Re: Human gets fined $100k for boat ramp
I agree he should have gotten permits.
But I also don't agree with the $100,000 fine.
He improved what was already there as far as the ramp goes. And with the vegetation, well, If you see that area, you would see just about everyone has done that with their property along that bank.
In order to be fair, I honestly think the DEP needs to go along that bank, find out who had permits to do what they did, and fine everyone who did not the same amount.
But seriously, having to hire scientists to make mud and then hire someone to grow the grass? If you let that bank be for a few more years (maybe toss some seed in there and bury it) it will not be noticeable at all that it had been cleared.
If I owned a property with a river going through it, and I was told I could do nothing to the river or it's banks, I would expect to not be taxed on that part of the property, or to have the state add value to my property because of that to put me in a higher tax bracket.
If I can't do something to a river or body of water, on my property, then I won't be the one who does the maintenance, and neither will i pay for it.
There are other issues that I have had personal experience with.
Back about 7 years ago, in Southern Oregon the environmentalists decided that some sucker fish in Klamath Lake was endangered and that the 2200+ agricultural farmers were endangering those fish by using the water from the lake to irrigate crops.
I was 24 at the time, and my parents owned a sizable chunk of property out there.
They passed the law that said none of the farmers could use the water from that lake to irrigate. They shut down the canals. There were some whackjobs who went psycho over it and sent fake bombs floating towards the canal gates in the lake and they ended up posting FBI agents there.
The real crap was that the government also charged people by the year to use the water to cover the costs of upkeeping the canals and whatnot.
After they stopped the water here is what happened.
They tried to charge for the water useage saying that the canals had to be kept up no matter what, and people refused to pay.
The lake rose so high that the sunlight couldn't get to the vegetation these sucker fish fed on and was killing them off at a very fast rate.
They finally said "okay, we are letting water into the canals, you can use it, but you have to first pay the water bill and a late fee if you haven't paid it already"
By this time it was already very late into the growing season, and the Farmers said no. It's too late, the water would do us no good.
They put hundreds of people into bankruptcy, hundreds more (including my parents) sold their property and ranches/farms they had worked their whole lives to get.
Point is, sometimes (more often than not) the environmentalists don't know wtf they are really talking about. In this case, they not only put hundreds of people into bankruptcy/taken their dreams away from them and they were dead wrong about what was going on.
The government said they would help pay for re schooling of anyone that was dependent on the farm to make a living, but over 75% of these people were over retirement age and using the farm to pay for their bills. They couldn't do anything else, even with school. And 1/2 the people got turned down anyways.
...I wonder what kind of damage he actually did to the natural environment. Probably should have contacted the state office that oversees that sort of thing.
