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
Posts557,116
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
1 members (Dave Davidson1), 781 guests, and 228 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 11 12
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,315
F
Offline
F
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,315
Originally Posted By: timshufflin
Once you cross that threshold to zoning, it is very hard to stop local ordinance rules.


But doesn't it keep going up the ladder to state, then federal. Till it gets to the point where the EPA is telling you it has to be done a certain way in Georgia even tho the reason for it's creation was in CA.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
You mean to tell me that zoning will force my neighbor to build a coop for his chickens?? And I wouldn't be out in the shop right now, discovering chicken s**t on the floor after yesterday's avian adventures? Sign me up!


"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: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
That situation can be easily remedied without zoning. BTW - Livestock confinement laws have been on the books almost everywhere for a very very long time.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,028
Likes: 274
D
Moderator
Lunker
Online Content
Moderator
Lunker
D
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,028
Likes: 274
Tony, like the cows say "Eat more chikin".


It's not about the fish. It's about the pond. Take care of the pond and the fish will be fine. PB subscriber since before it was in color.

Without a sense of urgency, Nothing ever gets done.

Boy, if I say "sic em", you'd better look for something to bite. Sam Shelley Rancher and Farmer Muleshoe Texas 1892-1985 RIP
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,315
F
Offline
F
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,315
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
You mean to tell me that zoning will force my neighbor to build a coop for his chickens?? And I wouldn't be out in the shop right now, discovering chicken s**t on the floor after yesterday's avian adventures? Sign me up!



If you just do what I suggested in regards to those chickens, that would force him to build a coop too!!!!!!!!!! No rules, ordinances, etc. needed to take up a room with more paperwork.

Your just too nice Tony!!!!!

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Originally Posted By: RAH
BTW - Livestock confinement laws have been on the books almost everywhere for a very very long time.


Right here. This is why I know the new EPA mandates will not affect me in any way. Let them make all the laws they care too. Enforcement is another matter entirely. This is why I refuse to get all bent out of shape over this. I think many place greater emphasis on the "audacity" of someone daring to make a new law, rather than actually considering whether or not that law will affect them.

I'm not wired that way. I don't get offended when the government tries to exert itself. I expect that. I hold no romantic expectations of a government by the people, for the people, so rather than lie awake worrying about the EPA's plan for my ponds, I just assume that everything they propose will pass, and begin concentrating on the implementation. Is it feasible? What's the time frame needed to make it feasible?
Where will the funding come from? Is this funding guaranteed? What will happen when the political climate changes in 2016?

Most often, and that includes this very instance, I find the logistics needed to implement such a fiasco render it virtually useless right off the bat. Problem solved, as far as I'm concerned.

The government wants to make a law outlawing the wearing of red shirts on Tuesday? Fine by me, no complaints here.

Let's see em' make it work.


"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: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
I post once again:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Originally Posted By: timshufflin
Originally Posted By: Bill D.
Originally Posted By: timshufflin
You are no less free listening to loud music and you are making somebody less free by outlawing it, bad law.


IMO Ever been driving on a beautiful day with your truck window open and pulled up next to one of those cars with the incredible bass speakers thumping or a truck with a 6 inch megaphone exhaust blasting away so you had to roll your window up? Who is infringing on whose rights? It is all in the eyes of the the individual.


You wouldn't be on your property then. You would be "in" your property.


What does your gut say? Does it really say let's play this exactly by the letter of the law, or does it say I recognize the similarity and it has merit? Do I rest my case on the use of a preposition, or do I read between the lines and pursue the intent?

This is exactly what I was referring to yesterday. Literal interpretation, rather than intuitive reasoning. In my opinion, this is one big reason we have so many laws, and paperwork needed to define and explain those laws. We all know what the intent is (was), but we choose to look for the loopholes in order to twist the thing into favoring "our" side, rather than simply recognizing and acknowledging the intent.

It should be simple. But it requires much time and expense to clarify, define, and explain. Just because we don't want to admit that we understand, but do not like, what the law means.


"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 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Originally Posted By: RAH
I post once again:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke




And the only thing necessary for the vanquishing of evil is for bad men to be de-funded.

21st century reckoning.

Last edited by sprkplug; 06/09/15 08:58 AM.

"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: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
Have we sunk that low?

