Newest Threads

UglyBhamGuy · 08-25-2011, 01:05 PM

I'm all for the wine, but don't think i can get behind this.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0825-redwoods-vineyards-20110825,0,1321080.story?track=icymi

ibglowin · 08-25-2011, 01:09 PM

Agreed, thats kinda crazy!

robie · 08-25-2011, 03:30 PM

One of my passions is to walk among rows of tall, green grape vines. But the beauty and majesty of the redwoods far out weighs the beauty (and necessity) of grape vines, not to mention the Eco system of which the redwoods are a part.

If you have never been to California to one of the redwood forests, you need to go one day.

I am not now nor have I ever been a "diehard" conservationist, but this time I think they are right. There is a balance; destroying redwoods is not balanced.

**JohnT** · 08-25-2011, 03:47 PM

Typical..

I am uncertain if this is privately owned land. If so, then where does the government get off telling land owners what they can/can not do with the land owned by private citizens?

If the government is so concerned, then it should put its money where its mouth is and purchase the land themselves. They could then add it to their park system.

Additionally, I see that they are dealing with second growth trees and not virgin timber. This means that the hand of man had a role in planting the trees. Why, then, shouldn't the hand of man have a role in their removal.

**Sirs** · 08-25-2011, 07:30 PM

I can't or couldn't stand behind something like this to me it's nothing more than greed they wanna plant the grapes cause that variety is so popular now, I mean the trees are doing good there's no certainty that the grapes will.

UglyBhamGuy · 08-26-2011, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT

Additionally, I see that they are dealing with second growth trees and not virgin timber. This means that the hand of man had a role in planting the trees. Why, then, shouldn't the hand of man have a role in their removal.

Sure the "hand of man" had a role in planting the trees...
wonder what happened to the first growth? Hmmmm....

And to tell ya the truth, the government could just take the land, ya know, Eminent Domain, and all.

**JohnT** · 08-26-2011, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UglyBhamGuy

Sure the "hand of man" had a role in planting the trees...
wonder what happened to the first growth? Hmmmm....

And to tell ya the truth, the government could just take the land, ya know, Eminent Domain, and all.

The spirit of Eminent Domain is that no land ower should stand in the way of an infrastructure project. Even still, The land is not free for the taking. Under E.D., the govenrment is required to give "fair compensation" to the owner. In other words, the govenment can not simply take the land, but has the right to purchase land (even though it is not for sale).

What I am saying is this: If one purchases land, and does not have the right to make use of the land as he sees fit, then exactly what did he purchase? Its like your parents giving you a GI Joe for Christmas, but not allowing you to play with it because they hate war. In this case, what did you actually get for Christmas?

That is not to say that there should be no regulations. Regulations should cover the areas where other people's rights and liberties are impacted. A land owner, for example, should not be allowed to turn land into a toxic waste dump since that would impact the health and well being of others. Clearing privately own land for the purpose of farming would not overtly impact others.

Additionally, this is second growth timber. Second growth timber is planted to replennish what loggers have removed. There is only one reason why this was done in the past. So that there will be trees to cut down in the future! Well, the future is now.

UglyBhamGuy · 08-26-2011, 12:31 PM

i really loved that G.I. Joe, too. It was Snake Eyes and he came with nunchucks and a katana. i was like, "Mom, he's not even a real soldier, he's a ninja." but she was having none of it and Snake Eyes just sat there in his package. This is probably why, to this day i Love anything ninja related and when i buy my kids action figures, i buy two.

**Sirs** · 08-26-2011, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnT

The spirit of Eminent Domain is that no land ower should stand in the way of an infrastructure project. Even still, The land is not free for the taking. Under E.D., the govenrment is required to give "fair compensation" to the owner. In other words, the govenment can not simply take the land, but has the right to purchase land (even though it is not for sale).

What I am saying is this: If one purchases land, and does not have the right to make use of the land as he sees fit, then exactly what did he purchase? Its like your parents giving you a GI Joe for Christmas, but not allowing you to play with it because they hate war. In this case, what did you actually get for Christmas?

That is not to say that there should be no regulations. Regulations should cover the areas where other people's rights and liberties are impacted. A land owner, for example, should not be allowed to turn land into a toxic waste dump since that would impact the health and well being of others. Clearing privately own land for the purpose of farming would not overtly impact others.

Additionally, this is second growth timber. Second growth timber is planted to replennish what loggers have removed. There is only one reason why this was done in the past. So that there will be trees to cut down in the future! Well, the future is now.

Well in all actuality if the land is cleared and grapes are planted it would probly have a huge impact on the surrounding area with all the runoff from the cleared land and from all the fertilizers and pesticides used. All that going into the water basin in that area would probly be devastating to the eco-system thats there now so yes it would make a big change,not to mention all the wildlife not having that forest to exist in.