Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you want to "save a tree" start a movement to abolish toilet paper.
So you want to stop people from cutting down trees on their own property?
That's not going to go over well in my neck of the woods
Obviously the law would take everyone into account and be fair to all, whether one is living in a condo in Miami, or in Northern Minnesota, like you are. And of course there would be exceptions. I'm sure in your area there are practical uses for chopping down trees. If that's the case, then fine, that would be an exception. However, you know what wouldn't be an exception? A retired couple looking to knock down some trees for their "dream retirement home", or some rich guy looking to axe down an acre for his "second home". Those are the people I am trying to stop.
WE have a tree ordinance here where I live. Maybe that's what yer after but on a national scale. Developers who go in and buy tracts of land must submit to the County a plan that shows ever tree on the project, those that are to be removed for roads, etc, and those expected to be removed for houses. For every tree removed they must plant a new one. No new house is allowed any utilities unless the builder plants 2 new trees on the property. Sometimes that's gets dicey as some of the lots are already covered with trees and there's just no room for more. Then the builder has to get and pay for a variance. A variance starts at 10 grand. But I don't see this as a national issue. I'd suggest working on a local scale as it's not going to work in Arizona or in other areas where it's desert country. One of my buds lives outside of Yuma and he doesn't even have grass, it's all dirt and rocks. Any tree planted is going to die from lack of water. Water in some areas is more valuable than gold and watering trees or the underground water that's available being sucked out of the ground by trees just isn't practicable. Where I live we have no surface drinking water, it gets far too hot here and it's stupid to even consider it. While we have a tree ordinance, we also have water restrictions. You cannot wash your car here in the driveway or even the yard. It's at a car wash or leave it dirty. We can only water certain days and during certain hours depending on the level of our underground aquifer. Some summers means you can't water at all and trees die. So what you're proposing isn't intelligent or applicable everywhere.
WE have a tree ordinance here where I live. Maybe that's what yer after but on a national scale. Developers who go in and buy tracts of land must submit to the County a plan that shows ever tree on the project, those that are to be removed for roads, etc, and those expected to be removed for houses. For every tree removed they must plant a new one. No new house is allowed any utilities unless the builder plants 2 new trees on the property. Sometimes that's gets dicey as some of the lots are already covered with trees and there's just no room for more. Then the builder has to get and pay for a variance. A variance starts at 10 grand. But I don't see this as a national issue. I'd suggest working on a local scale as it's not going to work in Arizona or in other areas where it's desert country. One of my buds lives outside of Yuma and he doesn't even have grass, it's all dirt and rocks. Any tree planted is going to die from lack of water. Water in some areas is more valuable than gold and watering trees or the underground water that's available being sucked out of the ground by trees just isn't practicable. Where I live we have no surface drinking water, it gets far too hot here and it's stupid to even consider it. While we have a tree ordinance, we also have water restrictions. You cannot wash your car here in the driveway or even the yard. It's at a car wash or leave it dirty. We can only water certain days and during certain hours depending on the level of our underground aquifer. Some summers means you can't water at all and trees die. So what you're proposing isn't intelligent or applicable everywhere.
That is the sort of thing I am after on a national scale. I would want a limit to the amount of trees cut in the first place, though, and tougher punishments for breaking this law. I guess, as someone who loves animals, I am upset that they will have to find another place to live, the same for insects. I just don't think it is right, even if there is another tree nearby. It would be like having someone just show up one day with a wrecking ball for reasons totally outside of your control, and destroy your house. Sure there are many other houses for sale nearby, even some new ones, but it is still a major inconvenience. And some of the organisms living in the tree may die cause of it, not to mention the tree itself. The same sort of thing with food. It would be like a city just closing down a grocery store near your house for no apparent reason. There are different places for food, but it would be plain wrong. Sure you could always find a different place to live, or a different grocery store (newly planted trees or existing trees in the area), but it just wouldn't be right. That is why I am so upset. Thanks for your response though, much appreciated.
