You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Brothers Face $450,000 in Fines for Cutting Trees on Their Own Property Without Asking Gov’t First
I mean it sounds like to me they cut down a forest, 1400 trees is a lot of trees and I'm sure most of them were invasive but I guarantee their were some good trees in their. Should they be fined IDK that doesn't really help but I don't see how this wouldn't impact the local ecosystem. I don't agree with deforestation they should have found another location already clear of trees.
Why should they be fined? It's their land, not the government's. It isn't even some kind of virgin untouched forest. If you want trees protected, find a way to buy land, and don't ever try to justify government extortion.
jacobtothe I never said they should be fined read my comment again, secondly they own the land now yes but it's not their land they will die the land will remain forever. Before they were born the land was and it will remain after them it's part of the earth it doesn't belong to anyone or any government only belonging to the God who created it. P.S. I don't support government extortion in any way.
It seems then that our dispute is over the meaning of ownership. We are merely stewards of God's creation, yes, but property rights define right-of-use based on the principles of homesteading and voluntary exchange to prevent disputes while we are on this mortal plane.
Right, I feel that the 100 landmark trees that were removed shouldn't have been because they were their before and would have remained after benefiting the ecosystem and history. I agree they have temporary ownership rights to clear the brush but they should have left the landmarks and planted around them in my humble opinion.
If you want something on someone else's property left alone, offer to compensate them, don't threaten to harm them.
Did I threaten them? And why would I compensate them for doing something that harms the ecosystem living breathing creatures birds squirrels and all animals and insects alike that suffer from the mass loss of their natural habitat. The fact that it is illegal also weighs in the scale of destruction they caused, they need to be held accountable for what they have done and a fine is the only way to do it without being cruel and unusual punishment. They have laws like this for a reason if they wanted to clear out the land they should have got the proper agencies to conduct studies and research to see if they could follow through with their plan.
Nope, I've seen the kind of scrubland they're talking about. If there was phragmites growing, it's highly unlikely there were good trees - phragmites grows where you have kind of marshy ground and doesn't cohabitate with big trees. Besides, they were planning on PLANTING a forest! Pine trees like they were planning to grow are an actual part of our ecosystem around here and we have legitimate pine forests. The land wasn't forested - it was brushy. Big difference.
From the article "According to mLive, the arborist estimated 1,385 trees with trunk diameter of six inches or more were removed. That could mean $225 to $300 per tree in penalties. Anther 100 landmark trees were also removed, the township estimated, meaning another $450 each." Like I said most were probably brush invasive crap but they claim 100 landmark trees were removed these are the trees I'm concerned over the loss of and they should have let them remain and just plant around them. Now about the fine part do I agree with IDK because there needs to be some type of punishment to keep people from going around chopping down trees that are hundreds of years old should it be a fine IDK what other way would be effective.