You should keep your birds off of their property then. If you are claiming them, then you are responsible for them. A few more of your animals are destroying my crops and fields also, I need you to keep them under care and control.
US Interior Department gutting protections for Migratory Birds
- Thread starter Suther
- Start date
You should keep your birds off of their property then. If you are claiming them, then you are responsible for them. A few more of your animals are destroying my crops and fields also, I need you to keep them under care and control.
Yep, and they're all out there taking tons of high def pictures with their latest lithium-powered phones, wearing their nylon clothing, driving up their in their SUV's and drinking bottled water.
Thing is, I remember a similar debate not all that long ago about the stacks at INCO - the company couldn't afford the scrubbers and it would cost jobs. People pushing for cleaner processes were called out. The whole Sudbury basin looked like the moon (so much so that Apollo astronauts went there to train). Now, they make as much money from the sulfuric acid as from the nickel, and the basin is green.
I fully agree that some of the regulations are senseless and prohibitively expensive, on the other hand, there is only one planet, and how we leave it for future generations is our responsibility.
If "ours" means some of them are mine then let suncor know they can have mine. If "ours" means the crown owns them, then the crown should get her animals under care and control. When the crown makes a piece of my property useless because "our" birds need it for a nesting grounds, I have a problem. When I cant clean out my drainage ditch because "our" fish might be in there, I have a problem. When people who have no skin in the game want to regulate what I can do with my hard earned property, I have a problem. Trump is gutting the EPA and giving property owners back their use of their property.
Thing is, the problems arise when activities you, as landowner, taking place on your property affects others, then it becomes our problem. The thing is, there has to be a reasonable meeting point between yours and ours. When Inco were pouring tons and tons of SO2 and SO3 from their stacks on their property, it was having a very serious effect on our lives. Similarly, when mines indiscriminately dumped their tailings into lakes, it affected everyone living around the lake as well as downstream. I don't know what happened at the tar sands plant. If Suncor took reasonable precautions to protect wildlife, then no, they should not be charged. If, however, the damage was reasonably preventable, then yes, they should pay through the nose.
No skin in the game? We pay for every bit of it. Trump is gutting the EPA and taking away from Americans what makes America what it is. If you want a place where everyone owns what's on their land Europe is the place for you. Let us know how you like it.
If YOU are affected by what happens on my property you are free to sue me in civil court. When your animals come on my property they are on their own. In fact if your animals damage my property I should be able to recoup that cost ( your birds bring disease to mine). Why does Suncor have to protect your animals on their property? Keep care and control of your animals if you are claiming them. This is about government control of private property. If you want your birds protected from the tailing ponds, pay me to protect them. Offer free programs to fence or net the area, I should not have to bear the cost of protecting your birds.
WHAT? You didnt pay for my property. You don't pay to clean my ditches. You don't even pay to feed your own animals. The little you do pay to the government to hunt your own animals doesn't even cover the cost of the crop damage done. Trump is giving back to Americians control over their property, not some government bureaucrat. This is the way Canada and US was before the commies took over. Around here you have to get a permit to even cut down YOUR tree.
As for Europe, I dont think you know what you are talking about. The government there controls every thing they do, kind of what you want to do. Someone has to pay for the damage your animals do and the lost of use of my land. If you what to see what it feels like, buy 100 ac at 25000/ac and turn it into your animal sanctuary because you found a special turtle on it. Then have the government say you can't build on that property and you must not harvest any crops from april till june 28 to protect a special bird. Then have the government have you pay for a special inspections of your drainage ditch, so you can clean it, so you dont flood your land. All the time paying the mortgage on the place.
Most people that are for the EPA, don't own land. The have no skin in the game and are tree huggers. If the EPA was reasonable and helped pay to make the world a better place, then I could support them but they are not. They are power hungry government bureaucrats with no common sense, Trump is just bring them to heel.
Last edited:
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Pikesroad, with all due respect if all decisions were left to landowners as some supremely wise entity there would in a matter of decades be one hell of a mess. The Americans got to do that and have a fraction of the wildlife and variety we do in all except Alaska, and managed to locally wipe many species out completely in record time.
Owning land does not mean you own the environment it resides in, we all own that for better or worse. I hold a lease to 1.3 million acres, and believe it would be asinine if I was given sole authority to make decisions on where water can flow, what trees can live, and what to do with the land and local environment. We’re dumb or at least short sighted enough we need to be protected from ourselves, and I certainly include myself.
There is a need to balance economic interests with environmental concerns but going forward we’re going to have to adapt our economics to the environment rather than the other way around. Hunters and fishermen will be some of the very first to see and feel the effects if we don’t, and I’m sure we won’t. We just don’t learn until we’re forced to, and feel we can “own” parts of this planet. What we own is a piece of paper, the planet will be here long after that paper has disintegrated. The question is what will be left of wildlife when that time comes.
Unfortunately certain segments of the political spectrum that in many other matters I agree with are going ass backwards on the environment, and getting the layperson to cheer. It’s brilliant in a sad way.
Owning land does not mean you own the environment it resides in, we all own that for better or worse. I hold a lease to 1.3 million acres, and believe it would be asinine if I was given sole authority to make decisions on where water can flow, what trees can live, and what to do with the land and local environment. We’re dumb or at least short sighted enough we need to be protected from ourselves, and I certainly include myself.
There is a need to balance economic interests with environmental concerns but going forward we’re going to have to adapt our economics to the environment rather than the other way around. Hunters and fishermen will be some of the very first to see and feel the effects if we don’t, and I’m sure we won’t. We just don’t learn until we’re forced to, and feel we can “own” parts of this planet. What we own is a piece of paper, the planet will be here long after that paper has disintegrated. The question is what will be left of wildlife when that time comes.
