Nature nazis:

[ewv 0]

This is really a law in Maine being imposed on these people:

Gray resident loses fight to cut lakeside trees

By Gordon Lane

Reporter-The Monument

GRAY (April 7, 2007): Gray resident John Welch lost a battle last week in his fight to cut down trees on his property that he said are hazards to his home and family.

Advertisement Maine gift shop christmas shop made in maine ME

The Zoning Board of Appeals voted March 29 against Welch’s administrative appeal of the code enforcement officer’s decision that the majority of trees Welch wants removed were not hazards.

This is the second time Welch, who lives on Crystal Lake, has been unable to get approval from the code enforcement office to cut down the trees. But it is the first time he has taken the decision to the appeals board.

Welch said his house has been damaged on six occasions from falling trees and limbs. Another incident destroyed his Corvair van. Welch is worried that another incident might not just damage his property, but be a risk to someone’s life.

Cheryl Welch, John Welch's wife, poses last week to identify a tree the Welches want cut down on their property. The Welches argue the trees are hazards to life, limb and property, but the trees are protected by shoreland zoning and code enforcement won't let the trees be cut. (Image courtesy of John Welch)

The trees are protected by the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, which is designed to protect wildlife and natural resources near ponds and lakes, and is mandated by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection. The ordinance allows for the removal of trees that are deemed a safety hazard, but no definition of “hazard” exists in the ordinance.

“We’re actually prohibited from protecting ourselves,” said Welch about the latest decision.

Welch’s request was to remove 14 trees he believes are hazardous. He said the largest tree is 123 feet tall and 32 inches in diameter. Many of the trees are just a few feet from his home, and some of them are leaning towards it.

“Anything that grows up from the earth will come down,” said Welch. “It’s really just a matter of time.

The March 29 debate took about an hour and a half. Barry Watson, the board’s chair, said it was one of the most difficult cases with which he has dealt on the board in the past six years, and that he has a tendency to side with the homeowner.

The board’s final decision was that the code enforcement officer, Kinderly Hodgdon, was not mistaken in her decision, which allowed the removal of five of the 14 trees.

According to Watson, Welch simply failed to prove his case that the trees were hazards. Additionally, Watson said that to approve Welch’s request would be akin to allowing any tree that leaned toward a road in Gray to be removed.

Welch said he brought a slew of documentation, including pictures of his damaged properties and stories of people killed by falling trees and limbs, but all was for naught.

Watson said that many of the incidents Welch documented were caused by inclement weather, and not the health or hazard of the trees.

“We have no control over Mother Nature,” said Watson. “Those are disasters. They are not created by the zoning board.”

Watson said that in order for the trees to be considered hazards it would have to be proven that the trees are not in good health.

“If a forester looks at (the trees) and there’s no disease, they won’t be cut down,” Watson said.

Gary Foster, Gray’s town council chair, and champion of personal property rights, said that “a hazard isn’t based just on health.”

Welch’s opinion is that “it doesn’t matter what the health of the tree is … if there is a target.”

Cliff Foster, who is Gary Foster’s father, a forester for 48 years and an advisor for Welch in the case, said the trees were indeed a hazard and the board’s decision “wasn’t made on any sort of logic.”

“What’s got to happen, and it will happen at some point, is somebody’s got to get killed,” Cliff Foster said. Foster expressed frustration that his expertise was not considered.

Hodgdon said that she relies on the Department of Environmental Protection contact for technicalities on the shoreland zoning ordinance as well as Tish Carr, a licensed arborist with the state, for unbiased opinions.

Carr’s services were offered, but Watson said Welch refused them. Watson suggested that Welch’s decision was due to the cost of the documentation.

Debbie Flanigan, another zoning board of appeals member who was the sole vote in favor of Welch, said that documents signed by either Morse or Cliff Foster “might have worked in (Welch’s) favor.”

Flanigan didn’t believe that Hodgdon was wrong in her application of the ordinance, but Flanigan did think the trees were hazards. She said the board “left the door open” by suggesting more documentation be presented.

Welch said he is waiting for the written judgment from the zoning board of appeals before he decides where to move on the issue. He has 45 days to take the matter to superior court.

source

[ewv 0]

And here is the actual law. From Chapter 1000 Section P:

P. Clearing or Removal of Vegetation for Activities Other Than Timber Harvesting

(1) In a Resource Protection District abutting a great pond, there shall be no cutting of vegetation within the strip of land extending 75 feet, horizontal distance, inland from the normal high-water line, except to remove safety hazards.

