Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
Shotgun01, Dan H, Stipker, LunkerHunt23, Jeanjules
18,451 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,902
Posts557,119
Members18,452
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,420
ewest 21,475
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,112
Who's Online Now
8 members (Boondoggle, bstone261, DenaTroyer, Theo Gallus, Shorthose, Freg, Fishingadventure, RogersTailgate), 899 guests, and 186 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I am all over private property. I believe a property owner has rights, and should be allowed to use his or her land as they see fit, so long as it doesn't impact me, or my property in any fashion.

That's the way we do things here on our own property, and I expect the same from my neighbors. If my neighbor decides he would rather burn his trash than take it to an approved dumping facility, go for it. Just make sure that smoke doesn't come onto my property and force me to close my windows. I have the right to enjoy fresh air, after all.

If he decides to turn his stereo up loud enough to vibrate the siding on his house every night, more power to him. I like my music loud also. However, our musical tastes are not the same, so kindly install some type of soundproof noise barrier between his home and mine.....my windows are open, remember? And I'm not a big country music fan.

If he decides junkyard ownership is in his immediate future, fine. Just be sure and build a privacy fence around the whole establishment. I don't want my property values plummeting because of his actions. And while he's at it, be sure those vehicles don't leak fluids into the ground water. We do share that aquifer.

And if I have a pond, I will take every precaution in order to try and mitigate that BOW's presence on everything in it's potential pathway. I will be mindful of the fish, and the chemicals I introduce into it. That's just how I was raised, and how I believe.

That same neighbor would think nothing of calling the landlord when he or she lived in town, and the tenants above his/her apartment raised such a ruckus the ceiling began to shed drywall....so how is this scenario any different?

I propose that we wouldn't need so much governmental intervention if everyone simply respected everyone else's property rights as much as they value their own. But sadly, that day and age has long since passed.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 57
T
Offline
T
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 57
Sparkie, you make a some good points in your response to my comments here. In response, I would say, I am a good steward of the land but I try to watch over the government as well. If "We the people" do not have an unlimited amount of money to fight the battles in court (that might be caused by an over active arm or individual in the government), then It might be necessary to bring attention through the media by whatever means in stopping an over barring and over reaching government. I believe this is an attempt by the EPA to Nationalize the water. And that would include the Rain.

Tracy


Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.


Tracy
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Tracy, I think watching and questioning the government is both prudent and necessary. I'm just not convinced however, that behind every single action lies an ulterior, dark motive.

Which is odd, because I'm usually the paranoid one. Am I assured that they are coming for my water? No, not at this time. Am I confident that they are keeping the truth about alien activities on this planet secret from the public? Damn straight! grin


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 57
T
Offline
T
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 57
sparkie, thanks for the smile that just crossed my face smile roger that on the aliens. smile

Tracy


Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.


Tracy
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
Tracy, I think watching and questioning the government is both prudent and necessary. I'm just not convinced however, that behind every single action lies an ulterior, dark motive.

Which is odd, because I'm usually the paranoid one. Am I assured that they are coming for my water? No, not at this time. Am I confident that they are keeping the truth about alien activities on this planet secret from the public? Damn straight! grin


Sparkie, I'd have to agree that most regulations, even laws creating new agencies, start with good intentions. Yet, I can not think of one single regulation, agency, or overpaid bureaucrat that did not need to expand it's role and intrusion into areas never intended to justify bloating a budget more and more annually. Can you imagine an honest employee telling congress..."we're just not really needed, there is no problem here"...? As it is now, they get fired for reporting misconduct....it's about the ONLY way to get fired as a government employee I've seen lately.

In this case, the EPA was created to help clean up some specified areas of contamination and the Clean Water Act was to clean/regulate specified stretches of NAVIGABLE water ways, yet almost immediately, it expanded it's jurisdiction and created regulations that made any agent's field order, unable to even be appealable in civil court, till just last year.

I can't see ANY good coming from a regulation that gives an agency sole decision power without oversight from any other governmental entity.



Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I am all over private property. I believe a property owner has rights, and should be allowed to use his or her land as they see fit, so long as it doesn't impact me, or my property in any fashion.

