|
SkunkDuster posted:Aside from preventing you from removing trees that are preventing a landslide or are homes to endangered species, what other reasons might the city/state/county have for preventing you from cutting down your own trees on your own property? Many jurisdictions have laws regulating tree removal because of environmental concerns, or just "we want to be a tree-y place" concerns. They will often require you to re-plant, or pay into a fund so that the locality replants on your behalf. More likely if you're in a blue suburb.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Aside from preventing you from removing trees that are preventing a landslide or are homes to endangered species, what other reasons might the city/state/county have for preventing you from cutting down your own trees on your own property? Generally there is a desire to keep older trees, native trees, prevent runoff problems and a whole host of environmental issues, and to make sure Georgia Pacific doesn't just buy a plot of land and clear cut it without controls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Aside from preventing you from removing trees that are preventing a landslide or are homes to endangered species, what other reasons might the city/state/county have for preventing you from cutting down your own trees on your own property? One town I lived in was basically "don't touch anything that isn't a southern pine."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Speaking of TREE LAW, are there general rules for trees butted against a fence whose branches are hanging over your yard? Normally I'd just prune them but my neighbor are particularly chuddy assholes and I don't want to get in a fight with them. At the same time, the trees hanging over my fence are blocking sun for my garden. I will not pay a retainer and refuse to google the answer, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
Devor posted:Many jurisdictions have laws regulating tree removal because of environmental concerns, or just "we want to be a tree-y place" concerns. They will often require you to re-plant, or pay into a fund so that the locality replants on your behalf. More likely if you're in a blue suburb. Generally you want to look up your local watershed laws to find out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:Speaking of TREE LAW, are there general rules for trees butted against a fence whose branches are hanging over your yard? Normally I'd just prune them but my neighbor are particularly chuddy assholes and I don't want to get in a fight with them. At the same time, the trees hanging over my fence are blocking sun for my garden. I will not pay a retainer and refuse to google the answer, thank you. You are legally required to fist fight your neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
nm posted:You are legally required to fist fight your neighbors. mid-summer last year my kids were playing with one of those cheap remote control drones with no cameras or anything fancy and they flew it into their yard on accident. My kids asked the woman over the fence if they would give it back and she SCREAMED at them it's "hers now" and they're never getting it back. I asked through the fence why she can't just give it back and she told me to go to the front door and "talk to my husband about it". Dude that's clearly a huge doormat answered, I told him about the drone, he went to summon his wife, and she came to the door and proceeded to go OFF on how some the teenagers a couple houses down flew a drone over her backyard while she was sunbathing and how they tried to get pics of her nude, oh and also they've lived in THIS HOUSE for over 20 years and how they just want to LIVE IN PEACE and that there's a posted city ordinance about how it's illegal to fly drones over people's houses and that she'll call the cops. Anyway, told her to show me the ordinance, pulled my phone out and told her sure, I'll call the cops for her, and like all chuds she immediately backed down and eventually gave back the stupid drone. Anyway that's my story and why I expect them to freak out over branches due to Don't Tread On Me or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Clearly you should cut them down, and then scream about how they went over the fence so they’re yours now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Trees can be and are parts of storm water plans and also state and federal clean water plans so you'd be surprised what kind of jurisdiction the government has on your "fee simple" land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Trees can be and are parts of storm water plans and also state and federal clean water plans so you'd be surprised what kind of jurisdiction the government has on your "fee simple" land. Has there been a ruling yet about why that isn't a regulatory taking of your god-given right to clear-cut your property Because it seems like we're due
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
Devor posted:Has there been a ruling yet about why that isn't a regulatory taking of your god-given right to clear-cut your property I guess I could look it up on Westlaw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Yeah, it's definitely this guy's fault for logging an acre, and totally not the fault of companies like British Petroleum, dumping millions of gallons of oil into the gulf because they are lazy. You heat that a lot, but those statistics border on deliberately misleading depending on who's using them. It's not like ExxonMobil is setting all their oil on fire like a Captain Planet villain. They're selling oil to you and me, and we're setting it on fire. So these stats are not a reason not to be judicious in your impact as an individual. Anyway OP, maybe plant some nice short trees of whatever variety the local wildlife likes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah there's a lot of misguided hate about that. As an actual trained restoration biologist I'm going to say that maybe it's a good thing to clear it out and allow some understory and midstory to develop or maybe it's a terrible idea because it's virgin old growth forest. There's