Elsewhere, in any Resource Protection District the cutting or removal of vegetation shall be limited to that which is necessary for uses expressly authorized in that district.

(2) Except in areas as described in Section P(1), above, and except to allow for the development of permitted uses, within a strip of land extending one-hundred (100) feet, horizontal distance, inland from the normal high-water line of a great pond classified GPA or a river flowing to a great pond classified GPA, and seventy-five (75) feet, horizontal distance, from any other water body, tributary stream, or the upland edge of a wetland, a buffer strip of vegetation shall be preserved as follows:

(a) There shall be no cleared opening greater than 250 square feet in the forest canopy (or other existing woody vegetation if a forested canopy is not present) as measured from the outer limits of the tree or shrub crown. However, a footpath not to exceed six (6) feet in width as measured between tree trunks and/or shrub stems is allowed provided that a cleared line of sight to the water through the buffer strip is not created.

( Selective cutting of trees within the buffer strip is allowed provided that a well-distributed stand of trees and other natural vegetation is maintained. For the purposes of Section 15(P)(2)( a "well-distributed stand of trees" adjacent to a great pond classified GPA or a river or stream flowing to a great pond classified GPA, shall be defined as maintaining a rating score of 24 or more in each 25-foot by 50-foot rectangular (1250 square feet) area as determined by the following rating system.

Diameter of Tree at 4-1/2 feet Above Points

Ground Level (inches)

2 - < 4 in. 1

4 - <8 in. 2

8-< 12 in. 4

12 in. or greater 8

Adjacent to other water bodies, tributary streams, and wetlands, a "well-distributed stand of trees" is defined as maintaining a minimum rating score of 16 per 25-foot by 50-foot rectangular area.

NOTE: As an example, adjacent to a great pond, if a 25-foot x 50-foot plot contains four (4) trees between 2 and 4 inches in diameter, two trees between 4 and 8 inches in diameter, three trees between 8 and 12 inches in diameter, and two trees over 12 inches in diameter, the rating score is:

(4x1)+(2x2) + (3x4) + (2x8) = 36 points

Thus, the 25-foot by 50-foot plot contains trees worth 36 points. Trees totaling 12 points (36- 24 =12) may be removed from the plot provided that no cleared openings are created.

The following shall govern in applying this point system:

(i) The 25-foot by 50-foot rectangular plots must be established where the landowner or lessee proposes clearing within the required buffer;

(ii) Each successive plot must be adjacent to, but not overlap a previous plot;

(iii) Any plot not containing the required points must have no vegetation removed except as otherwise allowed by this Ordinance;

(iv) Any plot containing the required points may have vegetation removed down to the minimum points required or as otherwise allowed by is Ordinance;

(v) Where conditions permit, no more than 50% of the points on any 25-foot by 50-foot rectangular area may consist of trees greater than 12 inches in diameter.

For the purposes of Section 15(P)(2)( "other natural vegetation" is defined as retaining existing vegetation under three (3) feet in height and other ground cover and retaining at least five (5) saplings less than two (2) inches in diameter at four and one half (4 ½) feet above ground level for each 25-foot by 50-foot rectangle area. If five saplings do not exist, no woody stems less than two (2) inches in diameter can be removed until 5 saplings have been recruited into the plot.

NOTE: A municipality may elect to retain their present "point system" that is based on 25-foot by 25-foot plots. If so, the paragraph above must be modified as follows:

For the purposes of Section 15(P)(2)(, "other natural vegetation" is defined as retaining existing vegetation under three (3) feet in height and other ground cover and retaining at least three (3) saplings less than two (2) inches in diameter at four and one-half (4 ½) feet above ground level for each 25-foot by 25-foot rectangular area. If three (3) saplings do not exist, no woody stems less than two (2) inches in diameter can be removed until 3 saplings have been recruited into the plot.

Subparagraph 15 (P)(2)( must also be modified to make it clear that the point system establishes only a "well-distributed stand of trees" not a well-distributed stand of trees and other vegetation. "Other vegetation" is described elsewhere.

Notwithstanding the above provisions, no more than 40% of the total volume of trees four (4) inches or more in diameter, measured at 4 1/2 feet above ground level may be removed in any ten (10) year period.

© In order to protect water quality and wildlife habitat, existing vegetation under three (3) feet in height and other ground cover, including leaf litter and the forest duff layer, shall not be cut, covered, or removed, except to provide for a footpath or other permitted uses as described in Section 15(P) paragraphs (2) and (2)(a) above.