That's the way we do things here on our own property, and I expect the same from my neighbors. If my neighbor decides he would rather burn his trash than take it to an approved dumping facility, go for it. Just make sure that smoke doesn't come onto my property and force me to close my windows. I have the right to enjoy fresh air, after all.

If he decides to turn his stereo up loud enough to vibrate the siding on his house every night, more power to him. I like my music loud also. However, our musical tastes are not the same, so kindly install some type of soundproof noise barrier between his home and mine.....my windows are open, remember? And I'm not a big country music fan.

If he decides junkyard ownership is in his immediate future, fine. Just be sure and build a privacy fence around the whole establishment. I don't want my property values plummeting because of his actions. And while he's at it, be sure those vehicles don't leak fluids into the ground water. We do share that aquifer.

And if I have a pond, I will take every precaution in order to try and mitigate that BOW's presence on everything in it's potential pathway. I will be mindful of the fish, and the chemicals I introduce into it. That's just how I was raised, and how I believe.

That same neighbor would think nothing of calling the landlord when he or she lived in town, and the tenants above his/her apartment raised such a ruckus the ceiling began to shed drywall....so how is this scenario any different?

I propose that we wouldn't need so much governmental intervention if everyone simply respected everyone else's property rights as much as they value their own. But sadly, that day and age has long since passed.


I could not possibly disagree more. There is no right to your property value being held up by your neighbors appearance. You do not have a right to quiet. You may not even have a right to the occasional smoke coming from your neighbors trash fire (some courts have ruled with you and some against you).

If these things were true, you would not have a right to mow your lawn (mower too loud) , have wood heating or maybe even certain aromatic flowers on your lawn (smoke too smelly flowers too stinky), paint your home to the color you like (your neighbor may claim it decreases their home value). These types of expectations of "rights" are EXACTLY why we have an out of control government. There are actually people so weak that they expect the right to these things and more.

Now, should your neighbor be polite and take kindly to the Golden Rule? Heck yes they should! I just haven't found the person yet where I've had to go running like some sissy to my local government and make some new law (nor would I). Direct infringements, not the indirect infringements of noise and such, are really pretty rare and I've not known or even heard of many who do such things.

On another note, where in Article I Section VIII of the US Constitution does the federal government have the power to even regulate these things? They do not and this power to regulate items not listed is left specifically to the States and to the people. The weak minded among us will try to make water flow up hill once more with the inter-state commerce clause. When there isn't a way to for the infringers among us to get federal regulation they simply throw their dreams in with the interstate commerce clause.


I just got a new pond, I made it twice because I aint so bright.
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I'm thinking there may be a pretty long stretch of road between proposal, acceptance, and implementation.

And at risk of aligning myself with the "other" side, it seems to me we have had very similar conversations here on the forum in the past. I remember stating that I will never use a well to fill my ponds, as that clean drinking water I'm pumping doesn't just belong to me. The aquifer doesn't stop at my property lines.

I also recall it getting pretty quiet when I asked why we shouldn't be held responsible for our fish escaping out overflows and entering public water. If I remember correctly, It even went so far as to be suggested to me that public discussion on this matter might not be in our best interest?

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=266647

PondBoss is a community of folks who are extremely passionate about their ponds, their land, and their way of life. I get that, and I think I'm of a similar mindset. But how is it okay for us to get up in arms over the possibility of a neighbor doing something to negatively impact our own property, but fall silent over the possibility of something... fish, chemical, whatever, coming out of our own ponds and lakes and affecting someone else down the line?

I think the overwhelming majority of those here are good stewards of the environment, and care enough to take pains to try and treat others as they would like to be treated themselves. But from living where I do, I am also assured that many feel and act otherwise. I don't want someone telling me what I can and can't do with my own ponds, but in my opinion there needs to be an accountability somewhere along the line, for those who are unwilling to govern themselves accordingly.


I think you make pretty good sense here. I will simply state that it is entirely up to the States to make these sorts of laws and NOT the federal government. When such laws are made locally, they are typically better law. The law is typically better tailored to the area being affected. What's more important is that the federal government has absolutely no power to make such laws and is infringing on States rights when it does.

