Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/28/2004 1:50:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 1:51:07 PM EST by Airwolf]
Yeah, you REALLY own your own property in America, don't you.

Nope, you just RENT it from the Gooberment until they want to make some $$$ off you.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&ncid=529&e=13&u=/ap/20040827/ap_en_mo/actor_epa_fine

Willis to Pay $21,000 for Violation

Fri Aug 27, 3:20 PM ET

HAILEY, Idaho - Actor Bruce Willis will pay a $21,000 fine for violating federal wetlands protection laws by clearing a half-acre island in a pond at his central Idaho home.

Willis was cited last October for clearing the small island, installing a sprinkler system, and adding topsoil to level depressions so sod could be laid. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) officials claimed he also dumped 10 cubic yards of fill material in a stream to provide access to the island.

The wetlands had been part of a spring-fed tributary of the Big Wood River.

"He wanted to be able to use it and that's why he did what he did," said attorney Ned Williamson, who represented Willis. "He was cleaning up this island. He simply did not know it was in wetland jurisdiction."

Williamson said Willis stopped the work as soon as federal officials notified him and began restoration of the island to its former state before the settlement announced this week was negotiated.

Under the settlement, the island will be replanted and its wetlands character restored by Oct. 31. The site will then be monitored for the next decade.

The EPA says wetlands throughout Idaho, especially in the Sun Valley resort area, are disappearing because of burgeoning development and increased recreational use.

"Less than one percent of our state is wetlands," said Jim Werntz, the EPA's Idaho director. "And that one percent provides over 50 percent of Idaho's wildlife habitat.

It was the second time Willis, star of films like the "Die Hard" series and "The Sixth Sense," has run afoul of environmental regulations at the residence he has owned since 1987.

In 1998, the Idaho Department of Water Resources cited him for violating conditions of a stream alteration permit and required him to remove rock jetties and flow control structures installed in the Big Wood River.

The department dropped all charges against Willis in that case after he cooperated with federal officials, Williamson said.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 1:53:29 PM EST

He should have kicked those EPA guys into spinning helicopter rotors, then danced the jig.

[The Last Boy Scout]
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:02:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 2:12:39 PM EST by passgas55]
Bruce was lucky that they did not burn down his house. Oopps, wrong ABCs'
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:05:17 PM EST
Quiz: where does the term "Real estate" come from?
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:11:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 2:12:47 PM EST by Ragnaroc]
Monitored for the next decade? How the fuck much is that going to cost?
Up here in Alaska they classify scrub spruce tundra as wetlands because the moss is wet. Which means 90% of the state that isn't mountains.
Anyone ever see scrub spruce tundra? It's a dead ecosystem.
Fucking environmentalist nutjobs.

Are you an environmentalist, or do you work for a living?
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:13:05 PM EST

The site will then be monitored for the next decade.



wonder what THATS gonna cost the taxpayers?
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:18:07 PM EST
Everything natural to your property is "Public Resource"...Incudes timber, dirt, rock, etc.

MT (found out the hard way)

There is no LIST and you are not on IT.


Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:21:06 PM EST
My father has a depression in a field. Cant do shit with it but work around it because its a "wetland", all of 100 feet across.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:39:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By AvengeR15:
He should have kicked those EPA guys into spinning helicopter rotors, then danced the jig.

[The Last Boy Scout]



Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:39:56 PM EST
screw the epa
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 3:19:20 PM EST
WTF
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 3:30:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 3:30:57 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Plank #1 of the "10 Planks Of Communism" from The Communist Manifesto":

"1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose."
Property taxes; excessive zoning laws; permit requirements and prohibitions; water use restrictions; fireplace restrictions; household waste-disposal restrictions; homeowners associations; Bureau of Land Management; "wetlands" protections; endangered species act; EPA regulations; eminent domain.

Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:02:49 PM EST
And if you guys could see the area that he dumped a shit load of dirt into, you would call him a jack ass!

Imagine your favorite fishing stream. Now cut it off with dirt and add some sod so said jack ass can plant his can in a lawn chair.

I promise you guys that if you have seen the area that this took place you would have a different view.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:04:25 PM EST
Well, landscaping your own property was specifically forbidden in the 1994 Reduction of Freedoms Act.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:07:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By TZLVredmist:
And if you guys could see the area that he dumped a shit load of dirt into, you would call him a jack ass!

Imagine your favorite fishing stream. Now cut it off with dirt and add some sod so said jack ass can plant his can in a lawn chair.