(d) Pruning of tree branches, on the bottom 1/3 of the tree is allowed.

(e) In order to maintain a buffer strip of vegetation, when the removal of storm-damaged, diseased, unsafe, or dead trees results in the creation of cleared openings, these openings shall be replanted with native tree species unless existing new tree growth is present.

Section 15(P)(2) does not apply to those portions of public recreational facilities adjacent to public swimming areas as long as cleared areas are limited to the minimum area necessary.

(3) At distances greater than one hundred (100) feet, horizontal distance, from a great pond classified GPA or a river flowing to a great pond classified GPA, and seventy-five (75) feet, horizontal distance, from the normal high-water line of any other water body, tributary stream, or the upland edge of a wetland, there shall be allowed on any lot, in any ten (10) year period, selective cutting of not more than forty (40) percent of the volume of trees four (4) inches or more in diameter, measured 4 1/2 feet above ground level. Tree removal in conjunction with the development of permitted uses shall be included in the forty (40) percent calculation. For the purposes of these standards volume may be considered to be equivalent to basal area.

In no event shall cleared openings for any purpose, including but not limited to, principal and accessory structures, driveways, lawns and sewage disposal areas, exceed in the aggregate, 25% of the lot area within the shoreland zone or ten thousand (10,000) square feet, whichever is greater, including land previously cleared. This provision shall not apply to the General Development or Commercial Fisheries/Maritime Activities Districts.

(4) Legally existing nonconforming cleared openings may be maintained, but shall not be enlarged, except as allowed by this Ordinance.

(5) Fields and other cleared openings which have reverted to primarily shrubs, trees, or other woody vegetation shall be regulated under the provisions of Section 15(P).

[ewv 0]

And if you are still wondering how normal people are supposed to even figure out whether or not they are allowed to do something as normal as cutting a tree on their own property when they are subjected to the tree hugging version of an IRS form, they aren't done yet.

There is now a bill pending in the state legislature, LD340 "An Act To Require the Replacement of Trees Cut in Shoreland Areas" to make people to pay tens of thousands of dollars per tree to plant full size replacement trees if they remove a tree contrary to the rules -- unless there is a "substantial injustice". Of course everything these control freaks do is a "substantial injustice", but they don't mean it that way. This takes "tree hugging" to a whole new level.

An Act To Require the Replacement of Trees Cut in Shoreland Areas

...the violator shall be ordered to correct or mitigate the violation unless the correction or mitigation results in:

(1) A threat or hazard to public health or safety;

(2) Substantial environmental damage; or

(3) A substantial injustice.

Correction or mitigation of a violation that involves the cutting of a tree or trees must include replacement of each cut tree with a tree of substantially similar size and species.

The usual politically well-connected viro pressure groups at war against private property owners are behind it:

The bill was supported at the public hearing and subsequent work sessions by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Natural Resources Council, the Maine Municipal Association, the Maine Audubon and the Maine Real Estate and Development Association[?].

[Aurelia 0]

Lol, this is the best part:

Welch said he brought a slew of documentation, including pictures of his damaged properties and stories of people killed by falling trees and limbs, but all was for naught.

Watson said that many of the incidents Welch documented were caused by inclement weather, and not the health or hazard of the trees.

“We have no control over Mother Nature,” said Watson. “Those are disasters. They are not created by the zoning board.”

I suppose it hadn't occured to him that we might exert a little control in preventing the disasters by cutting down the trees. Honestly, the stubborn idiocy of it! I don't envy Mr. Welch his battle, talking sense into a board is nigh impossible.

[RayK 0]

If the viros are going to be so idiotic than I say we turn it right back on them. Start suing each individual board member of every little town, county or state for mental or physical detriment. "Oh the anguish of worrying about my children, my home and myself every waking hour over those trees." If you cannot get them to change the law through reason, attack their pocket books, each one.

[B. Royce 0]

ewv, what would happen to Mr Welch if he cut down the trees without permission?

[ewv 0]

ewv, what would happen to Mr Welch if he cut down the trees without permission?

Large fines and penalties. If the new law passes, then he would also have to pay to replace the trees with full size equivalents.

[ewv 0]

If the viros are going to be so idiotic than I say we turn it right back on them. Start suing each individual board member of every little town, county or state for mental or physical detriment. "Oh the anguish of worrying about my children, my home and myself every waking hour over those trees." If you cannot get them to change the law through reason, attack their pocket books, each one.

