jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (47 posts)

How long before we say 'enough'?

  1. tobey100 profile image59
    tobey100posted 5 years ago

    A few days ago I got a visit from a twenty-something young lady who looked, acted and talked like she'd been dipped in a vat of liquid starch.  She announced she was from the EPA and with out preamble informed me my cattle could no longer drink from the creek that runs through MY pasture as they MIGHT contaminate the water.  We were standing out on the kitchen porch so I pointed to several of the cows that were visible in the field and told her, "There they are.  Go tell 'em."

    I've had cows for 35 years on this same property.  To my knowledge not a soul has died from cow contaminated water.  Far as I know not a soul drinks the creek water.  There has been no fish-kill as the result of cow poisoning.  When is enough enough?

    We're being told what we can eat.  What we can drive.  How much we can drink (no more 'Big Gulps)', New Jersey even has a $1000 fine if you don't put a seat belt on your pet.  Soon we'll be told what to wear and where to live.

    I've got a mom and dad and common sense.  Let the government do its job and keep their nose out of mine.  So far I've done a much better job than they have.

    1. Will Apse profile image92
      Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Vulnerable people do die from E.coli which is common in cattle feces.

      Many questions arise.

      Why would people be drinking untreated water from a stream? Or are people irrigating crops with this water and consumers are not washing the crop?

      Another question is did your visitor suggest taking water from the stream in a way that did not risk fecal contamination?

      Also what makes you think it is your stream and your water?

      Especially, if you do not appreciate that contamination can occur.

      The more we are all crammed together on this planet, the more these issues will arise.

      1. tobey100 profile image59
        tobey100posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        There are obviously those who believe we need to be 'protected'.  The majority of us know how to protect ourselves.  The majority of us know to wash vegetables before eating them.  There are 310 million people in this country.  How many die each year from cattle feces E.coli?  Have we reached the point where we have no responsibility whatsoever for our own well being?  Your argument doesn't hold water.  By your logic no one should be allowed to drive as statistics show they 'might' have an accident and injure someone else.  Example:  in the lake near my home a teenager, not wearing a life jacket, fell out of his boat and drowned.  Instead of enforcing the requirement to wear a life jacket while boating, the county banned boats from the lake.

        Oh, and the creek does belong to me.  It originates on my property and terminates underground on my property.  It's not even on the waterway map for this area.  The only way the EPA chick knew there was a creek was she spotted it while driving by and took it upon herself to inform me I was endangering the planet.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Now you have to learn how to handle these things better. After all they know more than you do. They have been to college and have a degree.  They have become enlightened.
          Furthermore who really owns anything? It belongs to the world.....no....the universe.
          Trust me when I tell you they are the main purveyors of male bovine feces.

          1. tobey100 profile image59
            tobey100posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Love it!!!  lol

          2. Will Apse profile image92
            Will Apseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            People who have been to college are certainly scary. We can make a little ghetto here where we will be safe.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It always works best if they mix a little common sense in with the degree.
              I know those that do.
              The folks at the EPA and other various places don't care anything about common sense.

        2. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I'm a little confused.  You said she informed you that your "cattle could no longer drink from the creek that runs through MY pasture as they MIGHT contaminate the water."  How did she inform you of this prohibition?  Just verbally?  Did she cite you?

          Later you go on to say:  "The only way the EPA chick knew there was a creek was she spotted it while driving by and took it upon herself to inform me I was endangering the planet."

          Your account of this doesn't really make sense to me.  Did she leave a business card?  Did she tell you what would happen if you continued to let your cows drink from the creek?

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe if you did not change the sentence you could understand it

            " informed me my cattle could no longer drink from the creek that runs through MY pasture "

            Make sense now?

            And yes, the EPA does inspect waterways no matter how large or small without an appointment.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Pardon me....did I understand you to say they do colonoscopy's without appointment?

              Oh my bad I read it again.

              big_smile

            2. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I didn't change the sentence; I copied and pasted it.  I was merely questioning the behavior of the "EPA chick" as reported by Tobey100.  Tobey100 has a history of, shall we say, "invention."

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/44022

              Even so, I know that bureaucrats can be stupid, so maybe that EPA chick belongs in that category.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                PP,

                What is your point, what Toby 100 wrote in that link you provided is 100% true, that is what Obama wrote in his book. So how is he inventing anything?

                You claim you didn't change the sentence you copied and pasted it, then how come when I copy and pasted it came out different than when you did?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  This is getting ridiculous.  Read the OP, then read my post with the sentence in quotes.  If you still think I changed it, then you have a serious reading problem.

                  As for Tobey being 100% correct in the other thread, you are 100% wrong. Did you read my correction in that thread?  You know, the one with the actual quote from the book that I have in my library?

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely agree this is stupid, it should be the responsibility of the EPA to prove that your creek is actually endangering people or contaminating other waterways, you mentioned it runs off underground, underground springs can appear a long way away and potentially contaminate other waterways, but they should have to prove it before they can do anything.

    3. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I said enough almost 10 years ago. Now, I'm out to expose the frauds known as politicians, and the backers of said politicians, so as to break the "status quo" in America.