I promise you guys that if you have seen the area that this took place you would have a different view.

Did his alterations affect anyone else's property?


Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:10:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By TZLVredmist:
And if you guys could see the area that he dumped a shit load of dirt into, you would call him a jack ass!

Imagine your favorite fishing stream. Now cut it off with dirt and add some sod so said jack ass can plant his can in a lawn chair.

I promise you guys that if you have seen the area that this took place you would have a different view.



Got links to any pics of it?
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:33:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By TZLVredmist:
And if you guys could see the area that he dumped a shit load of dirt into, you would call him a jack ass!

Imagine your favorite fishing stream. Now cut it off with dirt and add some sod so said jack ass can plant his can in a lawn chair.

I promise you guys that if you have seen the area that this took place you would have a different view.



Was it his property? was any one else materially damaged? then it's nobody's fucking business.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:38:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By TZLVredmist:
And if you guys could see the area that he dumped a shit load of dirt into, you would call him a jack ass!

Imagine your favorite fishing stream. Now cut it off with dirt and add some sod so said jack ass can plant his can in a lawn chair.

I promise you guys that if you have seen the area that this took place you would have a different view.



What a man does on HIS OWN PROPERTY is of no concern to you or me if it doesn't affect you or me.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:41:38 PM EST
I work for a Land Survey/Civil Engeering firm.
Yes,some local state and federal regulations are crazy,not to mention the various and sometimes selective ways they are enforced.
For better or worse,think of land ownership like this. You are not buying the land,you are only buying certain rights to that land.The state,federal,and local governments also have certain rights to that land and not only do these rights varry from location to location,but these same governments also have been given
(or have given themselves) the right or ability to change the "Rules" pretty much whenever or however they choose
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:51:40 PM EST
Carl Drega was driven mad(der?) by regulations like these, their selective enforcement, and lack of willingness fro the State to work with citizens on these matters. The law being held to be unyielding and inflexible, while being enforced selectively will be one of the great means by which our republic will be destroyed.

Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:00:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 5:01:30 PM EST by m193]

Originally Posted By nhsport:
I work for a Land Survey/Civil Engeering firm.
Yes,some local state and federal regulations are crazy,not to mention the various and sometimes selective ways they are enforced.
For better or worse,think of land ownership like this. You are not buying the land,you are only buying certain rights to that land.The state,federal,and local governments also have certain rights to that land and not only do these rights varry from location to location,but these same governments also have been given
(or have given themselves) the right or ability to change the "Rules" pretty much whenever or however they choose



I am a registered Civil Engineer (for what that's worth). You're view is no different than Communism. Where's the freedom in that?

I used to say, "everybody wants zoning for his neighbor, but it is a good thing." Now I just see it as a small group wanting to control others. I still think some zoning laws are reasonable for small tracts of land, but they always go way beyond reasonable.

Here's something that makes a lot of sense. You can get a permit to fill wetlands within a certain drainage basin and buy mitigation credits at a wetlands bank in a different drainage basin. Hell, it could even be in a different state. This just shows that is has nothing to do with protecting an ecosystem, but rather government using one more tool to control our lives and keep us in check.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:14:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By m193:
...

I am a registered Civil Engineer (for what that's worth). You're view is no different than Communism. Where's the freedom in that?...



He wasn't stating his "view" - be was explaining established reality. It seemed clear to me he wasn't all too happy with it either.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:18:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By TimJ:

Originally Posted By TZLVredmist:
And if you guys could see the area that he dumped a shit load of dirt into, you would call him a jack ass!

Imagine your favorite fishing stream. Now cut it off with dirt and add some sod so said jack ass can plant his can in a lawn chair.

I promise you guys that if you have seen the area that this took place you would have a different view.



Was it his property? was any one else materially damaged? then it's nobody's fucking business.



EXACTLY! For more information, please see this thread.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:23:00 PM EST

as a duck hunter...let me chime in on this..

YOU CANNOT FUCK WITH A WETLAND WITHOUT APPROVAL.
you buy it knowing its a wetland..and protected..

when you become the owner of a classified wetland or waterway...you are the keeper of something precious that also has ramifications of others who benefit from migratory fowl and game. you are held to a higher level.

WHOOOoooo HHHHHhoooooooo i see ducks flying dis way....

teal season starts in a just a few more moons.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:28:23 PM EST
WETLANDS = SWAMP
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:49:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By muddydog:
as a duck hunter...let me chime in on this..

YOU CANNOT FUCK WITH A WETLAND WITHOUT APPROVAL.
you buy it knowing its a wetland..and protected..





