this topic.
The local farmers had a tractor rally yesterday in Seattle, WA.
Farmers take to streets of Seattle in support of I-933
The local farmers had a tractor rally yesterday in Seattle, WA.
Farmers take to streets of Seattle in support of I-933
Willl
Elite Member
daTeacha
Veteran Member
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 -- I live near two very large inland wetlands. One is 15000 acres, the other about 8800. The former serves as a biological filter and natural retention area for excess rainwater while providing great opportunity for hunting, birding, fishing, etc. The latter is manmade, consisting of a series of dikes and levees that in essence have reversed the flow of a stream while providing a place for water to be backed up behind a dry dam. When it rains a lot, the people downstream are protected from flooding through the simple expedient of flooding us. In '05, they closed the dam in January, shutting down two state highways and numerous county roads. It added about 6 miles each way to my drive to school, delayed trash collection since the waste haulers couldn't seem to find their way around it, made a whole little tiny town have to drive into the larger city to get their mail -- they could get to town, but the mail guy couldn't get to them for some reason -- added several minutes to already scary long fire/squad response time, and several other minor inconveniences. Then it all froze. A guy lost a fairly new pickup by stupidly trying to drive through the water and getting washed into the ditch alongside the road. Another genius lost a car when he tried to drive across the ice and broke through. It froze in place on a bridge and sat there for about 3 weeks. A woman from outside the area saw some road closure signs and detoured on a county road one snowy night. She got out far enough that when she broke through the car was sitting on it's frame and the wheels were on the road beneath. Had she made it another 1/4 mile or so she would have been in about 10 feet of water under the ice and we would have found her in the spring.
The folks downstream benefit while we pay the price. No one in the floodable zone is allowed to build anything below the flood line. You can't even put a pole building in because the poles will potentially displace water storage space and increase the amount of water that has to go over the dam. But the ODNR is allowed to "manage" the area for wildlife by restricting the drainage rate and that somehow does not interfere with the ability to absorb rain runoff. Go figure. The latest insult added to this is that the agency involved wants to levy a tax on every parcel in an 18 county area to pay for maintainence and upgrades to the dams and levees. They propose to tax those of us who put up with the flooding just the same as those downstream who don't get flooded because we do. They told me that my ground, sitting well above the floodable zone, benefits to the tune of $2600 per year from having their dams in place since those dams somehow make my property more valuable. They don't mention mosquitoes (picture a hog with over 100 bites per square foot of hide) and the diseases they can spread to livestock and humans. They tell me that I should pay the same tax as someone downstream who has a McMansion on ground that would be flooded if the dams weren't here, despite the fact that the McMansion is built on the natural floodplain of the river.
Despite all this, I think natural wetlands are a good thing and should be protected. Many of our cities (Cleveland, for example) were sited near former natural wetlands and grew to engulf them resulting in the mess we have today with flooding. We as a society have to start living with our land rather than trying to subjugate it.
Many of the regulations that can be so annoying are in place to try to keep people from being stupid and expecting the rest of us to pay for it. I shouldn't have to pay to replace the home of some idiot who built his house on a barrier island when the island moves in a storm, nor for the belongings of the jerk who builds right next to a river that floods every third spring. Yet people expect to be allowed to build whatever they want wherever they want and then cry when their place is destroyed. They want flood insurance from the federal government because no insurance company could afford to pay for the damages from a major storm or flood event.
Would it not be cheaper for all involved if the houses had not been built in vulnerable places to begin with? Unless you answered no to that, you are in tacit agreement with the folks who want to protect wetlands and similar areas. The things serve a definite purpose in the grand scheme of things and we have been destroying them at an incredible rate ever since European man set foot on the continent. It is only relatively recently that we have recognized their values, and as a result there are many who still think the best thing to do with a wetland is drain or fill it. Old "truths" die hard, despite anything modern science can demonstrate.
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.
Regarding the wetlands -- I live near two very large inland wetlands. One is 15000 acres, the other about 8800. The former serves as a biological filter and natural retention area for excess rainwater while providing great opportunity for hunting, birding, fishing, etc. The latter is manmade, consisting of a series of dikes and levees that in essence have reversed the flow of a stream while providing a place for water to be backed up behind a dry dam. When it rains a lot, the people downstream are protected from flooding through the simple expedient of flooding us. In '05, they closed the dam in January, shutting down two state highways and numerous county roads. It added about 6 miles each way to my drive to school, delayed trash collection since the waste haulers couldn't seem to find their way around it, made a whole little tiny town have to drive into the larger city to get their mail -- they could get to town, but the mail guy couldn't get to them for some reason -- added several minutes to already scary long fire/squad response time, and several other minor inconveniences. Then it all froze. A guy lost a fairly new pickup by stupidly trying to drive through the water and getting washed into the ditch alongside the road. Another genius lost a car when he tried to drive across the ice and broke through. It froze in place on a bridge and sat there for about 3 weeks. A woman from outside the area saw some road closure signs and detoured on a county road one snowy night. She got out far enough that when she broke through the car was sitting on it's frame and the wheels were on the road beneath. Had she made it another 1/4 mile or so she would have been in about 10 feet of water under the ice and we would have found her in the spring.
The folks downstream benefit while we pay the price. No one in the floodable zone is allowed to build anything below the flood line. You can't even put a pole building in because the poles will potentially displace water storage space and increase the amount of water that has to go over the dam. But the ODNR is allowed to "manage" the area for wildlife by restricting the drainage rate and that somehow does not interfere with the ability to absorb rain runoff. Go figure. The latest insult added to this is that the agency involved wants to levy a tax on every parcel in an 18 county area to pay for maintainence and upgrades to the dams and levees. They propose to tax those of us who put up with the flooding just the same as those downstream who don't get flooded because we do. They told me that my ground, sitting well above the floodable zone, benefits to the tune of $2600 per year from having their dams in place since those dams somehow make my property more valuable. They don't mention mosquitoes (picture a hog with over 100 bites per square foot of hide) and the diseases they can spread to livestock and humans. They tell me that I should pay the same tax as someone downstream who has a McMansion on ground that would be flooded if the dams weren't here, despite the fact that the McMansion is built on the natural floodplain of the river.
Despite all this, I think natural wetlands are a good thing and should be protected. Many of our cities (Cleveland, for example) were sited near former natural wetlands and grew to engulf them resulting in the mess we have today with flooding. We as a society have to start living with our land rather than trying to subjugate it.
Many of the regulations that can be so annoying are in place to try to keep people from being stupid and expecting the rest of us to pay for it. I shouldn't have to pay to replace the home of some idiot who built his house on a barrier island when the island moves in a storm, nor for the belongings of the jerk who builds right next to a river that floods every third spring. Yet people expect to be allowed to build whatever they want wherever they want and then cry when their place is destroyed. They want flood insurance from the federal government because no insurance company could afford to pay for the damages from a major storm or flood event.
Would it not be cheaper for all involved if the houses had not been built in vulnerable places to begin with? Unless you answered no to that, you are in tacit agreement with the folks who want to protect wetlands and similar areas. The things serve a definite purpose in the grand scheme of things and we have been destroying them at an incredible rate ever since European man set foot on the continent. It is only relatively recently that we have recognized their values, and as a result there are many who still think the best thing to do with a wetland is drain or fill it. Old "truths" die hard, despite anything modern science can demonstrate.
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.