States were meant to be the laboratories of freedom in this nation. If a State got so stupid as to make a bunch of stupid laws, the people could go to a better State. When the federal government gets involved though, we have nowhere to move to.

Now, if Michigan and Indiana are disputing which one gets to suck Lake Michigan dry for some new water project, by all means, get the feds involved.


I just got a new pond, I made it twice because I aint so bright.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
As I value this thread and would hate to see it disappear entirely, I will only state that I am glad we all have a chance to voice our opinions. I feel there is some good, pond relevant info in this thread, and I will not be the cause of its removal. Time will tell.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: timshufflin
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I'm thinking there may be a pretty long stretch of road between proposal, acceptance, and implementation.

And at risk of aligning myself with the "other" side, it seems to me we have had very similar conversations here on the forum in the past. I remember stating that I will never use a well to fill my ponds, as that clean drinking water I'm pumping doesn't just belong to me. The aquifer doesn't stop at my property lines.

I also recall it getting pretty quiet when I asked why we shouldn't be held responsible for our fish escaping out overflows and entering public water. If I remember correctly, It even went so far as to be suggested to me that public discussion on this matter might not be in our best interest?

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=266647

PondBoss is a community of folks who are extremely passionate about their ponds, their land, and their way of life. I get that, and I think I'm of a similar mindset. But how is it okay for us to get up in arms over the possibility of a neighbor doing something to negatively impact our own property, but fall silent over the possibility of something... fish, chemical, whatever, coming out of our own ponds and lakes and affecting someone else down the line?

I think the overwhelming majority of those here are good stewards of the environment, and care enough to take pains to try and treat others as they would like to be treated themselves. But from living where I do, I am also assured that many feel and act otherwise. I don't want someone telling me what I can and can't do with my own ponds, but in my opinion there needs to be an accountability somewhere along the line, for those who are unwilling to govern themselves accordingly.


I think you make pretty good sense here. I will simply state that it is entirely up to the States to make these sorts of laws and NOT the federal government. When such laws are made locally, they are typically better law. The law is typically better tailored to the area being affected. What's more important is that the federal government has absolutely no power to make such laws and is infringing on States rights when it does.

States were meant to be the laboratories of freedom in this nation. If a State got so stupid as to make a bunch of stupid laws, the people could go to a better State. When the federal government gets involved though, we have nowhere to move to.

Now, if Michigan and Indiana are disputing which one gets to suck Lake Michigan dry for some new water project, by all means, get the feds involved.


This has been a well thought out thread as far as personal views go so far....hopefully it stays that way.

I agree, people should be "neighborly" and consider how their /our actions affect others. Sadly, so many now rely on "some law" to enforce nearly every aspect, it gets very invasive, even detrimental. There is a theory that because of all the Federal regulations now, every adult American arguably commits 3 Federal felonies on an average day. Still have an old incandescent bulb in your home, you committed a Federal violation...each day is a "new" violation. Ever run a car a few days without a muffler or other exhaust malfunction, Service engine light on? More EPA violations! Have you used ANY aerosol spray for something not exactly as described in the instructions? You guessed it...says right on the can, "It is a violation of federal Law to use this other than instructed". Drop some oil on the ground after an oil change? Not report it immediately to the EPA? What about an old prescription in your medicine cabinet?? Is it still even legal to possess? Dow you know how to LEGALLY dispose of it?More "crimes"!!! What about that leaking oil pan on a car or mower....yup...EPA makes it all criminal when it touches the ground! Have asphalt shingles on your roof? This new EPA reg can make you replace your roof, and/or fine you $75,000 a day now for leaching petroleum products into the groundwaters.....simply by some field agent driving by and giving you a cease/desist/remediation letter...

Sparky is right about having a "reasonable" expectation to peace and quiet, but maybe not on a neighbor collecting what he may see as trash...if the area is zoned, he has that expectation, if not, each neighbor/landowner has the right to do any legal activity they wish. Most places consider "quiet time" to be between the hours of 9pm and 7am. Am I violating someone's right to quiet if I target practice with my 30.06 at 2pm, no..at 2am...you bet!

To sorta plagiarize a quote from Penn Jillete, When I was an uneducated 12 years old, I could be sitting on my couch at home and know whether or not I was violating any law or regulation...now, a short 42 years later, I am well educated and even though I do research, I often have no idea how MANY laws or regulations I am in violation of at any given moment.