Thats not true, and something is weird here.

Its been a few years (1/2 dozen) since I worked against the environmental whackjobs, but the Corps of Engineers sets the rules for wetlands not the EPA, and you can/could legally fill a small amount without a permit (covered under a national blanket permit). 1/3 acre iirc.

Th EPA has jurisdiction over the CWA (Clean Water Act), which kicks in as a 401/402/404 permit and is a precursor to a wetland permit when needed, but the corps is the primary as its their determination as to what is and isnt a wetlands.

Its like anything else, it doesnt/didnt take much to find a loophole around it for a lot of projects, agricultural is the easiest loophole to most EPA regs.



Link Posted: 8/28/2004 7:30:02 PM EST

Yeah, you REALLY own your own property in America, don't you.



Did his alterations affect anyone else's property?




Was it his property? was any one else materially damaged? then it's nobody's fucking business.




What a man does on HIS OWN PROPERTY is of no concern to you or me if it doesn't affect you or me.


All of the above can best be answered by the following excerpt from the article:

The EPA says wetlands throughout Idaho, especially in the Sun Valley resort area, are disappearing because of burgeoning development and increased recreational use.

"Less than one percent of our state is wetlands," said Jim Werntz, the EPA's Idaho director. "And that one percent provides over 50 percent of Idaho's wildlife habitat.


What is done on other peoples property certainly DOES have an effect on YOURS, mine and our posterities...even if you don't understand that. This is an acceptible role of the Federal government, IMHO.



Link Posted: 8/28/2004 8:44:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 8:44:45 PM EST by m193]

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By muddydog:
as a duck hunter...let me chime in on this..

YOU CANNOT FUCK WITH A WETLAND WITHOUT APPROVAL.
you buy it knowing its a wetland..and protected..





Thats not true, and something is weird here.

Its been a few years (1/2 dozen) since I worked against the environmental whackjobs, but the Corps of Engineers sets the rules for wetlands not the EPA, and you can/could legally fill a small amount without a permit (covered under a national blanket permit). 1/3 acre iirc.

Th EPA has jurisdiction over the CWA (Clean Water Act), which kicks in as a 401/402/404 permit and is a precursor to a wetland permit when needed, but the corps is the primary as its their determination as to what is and isnt a wetlands.

Its like anything else, it doesnt/didnt take much to find a loophole around it for a lot of projects, agricultural is the easiest loophole to most EPA regs.






It used to be 1/3 acre could be filled under the national permit. Now its 0.10 acre.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 10:16:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
All of the above can best be answered by the following excerpt from the article:

The EPA says wetlands throughout Idaho, especially in the Sun Valley resort area, are disappearing because of burgeoning development and increased recreational use.

"Less than one percent of our state is wetlands," said Jim Werntz, the EPA's Idaho director. "And that one percent provides over 50 percent of Idaho's wildlife habitat.


What is done on other peoples property certainly DOES have an effect on YOURS, mine and our posterities...even if you don't understand that. This is an acceptible role of the Federal government, IMHO.



I swear TSCD, you are biggest government intrusion apologist around.

The problem with EPA enforcement of "wetlands" is it's very often arbritrary and carpicious and typically has no other purpose than to deny landowners the rightful use of their land. Do you know what the "glancing geese" standard is? Or did you know that if you have standing water on your land for 5 days out of a year (so 351 days it's perfectly dry), that the land can be classified as protected wetlands? Even if the "standing water" is basically a rain puddle?

Nah, I doubt you did. And even if you did, you probably don't give a shit. You probably view it as your lot in life and that of your compratriots to tell the serfs how to live their lives, and to jump when you say jump.

Say, did you ever take an oath to defend the Constitution? And if you did, exactly what did it mean to you? And what is your word worth?
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 10:20:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By muddydog:
as a duck hunter...let me chime in on this..

YOU CANNOT FUCK WITH A WETLAND WITHOUT APPROVAL.
you buy it knowing its a wetland..and protected..

when you become the owner of a classified wetland or waterway...you are the keeper of something precious that also has ramifications of others who benefit from migratory fowl and game. you are held to a higher level.

WHOOOoooo HHHHHhoooooooo i see ducks flying dis way....

teal season starts in a just a few more moons.