      America will not see true growth until the "status quo" is broken. All growth will be nothing more than a scam from Wall Street, pushing dollars from one location to another, and make the bankers(powerful and wealthy) more money, making it appear as if growth is happening, when in fact it's pure manipulation of the marketplace.

      The Economy- supposedly based on equality, yet is skewed toward the powerful and wealthy. Thus, making more difficult for anyone who wants to do business within America's Economy.

      Yes, I have had enough.

    4. Onusonus profile image81
      Onusonusposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Ah the libs slowly abridge our basic freedoms bit by bit.

      http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/598850_382089725182725_345458102_n.jpg

  2. CMHypno profile image95
    CMHypnoposted 5 years ago

    Seat belts on pets??? But it just as bad over here, one local council refused to let a town put up bunting for the Diamond Jubilee because a full risk analysis hadn't been done and it might hurt someone if it fell down - death by bunting?  Another example is a charity took a group of learning-disabled teenagers to the beach for the day, but they were told that they couldn't let the kids paddle because it was too dangerous.  There were two adults for every teenager and the kids were more than capable of understanding and following instructions.

    1. Disturbia profile image60
      Disturbiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I actually do put "seat belts" on my two yorkies.  They are small and tend to jump around in the car and can be quite distracting.  So I have little doggie seats for them in my car. 

      But, that doesn't mean I'm not feeling like we are being ruled and regulated to the point of insanity.  Every aspect of our lives is becoming controlled. Some day we won't even be able to step outside our front doors without the proper permits, and protective gear.  You can't protect everybody from everything, but somebody out there will pass a law that will try.

  3. innersmiff profile image74
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    It is already illegal to pollute another's property and can be solved by insurance. Once we have set the precedent that some busy body can come into someone's private property and tell them that their cows can not drink from their own creek then we truly are on the road to serfdom. As the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to fascism is too. Life is a risk, but if you find that fact so horrible, consider this: you could probably prevent anything unfortunate happening on the planet, but this would require a police state so horrific that our very humanity is destroyed.

    1. tobey100 profile image59
      tobey100posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent point.  I do not doubt their good intentions.  I'm quite sure Hitler wanted to create a utopia for the German people.  Castro as well for the Cubans (who according to reports have seen their monthly per capita income rise from $16/month to $19/month).  Somehow we've fallen into thinking the goverment knows best.  I work with the Tennessee State Legislature every single day.  These people are not smarter than anyone else.  They're not 'experts' on anything except maybe what their chosen field was before they were elected.  Being elected to an office doesn't mean you know what's best for the rest of us.  It means you're now the office holder.  We are slowly but surely giving up every right we've been guaranteed at the founding of this country.  I can assure you I'm not alone in rebelling against the nanny state.

      By the way, I was informed by Miss EPA that unless I complied I could be prosecuted or fined.  I told her to send me the bill and wait for payment.  In a nice way I then told her to get off my property.  Can't wait to see what happens next.  Tune in next week!

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Did she show you any official ID or was she just off her meds?

        I grew up in Tennessee and there was a day and places over there where she might have gone in with that message but she would have been fortunate enough to only have been verbally corrected about it. There are families that have owned there land out there for hundreds of years.

        1. tobey100 profile image59
          tobey100posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          My family is one of them.  We settled the this valley before the Civil War and have lived here since.  We own about 3000 acres that has never been developed other than our houses and outbuildings.  You can't even find my property unless you're lost.  Our road is not on the map as it's technically our driveway.  Very nice.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So she just happened by huh?
            Were I you my Volunteer brother I would keep my eyes open. That wasn't random.
            See none of these putting up a fuss believe this is a problem. Government wants you to stop letting your cows drink so just let them all die.

            Then ship their carcasses to the EPA.

            1. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Oh and don't forget how do you know it YOUR land?

  4. Reality Bytes profile image84
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Yet, the government puts fluoride in our drinking water!

  5. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 5 years ago

    You do not mention that your ag runoff contains more than cow urine and poop. I just took a trip to Stockton, where there are many dairies. They are reeking, foul nightmares. 

    There is also the fertilizer that you use on your silage. How many other pesticides and herbicides are you using, then running off into the one creek? Roundup alone is a chemical nightmare. The more you use, the more you will have to use because roundup makes weeds that are resistant to roundup.

    Your creek meets up with other creeks to run your collective junk into the rivers and then to the sea. It is the aggregate, not the individual farmer, who is causing troubled waters.

    The public that has not gone crazy from racism and tea partying is fully aware that there are  more cows, chemicals and crap now then when you started and so do you!

    I don't care how long you've owned your land. What an irrelevant argument. You do not see the problems that you create because the problems are downstream and out of your sight. 

    Let the EPA do its job and speak up when you have troubles with compliance, so the problems can be worked out. Otherwise, you get no sympathy from me just because you have been polluting the waterways for a hundred years.

    1. tobey100 profile image59
      tobey100posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How sweet.  This ain't Stockton, we don't use chemicals of any kind, you've never been here, the EPA can mind its own business, and you don't know what you're talking about.  I bet you truly believe cow flatulence is destroying the ozone layer.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image84
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Worshiping Authority, if the government says it, it must be true!