Last edited by Rainman; 05/29/15 05:08 PM.


Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I don't know if this is accurate or applicable, but this is pretty much how I see it.

Private Nuisance

A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.

Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.

An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children.

Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance.


Full text here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+quiet+enjoyment


I have personal experience with the "excessive light" condition mentioned in the paragraph. Only time in my life I needed to enlist the services of an attorney, after all other diplomatic avenues had failed.



"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 71
Zep Offline
Hall of Fame 2014
Offline
Hall of Fame 2014
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 71
sprkplug....do you envision this new EPA water rule could ever result in some enviro-whacko inside the EPA demanding we not stock certain predators or not allow a pond owner to use rotenone to kill a pond because the EPA has some precious little snail-darter or some other endangered cock-roach they want protected?


Fishing has never been about the fish....

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Could? Sure it's possible. It's also possible that I could be arrested somewhere in Indiana for:

Taking a bath between the months of October and March.
Eating watermelon in the park.
Driving on Main street with my lights on.
Throwing a stone at a bird for any reason other than self-defense.

It's my understanding that all of these are laws,(rules) still on the books in various Hoosier locales. I'm just not one of those guys who automatically equates "could", with "will"....I think there's a difference between the two, and they are not automatically going to be one and the same.

I'm not ready to freak out and jettison everything over proposed, maybe, could happen, worst-case scenarios. As far as I know, the saying goes something along the lines of "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst".

The version I'm familiar with doesn't say anything about abandoning hope and committing to the worst?


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I don't know if this is accurate or applicable, but this is pretty much how I see it.

Private Nuisance



Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.

An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children.

Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance.


Full text here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+quiet+enjoyment


I have personal experience with the "excessive light" condition mentioned in the paragraph. Only time in my life I needed to enlist the services of an attorney, after all other diplomatic avenues had failed.



Spark, I agree with the premise of what you are saying, yet in an unzoned county, as most of rural America is, the only way to enforce a nuisance or non human trespass, is to file suit in court. How can one person's view of "enjoying" their land be unimpaired and not worthy protection of another? SOMEONE will feel their rights are being violated. As what you posted says in it's opening "A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation."....That is all land owners, not just those feeling "offended". That is also exactly why law enforcement has no place deciding such things and civil courts are tasked after a petition is filed. Maybe you don't like seeing a neighbors car collection and consider it junk, while that neighbor can't stand the site or smell of your sugar shack...Who here is "offended" or has had "rights" violated?? In a city or area with zoning, there is a much more clear definition of what constitutes a nuisance. There are also code enforcement officers tasked with the fair compliance.

Good, reasonable people, SHOULD, talk to each other and work out mutually agreeable solutions. But in this entitled age where somehow not being offended has somehow become a Constitutional right, NO person can actually enjoy the rights mentioned above.

If you remember, I was involved in a 5 year legal battle over access to my land. the person blocking me was a resident of the area, we were not. Long story short, we were legally, illegally locked out of our property we'd built up over a 10 year period. The Missouri Constitution guarantees ingress and egress to land owned for "full enjoyment", yet our judge denied it, an appeals court upheld the decision, then sealed the case so it could no longer be appealed further....We were damaged over $350,000, rights clearly violated, but we still lost. IF this EPA rule somehow stands, within a year or two, you will not believe the control you are going to lose to "enjoy" your property rights.

You mentioned "wait and see"....I doubt we'd have to wait very long to see if this rule stands...



Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Spark, I do know exactly what you meant earlier to about all of us should be good stewards of our lands and aware of how we affect others, whether it be a pollutant or nuisance. I know you are a good dude and deeply believe in what is right and protecting what God gave us to live on.

BEFORE the EPA, most people did that. The EPA was originally created to stop the indiscriminant pollution from huge factories, refineries, etc. It specifically exempted farms and private lands. Most polluters the EPA was created to stop, complied before being forced, yet the EPA has continued to expand it's jurisdiction FAR beyond it's original boundaries, and often when taken to court, illegally.