Bullshit. Your land can be classified as wetlands after the fact. Most of the land being classified as wetlands isn't your water fowl country.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 10:38:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 10:49:17 PM EST
Private land should be just that. Private. As long as you don't do anything that would effect your neighbor, it should be no one else's business. Including the government.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 11:03:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 11:22:12 PM EST
I wanna know who ratted him out?
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 2:01:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/29/2004 2:05:55 AM EST by Ragnaroc]

Originally Posted By TZLVredmist:
And if you guys could see the area that he dumped a shit load of dirt into, you would call him a jack ass!

Imagine your favorite fishing stream. Now cut it off with dirt and add some sod so said jack ass can plant his can in a lawn chair.

I promise you guys that if you have seen the area that this took place you would have a different view.



I live in an area that has had over 10 active placer mines(washing dirt, for the ignorant-no chemicals or anything) for the last 80 years. The streams that were mined have the best trout and grayling fishing. Also more moose, beaver, rabbit, etc.
Guess what is 30 miles downriver.
World class pike fishing and moose hunting.
Go make yourself a cup of tea you armchair environmentalist.
If you don't live in it, you don't have a fucking clue.
Better yet, kill yourself so you aren't causing any more damage to the environment.


Are you an environmentalist, or do you work for a living?


P.S. What IS your job?
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 2:25:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Drakich:

I swear TSCD, you are biggest government intrusion apologist around.



Maybe because I see that many of the government regulations have some good reasoning behind them. Maybe when not applied to specific situations, because it is tough to make a regulation that totally fits every situation, but in essence, the regulations are good.




The problem with EPA enforcement of "wetlands" is it's very often arbritrary and carpicious and typically has no other purpose than to deny landowners the rightful use of their land.



Seeabove. Also, define "use"; what a landowner wants to "do" with his/her land may have unforeseen consequences or impact on the land. You cannot just eliminate all wetlands because you want to do what you want with "your" land, and its only "your " land for a few short decades at most; negative environmental behaviors can survive or impact for generations. We are stewards of the land and are here only a short time, but people seem to miss out on that long term view of their responsibility to the environment.


Do you know what the "glancing geese" standard is? Or did you know that if you have standing water on your land for 5 days out of a year (so 351 days it's perfectly dry), that the land can be classified as protected wetlands? Even if the "standing water" is basically a rain puddle?
Nah, I doubt you did. And even if you did, you probably don't give a shit. You probably view it as your lot in life and that of your compratriots to tell the serfs how to live their lives, and to jump when you say jump.



Actually, yes, I am quite aware of that regulation.And it has nothing to do with "serfs", etc. I don't view myself as "over" you in any way; I am a resident on this planet the same as you or any other person on this board, and I want to see it preserved in the best way possible for my children, their children, and so on down the line. To some of yours dismays, that will often mean that we in the here and now are limited in how we can develop land or use it recreationally ( shooting, ATV's,etc, ) because that use has extremely negative impacts on the land that lasts for generations.


As a comparison, TR took a lot of heat for initiating the National Park system; some people back then took offense that he was taking land off the public rolls that they could have developed. Looking back, we can thank him for his foresight. How will our children thank us? For leaving them overdeveloped lands filled with garbage dumps, radioactive waste dumps, a depleted environment,etc? What will their quality of life be? Or will we dot eh right thing and manage to conserve what we have in the most pristine form possible and pass on to our posterity a world and an environment that is as good as it can be?



Say, did you ever take an oath to defend the Constitution? And if you did, exactly what did it mean to you? And what is your word worth?


Are you saying that the Constitution is at odds with what I just said? If so, then we need to reexamine what our goals as people and a society are, and what we view as "constitutional"
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 3:01:19 AM EST
Huge developers can do what ever, but a private individual gets nailed. In NJ, Our Pine Barrens are supposed to protected, yet I see scores of developments go up (250 grand per home and up) where acres of forest in these protected areas get wiped out, on the other hand I have witnessed friends getting fined for cutting down 1 stinkin tree.EPA on the take in NJ??????
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 3:01:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:
Funny thing is that when a city rezones or a golf course needs building, somehow the "wetlands" aren't important.



There is a mitigation and banking program which anyone can use to use wetlands.



It is a very "selective" rule. Good Places have been taken over and turned into cement plants, while horrid places (the 100 ft wide by 400 ft long reeds) are perfectly safe.


I can only speak fromt he agricultural/mining wetland view, but there was nothing "selective". There were written rules, just like with anything else, guns, airplanes, etc., and loopholes (exclusions).

Its been awhile, but as the wetlands issue grew in Ohio, I had 90% of our land classified "PC", "prior converted" to agricultural (most of our mining was done in old cornfields), prior to the rule date. The rest didnt met the criteria, usually due to soil types.