Aside from the tremendous costs for a private citizen to go to court, "public officials" are generally immune from responsibility for their actions in that role and are indemnified by, in this case, the town government paid for by taxpayers -- but the private citizen seeking redress could be made liable for "frivolous" law suits for following such a pattern. Before there could be an attempted action against the town, all "appeal" procedures would have to be exhausted in the right order and within the required time limits in order to have standing in court. There may be a possibility of suing the town after a tree destroys a home after the town refused to allow its prevention. There is also the problem of circular "finger pointing": the town claims it was only following state law in good faith and in accordance with its best judgment, while the state claims it had nothing to do with it because the town did it under its own authority and interpretation of a town ordinance (although required by state law).

The general point is that the law has become so convoluted in favor of government power and the interests who are exploiting it that it is extremely difficult, expensive and often impossible to fight such intrusions. The game is rigged; you can't just "sue". They control the coercive apparatus of government and the interpretation of how it is used.

There is no chance of repealing laws like this in the forseeable future because the viro mentality permeates everything and viros control the spin on how such things are presented to the public. The best you can hope for in cases like this is that you either start off with a code enforcement officer who doesn't make trouble and the officials don't dig their heels in against you, or widespread public embarassment induces them to partially back off while still doing damage to save face and stick it to the victim they resent for speaking out against them.

[PhilO 0]

Perhaps the mistreated property owner should quietly go around at night planting species of fast growing, ultimately huge trees right next to the homes of the board members.

[RayK 0]

Aside from the tremendous costs for a private citizen to go to court, "public officials" are generally immune from responsibility for their actions in that role and are indemnified by, in this case, the town government paid for by taxpayers -- but the private citizen seeking redress could be made liable for "frivolous" law suits for following such a pattern. Before there could be an attempted action against the town, all "appeal" procedures would have to be exhausted in the right order and within the required time limits in order to have standing in court. There may be a possibility of suing the town after a tree destroys a home after the town refused to allow its prevention. There is also the problem of circular "finger pointing": the town claims it was only following state law in good faith and in accordance with its best judgment, while the state claims it had nothing to do with it because the town did it under its own authority and interpretation of a town ordinance (although required by state law).

The general point is that the law has become so convoluted in favor of government power and the interests who are exploiting it that it is extremely difficult, expensive and often impossible to fight such intrusions. The game is rigged; you can't just "sue". They control the coercive apparatus of government and the interpretation of how it is used.

There is no chance of repealing laws like this in the forseeable future because the viro mentality permeates everything and viros control the spin on how such things are presented to the public. The best you can hope for in cases like this is that you either start off with a code enforcement officer who doesn't make trouble and the officials don't dig their heels in against you, or widespread public embarassment induces them to partially back off while still doing damage to save face and stick it to the victim they resent for speaking out against them.

[RayK 0]

(Sorry about the quote without a follow up from above as I accidently hit the wrong button.)

Ewv, I agree that going to court comes at a high cost, but the life of someone you care about or your own life might be considered a larger cost to some.

May I also ask what you think you are accomplishing by fighting them according to their standards. If I remember correctly you purchased your property in the late 1980's and have been in a constant losing battle with them every since. You cannot sale, you cannot lease, you cannot do very much with your own property and all your editorials have changed very little. Some times change has to come about by extreme measures. I am not talking about killing anyone, just fighting them from a different angle.

Although my original statements were written primarily as a joke, I think it will take something much more extreme to even begin to change the minds of people.

[jdperren 0]

Since they can't remove the trees, the best thing is to remove the Board. Easier said than gotten away with, of course.

[Tom Rexton 0]

Since they can't remove the trees, the best thing is to remove the Board. Easier said than gotten away with, of course.

This is another reason why environmentalism is (and will remain) deeply entrenched, because many of the bureaucrats who control the agencies are not elected, but appointed. They are not directly accountable to the public.

[ewv 0]

I agree that going to court comes at a high cost, but the life of someone you care about or your own life might be considered a larger cost to some.

For most people, the costs are impossible so they don't even have a "choice" other than to leave. I hope that in this case Mr. Welch has the motivation he seems to and that he somehow has the resources to keep pushing back. Viros don't like controversy and when they get bad publicity it makes them think twice about what they do the next time, so it tends to slow them down. They also try to co-opt their victims in a "sanction of the victim" game, making partial deals to shut them up to silence the controversy, making it appear that everything "has been worked out". I don't know if such a "compromise" "helping" the Welch's is practical in this case or if Mr. Welch has the resources to push them that far even unintentially. Usually in cases like this and those much more serious there is one splurge of publicity and then the victims are never heard from again, usually going on the best they can, filled with bitterness. The public doesn't find out what happens and soon forgets what little they knew.