The current EPA director recently said those exemptions have never changed...That, is simply a total, complete lie. The vast majority of violations now are against small farms and "exempt" parties



Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 71
Zep Offline
Hall of Fame 2014
Offline
Hall of Fame 2014
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 71
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I'm not ready to freak out


Well I am ready to freak out because those control freaks in Washington and elsewhere in gvt want to control everything! Like Dr. Savage says it's a mental disorder....the constant need to control people. Their message is clear: politicians and bureaucrats know more about how to live your life, manage your health, and raise your kids than you do. The paternalistic social engineers who have appointed themselves the guardians of the public good. They want to control what kind of light bulbs we can buy, control our light switches, control how our clothes washing machine functions, control our thermostats, control how much water we use when we shower, control our toilets, control how our toilet paper rolls are made, control our snack vending machines, record our private cell phone conversations, control our cars, control vitamins, control our children's school lunches, and on and on and on and on and on and on.....

Yes, every society needs laws....but we don’t need millions of them!


Fishing has never been about the fish....

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
Could? Sure it's possible. It's also possible that I could be arrested somewhere in Indiana for:

Taking a bath between the months of October and March.
Eating watermelon in the park.
Driving on Main street with my lights on.
Throwing a stone at a bird for any reason other than self-defense.


I'm not ready to freak out and jettison everything over proposed, maybe, could happen, worst-case scenarios.



Spark, the first 2 maybes could get you busted for attracting vermin...nuisance violations...the third is a Federal Felony violating USF&W regulations laugh

As for the last part, maybe you missed it...the EPA rule was made an Executive order this week...it's now Federal regulation by decree, once again the congress was bypassed...There is no more maybe, what if, or it might happen...it's here!!! And the EPA had prepared plans to take swift action with their new authority.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/politics/obama-epa-water-rule/

Last edited by Rainman; 05/29/15 09:04 PM.


Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Rex, it's not the regulation itself I was referring to as a worst case scenario. It's the IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT of same. That's where the stumbling block will come into play.

I think it's a matter of logistics. Who is going to do all of the legwork, on all of the hundreds of thousands of private ponds in the country? On-site visitations, testing, follow up visits?

I no longer worry about the future of my land, or my ponds. I have learned that I cannot fight my children's, or grandchildren's battles for them. It's a romantic notion that suggests I need to leave everything to them just as I found it, and an even more romantic ideal to think they desire it to be this way in the first place. They may be seeing dollar signs and housing developments, not ponds and maple trees.

This is my time, to do as I think best. And I think that by the time all the scuffling over this ruling has began to die down, it will be election time. Then there will be further delays while the new administration beat their drums and make speeches. Then there will be the need to fill the thousands of positions that will be needed if there is to be any hope of enforcing these new regs. All the while, there will be challenges, and lawsuits, and revisions, and stays of action. I've seen how fast my government works...I'm not worried in the least.

I look at it like I do HBG. People get all upset and concerned over trying to prevent reproduction...that's pointless. There's nothing you can do to control that. You should be focused on controlling the implementation....recruitment. Just one guy's opinion.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Normally I would agree with you, Tony. But given the way this was done, the current administration, and OUR natural, law abiding tendencies, all the EPA needs to do is create the orders, and most of us will begin to comply. We will self-enforce and annoyed neighbors will gladly report others. Huge numbers of "boots on the ground" are not needed. The powers that be EXPECT the new lemming mentality of our nation to ensure compliance.



Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Current administration, Rex.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,712
Likes: 3
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,712
Likes: 3
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I'm thinking there may be a pretty long stretch of road between proposal, acceptance, and implementation.


Tony,

Thank you so much for having the fortitude to post what you did. I fully agree with your assessment.

This is a thread that could easily and quickly turn toxic.

There are way too many who drink the Kool-Aid of the far extremes of both sides, so they can scare and embarrass many others in an effort to try and move them to their way of thinking.

I would hope that all here would think hard about both sides of these issues.

I've watched this situation for a long time, going back to my childhood in the 1950s-60s. I hope that somehow the extremes on both sides can come to some kind of reasonable long-term consensus.

I would ask the same of the Pond Boss community.

Ken


Subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine

Peculiar Friends are Better than No Friends at All!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I hear you Rex. A few further thoughts on the matter.