Unfortunately certain segments of the political spectrum that in many other matters I agree with are going ass backwards on the environment, and getting the layperson to cheer. It’s brilliant in a sad way.
This.
Very well said. Stuff you dump or spill on your legally owned property can get into the streams and water table and affect thousands of people downstream. The air you pollute on your legally owned property severely affect my lungs. The pesticides you apply can deform my grandchildren. Now, I do agree that there are demonstrable cases of government going overboard, overall, they are not doing enough to at least keep the place liveable.
Y'know, as a 4th generation owner/caretaker of a pretty decent size chunk of dirt here in BC, I can appreciate the ideas behind the Owner's right to have some say in what happens on his property.
I can also see that there have been fair few outfits along the way that have pretty much rode roughshod over the idea that common sense would prevail and that they would be the best arbiter of what should be done on their own land.
Rather than some legislation that allows the activists to arbitrarily punish those that they see fit to, I would much rather see there be a balanced set of regulations in place that treated all the applicable industries in an even handed manner. Hope springs eternal, I won't hold my breath, as long as statements like "Your fertilizer is going to deform my Grandchildren" remain a part of how people make their decisions.
It's been pretty plain to me that some groups of people, and some industry sectors, get treated considerably different than others, case in point, the bird and bat deaths at wind farms, compared to if those exact same wildlife had died in anything oil related.
I can also see that there have been fair few outfits along the way that have pretty much rode roughshod over the idea that common sense would prevail and that they would be the best arbiter of what should be done on their own land.
Rather than some legislation that allows the activists to arbitrarily punish those that they see fit to, I would much rather see there be a balanced set of regulations in place that treated all the applicable industries in an even handed manner. Hope springs eternal, I won't hold my breath, as long as statements like "Your fertilizer is going to deform my Grandchildren" remain a part of how people make their decisions.
It's been pretty plain to me that some groups of people, and some industry sectors, get treated considerably different than others, case in point, the bird and bat deaths at wind farms, compared to if those exact same wildlife had died in anything oil related.
Rewrite your paragraphs but replace land with guns. With all due respect if all decisions were left to GUNOWNERS as some supremely wise entity there would in a matter of decades be one hell of a mess.
You are using the same arguments the left uses. There are courts to use if your affect by my property usage. Your end goal is to control everything I do with my property, all for the greater good. If you cant see this then private ownership of property is lost, just like with firearms. It is unbelievable to me that people trust the same government officials to be balanced and fair with my land but see how they have had their guns treated. Oh but they will be different with the environment and because it is something you want then it must be ok. Open up your eyes and see the next big push for the left is to control all property because it would be asinine to give sole authority over your bought and paid for property to you, the owner.
1963beretta
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vaughan, Ontario
Another side of the equation.
This popped up in my Bloomberg news feed today.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/wind-tu...d-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills-1.1385125
Apparently these turbine blades are just being lined up and buried. Pretty bad problem to have
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
You’ll probably be surprised to hear me say this, but you got that judgment of my thoughts there dead right. But you got one major part wrong; you didn’t use my words, I never said guns. I said the environment, which can’t be treated the same policy wise as guns. Believe it or not there are a lot of things that require far different policies, and with which we can’t switch words and presume the meaning hasn’t changed. I’m not a single issue voter, I don’t tie one aspect of the left or right to all the others, and seldom believe issues should be painted with the same policy or brush. That’s painfully simplistic thinking.
There are aspects I believe can’t be left to the individual to decide, as self interest will too often be put before the concern for broader perspectives and the good of the whole. That’s human nature. And there are aspects I feel are fully within the responsibility of the individual, and reasonably so. A gun I trust to the individual, the exceedingly minor risk to the whole I can accept. The environment is a far bigger scale and scope, and to say because Ted Turner can buy as much land as he wants, he (or we) should be able to bulldoze everything on it to the ground because well, we have sheets of paper... isn’t at all the same thing as saying Ted Turner shouldn’t have guns.
If you feel it is, you’re unwittingly (benefit of the doubt) using the tactics populists, antifa, and the ####ty sides of the left and right use to try and paint everything as black or white; with us or against us. The reality is life is grey, and if you see it as black and white, you need to broaden your perspective. We can’t use copyright law to manage guns, or the environment. And we can’t pull a political template that allows one freedom which then by default means all other aspects of concern require the same freedoms. Freedom can be toxic, and everyone here will agree there is such a thing as too much. I shouldn’t have the freedom to squat on your land and call it mine if I have more armed friends.
The environment effects every single human and animal on earth. Almost nothing else has that scope, to say gun laws should be parallel in how they’re treated to environmental law is so embarrassingly simplistic I’m not going to attack it in proper as again, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and presume it was a misspeak or ill considered thought. Far different problems require far different treatment.
It was not a misspeak and you have failed to address any of the concerns brought to you. The one simple fact is you believe government knows best for my property. The same people coming for your guns, you trust to be in your best interest for your land. Its refreshing to see people in the states taking back their property and gun rights. Mean while here government is thinking about licencing journalist because freedom of speech is a grey area and we need to broaden our perspective on protecting people from hate speech.
Anyways its been a slice talking to you. I can only hope one day the government comes and takes your property and your guns all in the name of the environment, because its a grey area if it is yours or not. You having either or effects every single human and animal on this earth and if it saves one life it is all worth it.