May I also ask what you think you are accomplishing by fighting them according to their standards...

I do not follow their standards. I have persistently challenged and exposed them with fully aimed and focused honesty and objectivity bypassing all the expected PC deference to them and their slogans. But if you restrict yourself to trying to using the courts you cannot do anything other than follow the legal rules. To think that the answer is to "sue the bastards" is a gross oversimplification. No matter how obvious a decent person thinks the injustices are, the law has been severely corrupted. You have to fight them politically and with intelligence.

...If I remember correctly you purchased your property in the late 1980's and have been in a constant losing battle with them every since. You cannot sale, you cannot lease, you cannot do very much with your own property and all your editorials have changed very little.

In Maine I have a livable house on beautiful land and another that has been a long term goal gradually in progress. If I had not fought them starting when I did, neither would exist now and either the private land all around us would not be useable or everything would be in Federal ownership.

I have managed to stay one step ahead of them with my own property, at least so far, and have been involved in many battles involving others. We saw very early that stopping the viros locally would not be enough because the assault was so broad at the state level (10 million acres) that we would be swamped anyway if the broader initiatives succeeded. Some others lost their property, but that has now been publicly exposed, which it otherwise would not have, and the viros have gradually gotten the credit and reputation they earned at least in some areas of the state. They avoid speaking out where they can't control what is said, so they no longer have the constant presence of media spin that they used to have in our area and don't want to bring attention to what they are doing where it will be exposed for what it is. It is of course continues elsewhere and they continue to work behind the scenes as their influence over government grows. But they have in many ways been slowed down where they can't manipulate what people think of them.

It is true that this takes much more than writing and more than editorials in particular. But I have researched and provided information in a variety of forms that has been useful or even crucial, often in what would have otherwise been a complete informational vacuum, which has emboldened others to fight and made it possible. The actions I have taken, which are all legal and honest but which should not all be disclosed to the wrong people, have saved our property and that of many others for almost 20 years, including in other states. This is a war declared by viro leftists and must be treated that way. "Knowledge is power", but you have to know how to get it and what to do with it, which takes a lot more than writing.

It is also true that you never win these battles; in the current cultural and political context you can only slow them down and minimize the losses. Even if you stop some initiative cold, you haven't gained anything, only lost a lot of valuable time, effort and resources. All we have done is "buy time". There are experienced national leaders in this war against the viro assualt who marvel that some of us are still here. So it's the price to pay to continue to exist; there is no valley to escape to for a rational existence.

And make no mistake about it, these battles are going on all over the country at all levels of government. A few people fighting this battle have made an enormous difference in national policy alone but which few have ever heard of because of the things that did not happen.

How all of this directly affects any one person now depends on where he lives and what he does for a living, but if the viros continue to impose their will through their pervasive influence in government, it is only a matter of time before everyone will be wondering what happened.

If you know what is going on and who is doing what on which side you therefore can't help but be shocked to hear some of the absurdities from supposed allies who do not know but who try to deduce it from "philosophy", rationalizing ridiculous strategies like getting rid of all Republicans in the name of an alleged "imminent theocracy".

Some times change has to come about by extreme measures. I am not talking about killing anyone, just fighting them from a different angle.

The efforts being made by a minority are extreme. It takes a good deal of intelligence, creativity and persistence. You are more than welcome to join the battle from any angle you prefer.

Although my original statements were written primarily as a joke, I think it will take something much more extreme to even begin to change the minds of people.

This is no joke, but people naturally tend to think of such things, even if only symbollically. It certainly will take a lot to begin to change the minds of people and to neutralize the power of those whose minds will not be changed. A lot of it is just being able to inform people who would already object, before the culture is further degraded. A lot of it is buying time by affecting actual government policy even as it deteriorates.

[ewv 0]

Since they can't remove the trees, the best thing is to remove the Board. Easier said than gotten away with, of course.

In State and Federal agencies they are career civil servants who can't be fired either. The entrenchment of generations of career viro employees in government is one of the difficulties that elected officials have to face even if they know what should be done. This is a major reason why there is no substantial improvement when even the best (usually some Republicans) are elected -- only a holding of the line in some areas, a slight reprieve and the slowing of progressive deterioration.