Because of the high lime content, we would have cattails grow in a spilled cup of water, something I constantly had our Plant Managers staying on top of, their elimination anywhere.

m193, I knew those treehuggers wanted the area reduced, I cant believe they got it down to .10. As if a 1/3 acre was alot. & & thkx 4 update!
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 3:07:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By TimJ:

Originally Posted By TZLVredmist:
And if you guys could see the area that he dumped a shit load of dirt into, you would call him a jack ass!

Imagine your favorite fishing stream. Now cut it off with dirt and add some sod so said jack ass can plant his can in a lawn chair.

I promise you guys that if you have seen the area that this took place you would have a different view.


Was it his property? was any one else materially damaged? then it's nobody's fucking business.


I'm with TJ on this one.
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 3:19:13 AM EST
"The wetlands had been part of a spring-fed tributary of the Big Wood River."

Is this body of water like the "Fountain Of Youth", but only for "sexual enhancement".
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 4:46:10 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 5:00:01 AM EST
His land, he paid for it, worked for the money to buy it, his to do with as he pleases....

When I bought the land that I built my house on, I had the liberal tree huggers across the road all mad, when they found out I was going to clear out alot of the trees. Seems they like to look at my TREES when they walked out their door and down the road for their daily walks.

They went as far as to tell me I COULD NOT CUT DOWN ANY OF THE TRES, due to a "LAW"

I told them to fuck off, I would cut down every damn tree on my place if thats what I wanted to do, and their was no "LAW" saying I could not. I then told them that if there were any trees that just turned them on, then to get off their asses, come over here and dig them up, other wise it is into the fire....

They never said another word about it....They dont like me, either. fuck them, I hate tree hugging liberals.......

All bull shit, over a just over half acre lot.....some people need lives.....
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 5:04:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 5:08:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Airwolf:

"Less than one percent of our state is wetlands," said Jim Werntz, the EPA's Idaho director. "And that one percent provides over 50 percent of Idaho's wildlife habitat.





Then it sounds to me as if Idaho is well and truly screwed and worthless.....

Let's hear it for freedom, folks!
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 5:17:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 5:25:15 AM EST
Here's a little story. Two towns over is a little town that's about half natural wetlands. By natural I mean they've been there since way before people showed up. But of course you can't build on it, it's protected. Well, until the government decides to build on it. They filled in a couple thousand acres and put down a nice country club/golf course and a tract of retirement homes. Not only that, but Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer got to fund most of it. Now, there's still a lot of that protected swamp out there, and of course you still can't build on it, well, at least not until the next time the local government needs some kickbacks, a good place to dump a lot of tax money, or a new golf course to play on.

Eventually you realize it's got nothing to do with the environment, not in the least bit. It's about power.
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 5:49:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/29/2004 5:55:04 AM EST by stator]

Originally Posted By muddydog:
as a duck hunter...



Good for you, but I DON"T CARE!


YOU CANNOT FUCK WITH A WETLAND WITHOUT APPROVAL.
you buy it knowing its a wetland..and protected..



You are one sick idiot, proof is coming.


when you become the owner of a classified wetland or waterway...you are the keeper of something precious that also has ramifications of others who benefit from migratory fowl and game. you are held to a higher level.


If you are so inclined to enjoy duck hunting, then go out and buy some duck hunting land. Why force other's to spend money, or lose income, for your hobby?


WHOOOoooo HHHHHhoooooooo i see ducks flying dis way....

teal season starts in a just a few more moons.



And here is your proof. What kind of hypocrite expects everyone to observe his/her right to bear arms when that person can't observe property owner rights? Simply, an idiot who can't see the slippery slope and the erosion of gun rights.


I will say this again... freedom works both ways or not at all.
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 6:00:18 AM EST
I am constantly butting heads with the Virginia regulatory agencies in regards to water quality. I am involved in one case right now where my client put in a culvert to cross a dry hollow access 50 acres of timber. Some dirt washed into the stream in the process (maybe 2wheelbarrow loads) and now they are facing fines around $10,000. I feel landowners are badly loosing the war of private property rights.
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 7:54:38 AM EST
the rule is more many other species of mammals, reptiles and avians that are becoming endangered due to drainage issues..

remember...also the aquafer system of waterways..

the water you neighbor pumps shit and chemicals into is the water your kidz are drinking..

i'm certainly not a tree hugger, but as an outdoorsman i realize the value of anytype of waterway or drainage system..

waterfowl species is only a fraction of the system.
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 8:48:30 AM EST
This is not a poor dirt farmer getting in trouble trying to make a living farming, This is a man who knew that he wasnt supposed to mess with this stream and did it anyway thumbing his nose at regulations already known to him. We are losing prime habitat and wetlands here in Idaho at a alarming rate and there have been regs against doing this longer than bruce has lived in Idaho.
Sun valley and Hailey are where the most liberal hipocrits from hollywood and other folks live including John Kerry or atleast they have a second home there.