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I believe we have.


"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
My gut says, play by the letter of the law!!!! The law does NOT get to expand or grow on it's own! Anything less than black and white is ambiguous and as ambiguous, it is supposed to be unenforceable.

It has been asked who is responsible if a fish enters another person's pond, destroying a master stocking plan and goals....

If Person B builds a pond and carefully stocks his pond wanting only yellow perch, and then person A builds a pond and stocks it with bullhead, common carp, koi and goldfish. Both ponds are stocked with legal fish and all other laws that my apply are conformed with...

Person B gets his YP pond ruined because person A's pond overflows in a normal rain event and discharges as designed, has no barrier net and "polluted" person B's pond. Is Person A responsible for the damages to person B? NO!!! Person B knew, or should have known that by not controlling the ENTIRE watershed draining into the B pond and not taking action to prevent the entry of another unwanted species, person B took a risk, and lost..no actionable damage done!

Now, had person A intentionally drained his pond or altered it in any way to not conform to any pertinent law, person A IS responsible. Person B will still have to prove person A intentionally, or through some sort of neglect caused damage, in court, and a non=partial judge will decide who, if anyone is at fault.

Person B's failure to foresee and take precautions against a potential danger or damage in NO way requires person A to take extra precautions for person B...

If laws are to be applied fairly for all, and not misapplied as the EPA has done, there is no law at all! They should be entirely black and white....that is the only way a common person can know what they can and can not do. Subjective words and terms like, Reasonable precaution, or overly intrusive are for a court to decide, NOT any individual enforcing or wanting to apply a definition of their own choosing...again, as the EPA has done, and does.

The "morality" in this scenario is irrelevant....Morality can not, and should not be legislated, yet many of our laws now are very bad, because no morality was considered in the creation of the laws. That is the general population's fault for allowing our county's moral foundation to erode...

Last edited by Rainman; 06/09/15 11:22 AM.


Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
What about person C and D:)

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: RAH
What about person C and D:)


C and D popped some popcorn to watch the fun... laugh

Last edited by Rainman; 06/09/15 11:03 AM.


Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
I am guessing some folks have found us entertaining as well!

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Rex, tell me this: How is it, that I am required by law to restrain my livestock to my own property, but should not be required to restrain my fish? Sure, a flood event can wash out a dam, the same as a tornado can remove the fence around my cow pasture, but I'm talking everyday, common pond scenarios....the normal discharge of water through the overflow.

Are we really, honestly not to be held accountable for what escapes our ponds and enters another waterway? Fish, invasive species, plants, chemicals....nothing accountable? The ENTIRE watershed? Really? We both know that could, in certain scenarios, involve hundreds of acres.

"My gut says, play by the letter of the law!!!! The law does NOT get to expand or grow on it's own! Anything less than black and white is ambiguous and as ambiguous, it is supposed to be unenforceable."

Then why on earth are we continuously bemoaning the excessive amounts of laws, rules, and regulations escaping Washington?? If we declare our wish for every last detail to be spelled out, without the need for us to do any intuitive reasoning on our own, just how is this to be accomplished without paperwork?

If we don't take responsibility for our own actions and recognize the need to examine the intent for a law, rather than studying how it might be interpreted to best suit our personal interests, then of course there will always be new laws handed down! Everytime someone questions what SHOULD be obvious, they will issue an amendment, or a ruling, or a new law, to try and cross the "T"s and dot the "I"s for those who delight in manipulating such things for their own gain.

I don't get it, how can you have one without the other?


"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: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
Native fish are not domestic animals and are expected to spread by "natural" means. That is why only certain fish are permitted in a given location.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
What about non-native fish? Plants, Chemicals?


"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: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
Fish stocking restrictions (and invasive plant laws) are based on their inevitable movement. If you use a chemical in your pond, you are under the same regulations as a farmer that sprays a herbicide. If it damages my property, then you pay. Same goes if your livestock pollute water off your property. These laws have been in effect a very long time. Fish movement is similar to raising sweet corn. If the pollen from field corn fertilizes sweet corn, then the product quality goes down, but it is the responsibility of the sweet corn grower to isolate his crop. You cannot keep the farmer next door from raising field corn or win in court for normal pollen flow (although this has been tested in the courts). Same goes for those producing crop seeds.