[jdperren 0]

It is also true that you never win these battles; in the current cultural and political context you can only slow them down and minimize the losses. Even if you stop some initiative cold, you haven't gained anything, only lost a lot of valuable time, effort and resources. All we have done is "buy time". There are experienced national leaders in this war against the viro assualt who marvel that some of us are still here. So it's the price to pay to continue to exist; there is no valley to escape to for a rational existence.

Time doesn't permit me to say this in any non-trite way, but I'm extremely grateful for your efforts, even though I've not been directly involved in nor affected by any of them. You are fighting one of the hardest, least rewarding battles. Men who will never know your name owe you an enormous debt, of both gratitude and real dollars.

Thank you and, for what it's worth, you have many allies.

Jeff

[RayK 0]

Ewv, just because I no longer write letters to the editor or discuss these ideas on other forums does not mean I am not in the fight. I just choose to fight it in another way than you, which is also legal. Your fighting the battle in the way that you think is best, and I mine.

The viros have been around for a very long time (which I am sure you know), although their name has changed. In the works of history of over 150 years ago we can read the same type of irrational ideas that they are writing today. The so called "Great American Photographer" Ansel Adams was a huge viro along with many others. The so called great Republican, President Reagan even gave Ansel Adams a national award. I do not see Republicans nor Democrats as allies in the primary fight against irrationalism.

I also did not say that this whole ordeal was a joke, my statements were meant as a light-hearted way to deal with a sad situation. I also did not write "sue the bastards." I said to sue each individual member, and I meant as an individual not as a political representative, but again this was meant as a light-hearted statement.

Finally, I appluad you in your fight, I just choose to fight them in a different way than you. So, although I think we are both fighting from the same philosophical fundamentals, I have decided to use a different startegy than you.

[ewv 0]

The viros have been around for a very long time (which I am sure you know), although their name has changed. In the works of history of over 150 years ago we can read the same type of irrational ideas that they are writing today. The so called "Great American Photographer" Ansel Adams was a huge viro along with many others. The so called great Republican, President Reagan even gave Ansel Adams a national award. I do not see Republicans nor Democrats as allies in the primary fight against irrationalism.

Do you mean by this that you believe the policies of the Reagan administration towards the viros were not substantially different than Democrats? In spite of all the things one can criticize Reagan for, he in fact reined the viros in about as much as anyone could have under the circumstances and in comparison with other viable candidates, especially through limiting their Federal funding, for which they hated him (and still do). Even though some major abuses continued which could have been better held off, Reagan brought an end to a major viro bandwagon under Carter that had been devastating (and which was later partially resumed by Bush Sr.).

The viros hated Reagan's Interior Secretary James Watt, which was front page news at the time (and the topic of a whole book later), eventually driving him out of office. Whatever politically meaningless award Adams might have gotten at the time (which I don't know about or think matters one way or another) Adams, who was a leader in the radical Sierra Club wilderness lobby, sure knew who his enemy was and widely publicized his opinion. Here is one description from a pro-Adams website:

Adams was a man full of passionate conviction for the environment and tried to effect change in any way possible from photographs to publications to personal persuasion. He met with many government officials in power, including Presidents Gerald Ford, and President Jimmy Carter, who presented Adams with a the National Medal of Freedom in 1980. He reluctantly met in 1983 with President Ronald Reagan who Adams believed "had little or no personal interest in the environment or its protection." He considered his Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, "one of the most dangerous government officials in history." The near hour he spent with Reagan was filled with tension and his criticism of the Reagan administration as reported in the Washington Post the next morning, "was reproduced world-wide, not without effect."

Republicans are far from ideal, but it does make a big difference who is in office.

[RayK 0]

Do you mean by this that you believe the policies of the Reagan administration towards the viros were not substantially different than Democrats?

No, what I mean by my statements is that the fight is primarliy against irrationalism and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are fundamentally sound. Although I do think there are many more good Republicans than Democrats.

And, although Ansel Adams might not have like his time spent with President Reagan he (his representatives), use the pictures in his studios, like the one here in Las Vegas. The picture I saw while walking through the Bellagio is what motivated me to do some further research on the incident. I think President Reagan was wrong for even agreeing to meet with and give him an award.

[ewv 0]

No, what I mean by my statements is that the fight is primarliy against irrationalism and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are fundamentally sound. Although I do think there are many more good Republicans than Democrats.

That primary fight against general irrationalism isn't where the day to day fighting is when you are trying to stop bad policy in order to buy time: They are irrational all right, but there are still means to affect policy for the better that don't require changing the whole culture first. That is why it matters that there are more (relatively) good Republicans than Democrats, fundamentally sound or not.