a lot of things he can do to thin the forest and create better wildlife habitat and improve the area. They probably can't help with the legal aspect but a local native plant society or master naturalist group would be a good free resource to help you if those are things you care about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:Yeah there's a lot of misguided hate about that. As an actual trained restoration biologist I'm going to say that maybe it's a good thing to clear it out and allow some understory and midstory to develop or maybe it's a terrible idea because it's virgin old growth forest. There's a lot of things he can do to thin the forest and create better wildlife habitat and improve the area. They probably can't help with the legal aspect but a local native plant society or master naturalist group would be a good free resource to help you if those are things you care about. My mom worked on a (fairly lefty) community forest task force, and holy loving poo poo, getting them to agree to any sort of forest clearing was a loving nightmare, with certain people comparing it to actual clear cutting. Eventually, it didn't happen. Whole place is gonna burn down someday and people will act like it was unpreventable. My mom was probably the only science person on the thing and eventually had to quit over a bunch of humanities people talking about what the science is. I don't want to get into Trump's insane "raking the forest" poo poo but JFC, unless you're going to let the area burn occasionally, you need to do some thinning. All that said, it sure should like OP wants to cut down everything, not thin, though I would suggest thinning would likely be better for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:You heat that a lot, but those statistics border on deliberately misleading depending on who's using them. It's not like ExxonMobil is setting all their oil on fire like a Captain Planet villain. They're selling oil to you and me, and we're setting it on fire. So these stats are not a reason not to be judicious in your impact as an individual. You're missing the point entirely, as long as the systemic change doesn't occur it really doesn't matter what you do as an individual, and the whole idea of carbon footprints and judicious use is just a way of drawing attention away from the fact that the economic structure of the world basically guarantees an environmental apocalypse, and as a way of accusing anyone who tries to do anything about it of hypocrisy. And Exxon has known about climate change for about 40 years, and actively engaged in a disinformation campaign and intense lobbying efforts to avoid any ones ability to stop them from essentially lighting their oil on fire (what do you think internal combustion) means exactly? You light the oil on fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:And Exxon has known about climate change for about 40 years, and actively engaged in a disinformation campaign and intense lobbying efforts to avoid any ones ability to stop them from essentially lighting their oil on fire (what do you think internal combustion) means exactly? You light the oil on fire. Are you sure you read the post I wrote?  Anyway, don't worry about it, it's like we're going to solve the world economy in the legal thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
nm posted:My mom worked on a (fairly lefty) community forest task force, and holy loving poo poo, getting them to agree to any sort of forest clearing was a loving nightmare, with certain people comparing it to actual clear cutting. Eventually, it didn't happen. Whole place is gonna burn down someday and people will act like it was unpreventable. My mom was probably the only science person on the thing and eventually had to quit over a bunch of humanities people talking about what the science is. A while back, I read on cracked.com (so not sure how valid this is) that the Smokey the Bear "Only you can prevent forest fires" campaign actually backfired because, without the smaller burns, there ended up being so much dead stuff and underbrush that when fires did eventually break out, they were bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:A while back, I read on cracked.com (so not sure how valid this is) that the Smokey the Bear "Only you can prevent forest fires" campaign actually backfired because, without the smaller burns, there ended up being so much dead stuff and underbrush that when fires did eventually break out, they were bad. I don't think accidental campfire-origin unperscribed burns is the best way to accomplish the forestry management we're clearly not doing sufficiently (or at all in some areas).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:A while back, I read on cracked.com (so not sure how valid this is) that the Smokey the Bear "Only you can prevent forest fires" campaign actually backfired because, without the smaller burns, there ended up being so much dead stuff and underbrush that when fires did eventually break out, they were bad. It's a combination of that and the belief that unburned forests are "natural." There's nothing natural about an overgrown forest full of dead stuff and easy to burn stuff that got that way because we both prevent it from burning and we prevent humans from clearing it. Its that combination that got us fires so hot that Sequoia and Kings Canyon lost 1/3 of their sequoias, trees that literally depend on fire to reproduce and are able to survive almost any fire. Motronic posted:I don't think accidental campfire-origin unperscribed burns is the best way to accomplish the forestry management we're clearly not doing sufficiently (or at all in some areas).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
nm posted:No, but it led to a few generation also putting out any lightning fire as well. Now that's a completely different thing, and is part of the lack of forestry management I'm talking about. I'm a structural firefighter, but I've worked with enough wildland firefighters, including with them on forestry scenes, to have heard a whole lot of opinions most of which averaged together is what I'm saying here. And when you're someone who "frequents" places that are on fire you start to see the same poo poo over and over and hear the same poo poo over and over (i.e. localities having groups that block management practices or simply not having the money to do them)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