Okay David, let's chat scenarios here. Let's say somebody in DC caught this ball of yours and decided that it should be a federal Mandate just how you want it. Who's going to enforce it? It's a federal mandate now that all water heaters installed in garages or rooms opening to garages to be mounted 18" off of the floor. That includes replacement water heaters as the mandate says ALL. Does it happen on replacements? Nope. Why? Nobody to to inspect it. Some states have no inspections at all. Some states leave it up to the county/parish to come up with their own codes and inspections. Some cities have inspections using their own inspectors but in the country there are no inspections. Most developers are not going to divide/clear land in the city anyway. City taxes are the reason. Without city taxes the builders who buy the lots can qualify more folks for their houses. So who is going to enforce the mandate- nobody. That's why I'd suggest you either take on a local level or learn the building and development game. Frankly, the Feds want nothing to do with it. It consumes far too many resources which is why most counties/parishes don't have any inspections. There's just not enough tax dollars to go around and this is a cost to the county/parish and not a money generator.
I will tell you a story that actually happen here that will warm yer heart. Our area is growing towards the north which is hill country. Mostly it's rock and very little dirt but it does have cedars and oak trees on it and they're fairly thick. We had a national home builder come in and buy one of the most prime areas in the city that was totally undisturbed. As I remember it was 1300 acres. The city informed them that they would have to submit a tree plan for the area and a waste water plan as the area is part of our recharge zone for our underground water. They didn't respond to the city at all. Instead, they waited 6 months and brought in LOTS of bulldozers and leveled the place in a matter of days leaving zero trees. Then they proceeded to put in utilities but got no inspections and put in streets. They even started model homes. When they went to get utilities hooked up the city said nope, but you can tear everything out as it has no inspections and we will not allow any utilities to be provided until new is installed and inspected. That's utilities and streets and plans for the entire subdivision. The builder filed a lawsuit and obviously lost. They were a multimillion dollar company. They are now out of business. NO fines were required, just time is what killed the builder. Because of this, other developers/builders got the message that if you are going to develop land around here, you'll do it the right way or expect it cost you dearly. Had this happened one couty to the south, it would never had been an issue as they have no inspections. If you really want to make a difference with this, you're going to have to start locally. Who knows, if you get it rolling right other inspection departments of other cities might just pick it up. A lot of what we see for fire code compliance comes from New York so other areas are watching what happens in other places.
Many years ago I used to burn firewood in a wood burner and also fireplace insert. I would go through about 16 cords of wood each heating season. That is basically the equivalent of clear cutting one acre of aged forest in my area. I do have a fairly large home to heat. Since that time; I yanked out our electric heat and installed oil hot water – I now do not burn firewood.
I have seen old pictures of my area from the early 1900's. There were no trees. Most of our trees were cut for lumber to build the cities. Some trees were cut to make coke to fuel the blast furnaces. Many trees were cut for firewood or to start coal fires. There was also an active tanning industry that would cut magnificent hemlock trees just for the bark. Trains were notorious for starting forest fires. By the 1930's and 1940's deer were almost extinct. Our trees were coming back; but the depression took a toll on the wildlife. By the 1960's the trains were dying and wildlife and our forest had recovered (our deer population was at an all time high).
@TrapperL: Yes, enforcement would be very difficult. I guess I would suggest for there frequent random inspections of construction projects so other contractors would see that they could get caught too. Also, maybe these contractors can have some morality, and if this was a tough law, actually follow it. Maybe that is just too much to ask! As for the story, yes I was very happy with the outcome, but I would have took it a little further. I would have heavily fined the developer/builder and possibly sent them to the big house, since this seems to be an extreme case.
@fisheye: You make a good point that mature forest is not good for all of the wildlife. However, I wish we would just let life run it's course instead of tampering with it.
@fisheye: You make a good point that mature forest is not good for all of the wildlife. However, I wish we would just let life run it's course instead of tampering with it.
This idea is a work in progress!!!
The only way that we can reduce tampering with nature is if we could control our own population growth. That will not happen in the near future. That is a subject for the 'Politics and Other Controversies' forum and we will never get agreement. Capitalism bought into expansion – we know no other way. Perhaps you could convince us to become cave dwellers?
Looks like it's time to hunt/trap beavers to extinction.
so if I buy a heavily wooded lot I can no longer clear a area for my home garage or for a yard?
We can only build in cleared areas like on farm land?
No rural building, move the population to city's.
Where you need to get permission to cut a branch off of a tree.
Has the op ever seen a clear cut area?(logging)
Stopping all paper manufacturing would save many more trees.
Or how about we stop using wood to build with?
Most homes I see the owners plant trees in the yard along with bushes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