And, although Ansel Adams might not have like his time spent with President Reagan he (his representatives), use the pictures in his studios, like the one here in Las Vegas. The picture I saw while walking through the Bellagio is what motivated me to do some further research on the incident. I think President Reagan was wrong for even agreeing to meet with and give him an award.

I don't think he should have met with him either, and given the kind of publicity Adams generated from it, Reagan was predictably bitten by it. I don't know about an award from Reagan -- the 1980 National Medal was from Carter -- but I wouldn't have given him that either, even if it were only for photography. But presidents don't actually choose such things or care at that level; lower level functionaries looking for PR do it. At the time, the viros were more universally regarded as more "idealistic" than they are today so someone was probably trying to appease them (which is impossible and only backfires). But symbolism like that is a long way from the actual differences made by Reagan's policies towards the viros, and in the long run had nothing to do with Adams actual reputation for photography. Today, hardly anyone knows who he was except for his photography. The Sierra Club sure isn't using Reagan to boost its image.

[Stussy88 0]

This is really a law in Maine being imposed on these people:

source

I don't know whether this violates objectivist ethics, but I work in construction in the UK and we've had rules like this for years, and there is a two word solution ~ copper nails.

Just hammer them in to the trunk and inch or two below ground for invisibility and two years later, a copper poisoned dead tree can usually be cut down. Even the viros don't protect dead stuff ~ usually.

The irony of such legislation is that it kills more trees than it saves because:

1. As a developer, unless you are forbidden from doing so, you cut down trees straight away, for fear of this legislation being applied

2. The number of trees that 'die' is staggering

3. You would have to be mad to plant trees that someone might put a preservation order on, sometime in the future, so no new planting

So once again, a government secheme that costs us all through taxation, restricts private property rights, doesn't work, in fact achieving the very opposite of what is allegedly intended.

[RayK 0]

The Sierra Club sure isn't using Reagan to boost its image.

I agree with you, and their image has dropped substantially here in Las Vegas as they sued to stop construction of a major thoroughfare for over a year. The amount of traffic that was backed up for over a year caused extreme backlash against them. In the end the Sierra Club came to "an agreement" with the local government by getting some petty promises.

The unfortunate part is that most of the people effected by this situation will not change long-term. Their comments on local radio and TV were something like; "I know the Sierra Club is acting in our best interest, but this has taken it to far." These are the type of people that will jump right back on the Sierra Club's side at a later date. Without sound principles your ally for one fight will be your enemy for another. I am not saying we should not be doing the day to day fighting, at this point I think we should. I am just saying that accepting allies that do not have the same or similar fundamentals can come back and bite you, as has been shown throughout history over and over.

I would think that your long-term goal is to abolish these type of laws altogether, where the people like Mr. Welch that I have seen are just trying to cut down some trees on their property. When these type of people get what they want, most times they forget about you and the problem and go back to their normal life. What I think would work better is not helping certain types of people unless you get an agreement that they will change their fundamental stand and stay in the fight. Because, carrying them only allows them to do nothing about the laws that they hap-hazardly agreed to. I think letting these types of people deal with the situation of the reality of the laws that they allowed to pass is the only thing that will change them long-term. Have you seen something dfferent in your long battle?

[Maarten 0]

I don't know whether this violates objectivist ethics, but I work in construction in the UK and we've had rules like this for years, and there is a two word solution ~ copper nails.

Why would that be immoral? The tree is on your own land, so it's not like you are destroying someone else's property this way. In fact, I'd say that it is moral because you are doing it to further your own life (if that tree is dangerous) in the long run.

[ewv 0]

I don't know whether this violates objectivist ethics, but I work in construction in the UK and we've had rules like this for years, and there is a two word solution ~ copper nails.

Just hammer them in to the trunk and inch or two below ground for invisibility and two years later, a copper poisoned dead tree can usually be cut down. Even the viros don't protect dead stuff ~ usually.

Actually they do because hollow dead trees are 'habitat'. I have had not heard of them demanding dead trees in people's yards (yet), but using the Endangered Species Act and other forms of control they do prevent salvage harvests intended to log burned and dying forests.

The lore of using copper nails is well known in Maine. I don't know how well or quickly it actually works or if the agencies use tests to detect it. I would think that in any high profile case like this one, such methods would be too late because someone will notice subsequent mysteriously disappearing trees. Likewise for a whole group of trees around a house, suspiciously dying within a short period of time and which opens up a view of the water. If someone were caught killing trees by surreptitious methods the authorities would rake them over the coals. The Welch's tried to do things openly and honestly by going to the authorities first with what they thought was a good case and are now being punished for it.