From the previously listed link:


Substantial Interference The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. Determining substantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by putting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, make a nuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless.

"Apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament." As I read this, it's not a case of one person's rights vs. another person's rights, but a reasonable interpretation of what might be considered acceptable by most of the community.

Here are honest examples of how I feel, and tend to look at things. This past Saturday, I took the day off from the shop. One of the things I wanted to accomplish was to use the tractor to grade the driveway that goes back to our other piece of property, and the ponds. There are 4 other houses that share this drive, with our property being the very last one on the lane.

Well, it seems that the first house on the lane, one of our neighbors, was having an outdoor get-together. It was Memorial weekend after all. I could've went ahead with my plans and stirred up clouds of dust, made noise, and generally made a mess of things, and been legal doing so. But it wouldn't have been the right thing to do.

My shop sits on the same piece of property as my current home. We're zoned light commercial. Most of the adjoining properties are zoned agricultural, but are actually residential. I know this, and I maintain a strict cut-off of business hours at 5 pm weekdays. My neighbors deserve to come home and not be bothered by roaring engines and grinding metal half the night. I do not work on Sundays, or Saturday afternoons for the same reason. Even during the spring, when I'm three weeks behind.

I begin my day at sunup, delivering and picking up equipment. Unless the piece is just too large, I push them onto the truck or trailer rather than start an engine at that early hour. Don't have to, just choose to. Out of respect for my neighbors.

This is the same sort of courtesy I appreciate being extended towards me.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
Current administration, Rex.


Yes.

This editorial probably sums up best what is coming in the next year or so, before the "current administration" is out of office. I don't think it is a political statement to say what the current President and those he has appointed to develop policy seek full control over private lands....it is the stated goal.

Full editorial and analysis here as well as the author's bio...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-arti...ter-regulations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations that would give the agency control over more privately owned land than ever before. EPA issued the regulations despite the Supreme Court ruling twice in recent years that federal environmental officials had too expansively defined its Clean Water Act powers.

EPA Ignores Supreme Court Rebukes
EPA claims the Supreme Court’s decisions in SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (2001) and Rapanos v. United States (2006) created confusion regarding its newly proposed regulations. In SWANCC, the Court ruled federal environmental officials could not use what was known as the “migratory bird rule” to assert jurisdiction over isolated bodies of water. In Rapanos, the Court ruled federal environmental officials could not prohibit a private landowner from filling sand in an isolated wetland. In both cases, the Court emphasized the need for federal environmental officials to show the body of water at issue meets the Clean Water Act’s definition of “navigable waterway” that triggers federal jurisdiction.

In its newly proposed regulations, EPA claims dry streambeds that only occasionally fill with water qualify as navigable waterways under the Clean Water Act. EPA also expands its definition of what qualifies as navigable. Further, EPA claims small ponds and water holes can qualify as navigable waterways even if they are not navigable and are not physically connected to navigable waters. Instead, EPA claims federal environmental officials can view multiple such small bodies of water in combination, even if they are not physically connected.

Property rights advocates point out the EPA’s proposed rule would allow it to regulate far more bodies of water than it tried to regulate before being rebuked by successive Supreme Court decisions. They also wonder how EPA can in good faith “clarify” the Supreme Court decisions rebuking federal government overreach by treating the decisions as EPA victories and invitations to expand EPA’s powers to an unprecedented extent.

Farm Groups Voice Opposition
“As a result [of EPA’s proposal], permit requirements that apply to navigable waters would also apply to ditches, small ponds, and even depressions in fields and pastures that are only wet when there is heavy rain,” the American Farm Bureau Federation noted in the Gilroy Dispatch. “If landowners could not get permits to do things like build fences and use pesticides to control bugs and weeds—something that would be far from guaranteed—farming and ranching would be much more costly and difficult. Other landowners, too, would face roadblocks to things they want to do, such as build a house or plant trees. American Farm Bureau and California Farm Bureau are both calling on Congress to prevent this expansion.”