God drat people the dude just wanted to cut some trees
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:God drat people the dude just wanted to cut some trees Looks like someone here likes to loot and plunder. I'm a planeteer, though, cause saving our planet is the thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Legal Questions: God drat the dude. Wanted to cut some trees! On one example of the "why" beyond others provided, in hurricane areas, clearing the trees for your view of the marsh is sometimes the difference between minor roof damage and total destruction or death. Also these are, well, laws; they have aggregate effects in their area. Everyone thinking they get to be an exception is...a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 07:29
|
|
|
Well, that blew up pretty quickly. 1) The plan is not to replant the trees because we like our view of the mountains. 2) This is in New Hampshire (live free or die!) so regulations are minimal 3) All of the area in question was all clearcut historically for firewood so none of the trees are older than 40 years old. 4) LOL at the whole idea of carbon offsets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 12:45
|
|
|
New Hampshire does have laws on how much timber you can cut down, and there's a tax per tree apparently from my quick searching. You should contact someone local who can answer your questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 13:05
|
|
|
daslog posted:Well, that blew up pretty quickly. literally googled "new hampshire logging laws" https://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource000253_Rep274.pdf Not a lawyer, and I didn't read much, but it's painfully obvious that laws exist and need to be followed. If you read the posts, I think the point of that entire conversation is that "regulations are minimal" is NOT the same as "regulations are non-existent." Many, MANY areas regulate this sort of activity for a plethora of reasons, ranging from aesthetic to environmental to taxation. poo poo, where I live I can't cut down anything more than 2" in diameter without approval from the city, and on certain parts of my property I'm prohibited from removing any vegetation due to a nearby protected stream. You also gave zero context... is what a "bad idea?" Clearing the trees? Going in on a contractor with your neighbors? What aspect specifically do you think might be a bad idea? For just tree removal in general, you would need to talk to a local attorney who knows that area of law to know for sure. States, counties, and cities each could have laws that tell you what you can/cannot do with trees. Nobody in this thread is going to be able to tell you that, and I wouldn't rely on a logger to be honest with you. Generally speaking, flat out clear cutting several acres is probably not allowed without a permit or a specific process to follow. DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Jun 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
I'm primary concerned with going in with the neighbors. We will probably make a few thousand dollars in profit from the loggers (who would take care of the permitting) and while I don't care if I make a dime in profit I can see where that might get ugly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 13:23
|
|
|
daslog posted:A couple of my neighbors and I have been informally discussing having a kicker come in and drop-kick some kittens off our land so we can get our non-kitten views back. I have about 4 acres of kittens to have punted, while other 2 have about 10 acres of kittens to kick each. Is this a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
You gotta be kitten me with this stuff. It's trees. They literally grow on trees!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
gently caress trees am I right? Don’t do anything except block my views and turn into furniture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:04
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You gotta be kitten me with this stuff. Don't listen to this idiot, OP murdered the entwives!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:gently caress trees am I right? Don’t do anything except block my views and turn into furniture. And firewood. I have been slowly cutting down the trees on my own and using them to heat my house. Once I get through the five acres that I own, I'm hoping to buy a hundred acres in the Amazon rain-forest and do the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
Idéfix! lover of trees…
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
God I love it when people don't ask 'what sort of lawyer do I need for x' questions. Its always gold
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Idéfix! lover of trees… Dogmatix, en anglais.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Dogmatix, en anglais. English only, phil doesn't grok any of that frog language.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
What do people want a view of A good view is pretty much definitionally a view of pretty trees Cutting down the trees is counterproductive to that end
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What do people want a view of a view of many trees, in the distance, is preferable to a view of the one tree ten feet from the window
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
I can imagine trees blocking a view of mountains in the distance but I would still want the trees. To pee on.joat mon posted:Dogmatix, en anglais. It’s one of the better English names. Similar word play/joke—“idée fixe” (fixed idea) vs. dogmatic—but with a double entendre on the “dog” part. Unlike, say, Chief Vitalstatistix (wtf) as opposed to Abraracourcix (à bras raccourcis, i.e. sleeves rolled, dukes up and ready to kick someone’s rear end)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2021 15:49
|
|