  6. Reality Bytes profile image84
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Corruption and Fraud at the EPA

    Truth suppressed by fraud and intimidation

    The Big Lie has been maintained by outright fraud and the persecution of scientists attempting to speak the truth. In 1990, Dr. William Marcus, a senior scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was fired for exposing a coverup in a government study showing that fluoride causes cancer. In 1992, EPA ignored the union representing all 1200 scientists, lawyers and engineers at EPA's Headquarters, when the union provided evidence of scientific fraud in the development of the fluoride in drinking water standard.
    How the truth is suppressed

    The powers that be work overtime at maintaining the Big Lie with some fairly simple, but effective techniques: outright fraud and coverup, and initimidation and persecution of scientists and other professionals who dare to speak the truth. One of the best examples of the use of these techniques can be found at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.
    In 1990, Dr. William Marcus, senior toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water at EPA, was fired for publicly questioning the honesty of a long-awaited government animal study designed to determine if fluoride causes cancer. Upon examining the raw data of the experiment, Dr. Marcus found clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer, and suggested that a review panel set up by the government to review the data had deliberately downgraded the results. He was vindicated in December of 1992 when Administrative Law Judge David A. Clark, Jr. ordered EPA to give him back his job, with back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages. EPA appealed, but the appeal was turned down in 1994 by Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich who accused EPA of firing Dr. Marcus in retaliation for speaking his mind in public. Reich found among other things that EPA had shredded important evidence that would have supported Dr. Marcus in court. The original trial proceedings also show that EPA employees who wanted to testify on behalf of Dr. Marcus were threatened by their own management. EPA officials also forged some of his time cards, and then accused him of misusing his official time.

    http://sonic.net/kryptox/politics/carton.htm

    1. tobey100 profile image59
      tobey100posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You've only scratched the surface Bytes.  Great post!!!

  7. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I think the better reason for protecting streams is that it leads to better fishing.  You get better spawning with overhanging foliage and cooler, cleaner water. I find it weird that the first thing cows do in water is pee.

  8. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Everyone gets one free poisoning?

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So someone will be poisoned no matter what? On a piece of property where he has established the creek begins and ends there and goes nowhere else?

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Nowhere else!
        You sure about that?

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Are you?
          A bureaucrat  drives by a farm and sees cows grazing nearby and drinking from it and of course government intervention is imperative?

          I'm sorry but that's just from the realm of the dangerous.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well unless the creek is a closed circuit,constantly recycling the water, no,I'm not sure.

      2. tobey100 profile image59
        tobey100posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        JS, their talking about even though the fresh water creek runs into the ground it has to come out somewhere.  Yes indeed it does I'm sure.  It is also a proven geological fact that water is purified by traveling though the ground.  I promise, the first time someone (we have no neighbors within 12 miles) calls me to say my cows made them sick, I'll eat the dang things.

  9. junko profile image78
    junkoposted 5 years ago

    They would have to tell me and give me papers that explain in detail way after all these years my cows can't drinked from the creek. Than I would if I could or should get angry and fight for my right. Local, county, city, town, parish,state, and federal Governments some times over reach.

    1. tobey100 profile image59
      tobey100posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You read my mind Junko.  My intent exactly.  If they can prove it, key word being prove.  Not perhaps.  Not maybe.  Not might somewhere down the line.  A radioactive meteor might hit my barn tomorrow and contaminate this entire portion of the county but I'm not selling and moving.

  10. ngureco profile image83
    ngurecoposted 5 years ago

    Water, including rain water, is not subject to absolute ownership.

    You may end up paying a small tax so that your cows can continue drinking water from that creek.

  11. lovemychris profile image63
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I say "enough" at telling women what they MUST do with their bodies!

    Anytime an R complains about his/her freedom being trampled on, gvt telling him/her what to do....blahdy blahdy blah....it's all twaddle.

    What is more a personal liberty than your body?

    They lost me at hello.

    1. Bob Zermop profile image88
      Bob Zermopposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Um, I see very little connection here, besides the fact that liberty has to do with both. I'm for small gov everywhere, including both private property and abortion. Any contradiction there?

      1. lovemychris profile image63
        lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah---they're for THEIR liberty...they don't give a twaddle about mine!

        THAT is not liberty!!! That is faux liberty...liberty and justice for them.

        That's why their complaints fall on deaf ears. They only care when it affects them.

        Even the Pharisees do that. Be they perfect, like their Father.

  12. Bob Zermop profile image88
    Bob Zermopposted 5 years ago

    I agree with some previous posts that because the creek might flow onto other people's land, private property laws should allow for some regulation. But in the bigger picture, I'm completely agreed that the gov is overreaching on far too many levels. Liberty is always going to have to be fought for; there's always going to be some well-meaning Stalins and Maos out there.

  13. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I still wanna know if Miss EPA talked directly to your cows and what they said back.
    Cows are notorious for not understanding language above 9th grade level.
    smile

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Correction:  "EPA chick"

      Miss EPA is wa-a-a-a-y too formal.

  14. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    This story is totally believable....

 
working