The authorities tolerate a certain amount of real or contrived "loophole" behavior at the beginning of any such controls, in essence humoring people who think they are "beating the system", but knowing that over time they will be cracking down harder and harder as the public becomes more accustomed to the deprivations and their premises; they don't crack down on everything right at the beginning because it brings too much attention to the nature of what they are doing at a time when there might be a revolt. The viro authorities have learned to bide their time and quietly pick off the dissidents one at a time. Once a law is established and tacitly accepted over time, a person who is "caught" flagrantly breaking it has a much harder battle -- it is hard enough when you are trying to follow the rules to stay out of trouble and the authorities decide to go after you anyway using ever more extreme interpretations of ambiguous bureaucratic power. Meanwhile, the restrictions are progressively tightened further with new laws in the name of "closing loopholes" in accordance with premises the full meaning of which would not have been accepted at the beginning.

You see these progressions of power over and over with viro restrictions, and this "tree cutting" case illustrates it. Dangerous trees were supposed to have been allowed to be removed under the original law, but they are now pushing back on what can be considered "dangerous". Meanwhile, you see the new bill mentioned earlier under which mere "penalties" are deemed not to be enough because those who can afford them consider them the cost of improving their land. So now they want to impose costs of tens of thousands of dollars per tree on top of that to replant full size trees instead of new trees -- in the name of "closing loopholes".

The people who think they are getting away with something by only quietly trying to "beat the system" -- with copper nails or anything else -- are fooling themselves in the long run, making it harder to fight the real war as they resort to short term pragmatism instead of speaking out and fighting the viro premises of social control. In individual cases of hardship, some people will have to quietly try to save themselves from viro rules the best they can just to keep going -- analogous to survival in a complete dictatorship -- but that isn't a strategy for fundamental change reversing a long term, ever worsening decline.

[ewv 0]

I agree with you, and their image has dropped substantially here in Las Vegas as they sued to stop construction of a major thoroughfare for over a year. The amount of traffic that was backed up for over a year caused extreme backlash against them. In the end the Sierra Club came to "an agreement" with the local government by getting some petty promises.

The unfortunate part is that most of the people effected by this situation will not change long-term. Their comments on local radio and TV were something like; "I know the Sierra Club is acting in our best interest, but this has taken it to far." These are the type of people that will jump right back on the Sierra Club's side at a later date. Without sound principles your ally for one fight will be your enemy for another. I am not saying we should not be doing the day to day fighting, at this point I think we should. I am just saying that accepting allies that do not have the same or similar fundamentals can come back and bite you, as has been shown throughout history over and over.

I would think that your long-term goal is to abolish these type of laws altogether, where the people like Mr. Welch that I have seen are just trying to cut down some trees on their property. When these type of people get what they want, most times they forget about you and the problem and go back to their normal life. What I think would work better is not helping certain types of people unless you get an agreement that they will change their fundamental stand and stay in the fight. Because, carrying them only allows them to do nothing about the laws that they hap-hazardly agreed to. I think letting these types of people deal with the situation of the reality of the laws that they allowed to pass is the only thing that will change them long-term. Have you seen something dfferent in your long battle?

It is more complicated than that. Few people know what the viros are actually doing behind the poetry and fuzzy images of scenery and fur. There is no reform without controversy, and the controversy is not exposed until people start hearing about real cases of abuse. First-hand accounts are best, and far more likely to be reported if anything is at all, which is why viros try to avoid it and don't like news coverage where they can't control a spin influencing public opinion.

People who are being hurt or threatened by an abusive government policy should almost always be encouraged and helped to speak out. If their knowledge is limited, it can then be supplemented to properly frame the specific issue and provide required background. You always have to forge alliances on specific issues whether or not you agree with everything else a person thinks. That is proper and necessary as long as you don't endorse damaging positions that you disagree with.

Of course it is bad when people are not consistent or don't realize the premises behind an abuse they are fighting, but if you wait for complete agreement nothing will happen. At a minimum you need the facts of real cases to be exposed; that attention is required to for people to even begin to think about the broader issues. There used to be a saying that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged", and there have been many enthusiastic defenders of property rights who have come through that route, even though they may not understand the broader principles. We have a very long way to go, but there are still good elements in our culture that exist and which have to be appealed to along the way in order to prevent avoidable damage and to buy time needed to improve the general philosophical outlook which will ultimately be required for major reform.