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, first, Fish are not "legally" considered livestock unless your state defines them as such, so it is apples and oranges. Plus as a matter of reality, you can not restrain a fish fry that is 1/4" long and 1/16" or smaller in diameter AND leave excess water flow unrestricted. If a dam fails, that is probably a liability or neglect issue as a pond should have been designed in anticipation of the event...again, legally speaking.

As for chemicals, again, if you are downstream, you take on a presumption that chemicals will enter your property...it is YOUR responsibility if you feel it will harm your property...Again, just because you want something special or out the "ordinary", it is incumbent upon YOU to protect it...not your up stream neighbor....in fact, wanting something special, REQUIRES you to take special precautions to protect it. Building a pond without total control over the "Natural" flow of land lays all the risks and responsibilities for it at your feet.

As for chemicals, again, if the chemicals are legal, and legally applied to use in pond A, and they harm pond B. The owner of pond B accepted all risk of what may flow in....



Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
You are wrong about chemical movement. The applicator takes the risk, not his neighbor. Check the laws. If you apply a chemical in a legal manner, then you are not criminally culpable, but you are financially compelled to cover off-target damage.

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
Perhaps esshup can comment since he has recently completed and passed his aquatic applicator licensing, but I believe another grossly illegal way the EPA has tried to garner control over the use of legal aquatic chemicals has been to make it legal for ANY downstream victim to claim damage, and the applicator can not enjoy the due process of having them be proved at fault...the mere accusation makes it a violation.

It is the EPA's intent to grab more control by totally sidestepping legal activity and removing courts or law from their goal's path.

Last edited by Rainman; 06/09/15 12:09 PM.


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: RAH
You are wrong about chemical movement. The applicator takes the risk, not his neighbor. Check the laws. If you apply a chemical in a legal manner, then you are not criminally culpable, but you are financially compelled to cover off-target damage.


RAH, I said, legal chemical and legally applied....Federally, only "licensed" applicators are held to this standard, property owners are exempt......also, if someone charges money to apply a chemical and is NOT licensed, there are even more violations involved...

My intent is to show when someone is and isn't liable. If the activity is in ANY way illegal, the offender will always be held liable for damage. Many states and local authorities have differing laws and I am only going by what I know or believe the federal EPA regulations are.

IF a licensed applicator over applied, or varied from his duties and responsibilities as a licensed applicator, the chemicals were not legally applied.....still, the offended party will have to prove that in court.....and that will cost money.

Last edited by Rainman; 06/09/15 12:18 PM.


Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
I am not aware of any forfeiting of due process of law if you choose to fight the allegation. Was that not just determined in an EPA case where the landowner prevailed?

Last edited by RAH; 06/09/15 12:20 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Originally Posted By: Rainman
Spark, first, Fish are not "legally" considered livestock unless your state defines them as such, so it is apples and oranges. Really??? back to the legal definition, rather than the implied intent? Saved by a technicality? Here come more laws from the capital, vainly trying to make folks understand what I feel should be obvious. Plus as a matter of reality, you can not restrain a fish fry that is 1/4" long and 1/16" or smaller in diameter AND leave excess water flow unrestricted. If a dam fails, that is probably a liability or neglect issue as a pond should have been designed in anticipation of the event...again, legally speaking. Agreed.

As for chemicals, again, if you are downstream, you take on a presumption that chemicals will enter your property...it is YOUR responsibility if you feel it will harm your property...Again, just because you want something special or out the "ordinary", it is incumbent upon YOU to protect it...not your up stream neighbor ....okay, what if my downstream neighbor is in fact a federal waterway? According to what you're claiming, it now becomes their responsibility to protect it...wait, that's what they're trying to do!in fact, wanting something special, REQUIRES you to take special precautions to protect it. Building a pond without total control over the "Natural" flow of land lays all the risks and responsibilities for it at your feet.

As for chemicals, again, if the chemicals are legal, and legally applied to use in pond A, and they harm pond B. The owner of pond B accepted all risk of what may flow in....


"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.
Page 6 of 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 11 12

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
cro, HC1968
Recent Posts
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by esshup - 03/29/24 01:06 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
Paper-shell crayfish and Japanese snails
by esshup - 03/28/24 10:39 AM
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