Dont cry to many tears for poor bruce hes not very well liked here.
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 8:52:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By Drakich:

I swear TSCD, you are biggest government intrusion apologist around.



Maybe because I see that many of the government regulations have some good reasoning behind them. Maybe when not applied to specific situations, because it is tough to make a regulation that totally fits every situation, but in essence, the regulations are good.



No doubt about it. As a case in point, the original purpose behind the Supremacy Clause was good and noble, but effectively today it gives Federal agents a license for murder. The road to hell is paid with good intentions and all that.

Most of our environmental regulations are intended for a good purpose. The question is, are they applied manner that is fair and consistent with fulfulling a "good" purpose. And the answer to that is no.


Seeabove. Also, define "use"; what a landowner wants to "do" with his/her land may have unforeseen consequences or impact on the land. You cannot just eliminate all wetlands because you want to do what you want with "your" land, and its only "your " land for a few short decades at most; negative environmental behaviors can survive or impact for generations. We are stewards of the land and are here only a short time, but people seem to miss out on that long term view of their responsibility to the environment.


The fact that you put quotes around ownership I think addresses where you stand on Constitutional rights. Negative and instrusive law enforcement can impact generations for generations as well. To use a NYC example, Amadou Diallo doesn't HAVE a posterity. But I digress.

Water rights are a particularly thorny issue, and typically when you buy land with running water, the possession comes with a variable scale of rights to the water. Traditionally, this was so a farmer didn't damn up a stream so the farmer downstream didn't get any water. A good and noble thing. Today the EPA is taking the "zero tolerance" approach, where if you modify a body or system of water in anyway, they come down on you like a ton of bricks. So, if in a flash flood, a creek bank gives way and you go to repair that creek bank to restore it to it's previous, natural state, the EPA can and has come in and fined people for that.


Actually, yes, I am quite aware of that regulation.And it has nothing to do with "serfs", etc. I don't view myself as "over" you in any way; I am a resident on this planet the same as you or any other person on this board, and I want to see it preserved in the best way possible for my children, their children, and so on down the line. To some of yours dismays, that will often mean that we in the here and now are limited in how we can develop land or use it recreationally ( shooting, ATV's,etc, ) because that use has extremely negative impacts on the land that lasts for generations.


The glancing geese standard isn't being applied to keep people from zipping around on ATVs or shooting guns or draining the everglades. It's being applied to keep people who aren't politically connected from plowing a field, clearing trees, and building a house or a barn.


As a comparison, TR took a lot of heat for initiating the National Park system; some people back then took offense that he was taking land off the public rolls that they could have developed. Looking back, we can thank him for his foresight. How will our children thank us? For leaving them overdeveloped lands filled with garbage dumps, radioactive waste dumps, a depleted environment,etc? What will their quality of life be? Or will we dot eh right thing and manage to conserve what we have in the most pristine form possible and pass on to our posterity a world and an environment that is as good as it can be?


I'm not sure how our children and grandchildren will view us. I know if a lot of the environmental whackos like Earth First and the ELF have their way, there won't be any children or grandchildren. The thing is, the environmental health of the US improved steadily throughout the 20th century. There is now more forest than there was in 1900. Despite the fact that things are getting better, the EPA and other government agencies take this as proof for more needed regulation and more intrusive behavor and a bigger budget. If it was getting worse, that would also be proof for more needed regulation, more intrusive behavior, and a bigger budget.


Are you saying that the Constitution is at odds with what I just said? If so, then we need to reexamine what our goals as people and a society are, and what we view as "constitutional"


With regard to property rights, yes sir.

This is where I think we have a difference in oppinion. If I dump gasoline or leaking radioactive waste on my property and it contaminates an aquifer or a neighboring piece of property, then yes, the people, state, what have you, does have a right to intervene and punish that behavior.

If I want to cut down a tree or 10 trees, however, it's none of your damn business. It's not the state's business either. Whether the eco freaks like it or not, we have to live on this planet and use it's resources too.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top