“Congress, not federal agencies, writes the laws of the land,” said American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman in a press statement. “When Congress wrote the Clean Water Act, it clearly intended for the law to apply to navigable waters. Is a small ditch navigable? Is a stock pond navigable? We really don’t think so, and Farm Bureau members are going to be sending that message.”

“This, in my career of farming, is the most scary and frightening proposition that I have witnessed,” Iowa Farm Bureau Federation president Craig Hill told the Des Moines Register.

Congress Limited EPA’s Reach
“When Congress wrote the Clean Water Act, Congress limited the Act’s application to ‘navigable waters’ for good reasons,” said Jay Lehr, science director for the Heartland Institute, which publishes Environment & Climate News. “Among the reasons, Congress did not want EPA bullying farmers over small depressions in their land that occasionally hold rainwater, bullying people who dig a ditch to help drain their land, and using the smallest of streams and micro-bodies of water to restrict property use. EPA is attempting to stand the Clean Water Act on its head as it continues to seek more money and power.”

“EPA says farmers should take the agency at its word that it will not enforce these regulations in a heavy-handed manner. In light of EPA’s longstanding record of heavy-handedness, arrogance, and abuse, however, farmers know better,” said Lehr.

“Private individuals would never attempt to misapply the statute so blatantly, because there are tremendous expenses involved with fighting hopeless legal cases. EPA, however, relies on its bottomless pockets full of taxpayers’ money to bully landowners and force them alone to bear the financial burdens of challenging EPA,” Lehr explained.



Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 18
J
Offline
J
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 18
This is a classic example of the government trying to take more control over things in a round about way. People need to get their heads out of the sand over this and many other things. I don't want to turn this into a political debate so that's all I'll say. It's my land, and if I'm not hurting anyone else I should be able to do exactly what I want to do with it and on it. Period.

Last edited by Jnarronecu; 05/29/15 10:14 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I remember having a very similar conversation on another forum, when it's members were convinced that the powers that be were going to be kicking down front doors in search of firearms. Curiously, even after a couple three years have passed not a single one of those guys has needed to visit a hardware store to buy new door hinges.

I'm standing pat on wait and see.


"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
Zep #413334 05/29/15 10:18 PM
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 996
Likes: 57
T
Offline
T
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 996
Likes: 57
Originally Posted By: Zep
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I'm not ready to freak out


Well I am ready to freak out because those control freaks in Washington and elsewhere in gvt want to control everything! Like Dr. Savage says it's a mental disorder....the constant need to control people. Their message is clear: politicians and bureaucrats know more about how to live your life, manage your health, and raise your kids than you do. The paternalistic social engineers who have appointed themselves the guardians of the public good. They want to control what kind of light bulbs we can buy, control our light switches, control how our clothes washing machine functions, control our thermostats, control how much water we use when we shower, control our toilets, control how our toilet paper rolls are made, control our snack vending machines, record our private cell phone conversations, control our cars, control vitamins, control our children's school lunches, and on and on and on and on and on and on.....

Yes, every society needs laws....but we don’t need millions of them!


Right there with you Zep.....more and more and more laws. There is always a "good reason" for more government over reach and regulation.

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
cro, HC1968
Recent Posts
Dewatering bags seeded to form berms?
by RogersTailgate - 03/29/24 05:45 AM
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by jpsdad - 03/29/24 05:43 AM
pond experience needed
by esshup - 03/29/24 12:45 AM
New pond middle TN: establishing food chain?
by Bill Cody - 03/28/24 07:57 PM
Happy Birthday Bob Lusk!!
by FireIsHot - 03/28/24 07:33 PM
Working on a .5acre disaster, I mean pond.
by PRCS - 03/28/24 06:39 PM
Fungus infection on fish
by nvcdl - 03/28/24 06:07 PM
Can anyone ID these minnows?
by Dylanfrely - 03/28/24 05:43 PM
1 year after stocking question
by esshup - 03/28/24 04:48 PM
Yellow Perch Spawn 2024
by H20fwler - 03/28/24 04:29 PM
New 2 acre pond stocking plan
by LANGSTER - 03/28/24 03:49 PM
Newly Uploaded Images
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9
Nice BGxRES
Nice BGxRES
by Theo Gallus, July 28
Snake Identification
Snake Identification
by Rangersedge, July 12

� 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5