Shout Box

Who's Online
2 registered (Lucander, TerrieM), 7 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#65163 - 06/02/12 04:35 PM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: retroscree]
Advocacy group Offline
addict

Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 653
Loc: New Paltz,Marbletown,Gardiner,...
Originally Posted By: retroscree
Originally Posted By: Mark Heyman
Advocacy group: Many of us are we are interested in the area, but it's your fight, not ours. So, while we are willing to disagree with your propaganda, we aren't willing to put a lot of work into it.

Careful. Now the crazy man of Canaan Road will just accuse you of having multiple personality disorder or using the regal "we" and your statements will be ignored.



Still angry eh RetroMarcC? ROFL. So as you sit there about to blow a fuse please remind everyone what your stake in all of this is as you type from Sandy Utah?
_________________________
The MPNA is an advocacy group for adjacent neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve. In the event of a dispute with the Mohonk Preserve, we can offer assistance in obtaining experts in the following areas; Surveying, Lawyers, Title, expert witnesses, ancient document research, and Maps.

Top
#65164 - 06/02/12 04:36 PM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: Advocacy group]
Rickster Offline
old hand

Registered: 10/16/07
Posts: 815
Loc: Orange Cty, NY
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group

All of their literature says that fire is a natural part of the northeast forest ecosystem which is simply not true.
Thanks, MPNA


Do you have any citations or even web links to support this claim? You have repeatedly asked when the last "natural fire" occurred in the Gunks. Have you actually tried to search for an answer? A dated citation from a recognized source might further prove your case, but you have not yet cited same. Not offering any other further support only weakens your argument that their claim is not true.

Top
#65165 - 06/02/12 04:41 PM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: Rickster]
Advocacy group Offline
addict

Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 653
Loc: New Paltz,Marbletown,Gardiner,...
Originally Posted By: Rickster
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group

All of their literature says that fire is a natural part of the northeast forest ecosystem which is simply not true.
Thanks, MPNA


Do you have any citations or even web links to support this claim? You have repeatedly asked when the last "natural fire" occurred in the Gunks. Have you actually tried to search for an answer? A dated citation from a recognized source might further prove your case, but you have not yet cited same. Not offering any other further support only weakens your argument that their claim is not true.







Try reading your own links jackass......
_________________________
The MPNA is an advocacy group for adjacent neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve. In the event of a dispute with the Mohonk Preserve, we can offer assistance in obtaining experts in the following areas; Surveying, Lawyers, Title, expert witnesses, ancient document research, and Maps.

Top
#65166 - 06/02/12 05:00 PM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: Advocacy group]
retroscree Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 06/29/11
Posts: 397
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
Try reading your own links jackass......

Cute. And he thinks I'm the one "about to blow a fuse", still confusing me with someone else.

Top
#65167 - 06/02/12 05:56 PM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: Advocacy group]
Rickster Offline
old hand

Registered: 10/16/07
Posts: 815
Loc: Orange Cty, NY
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group


Try reading your own links jackass......


Well, no need to begin name calling now is there MPNA?

I've posted 4 informative links during this "discussion".

In response to retroscree's request for relevant links, I posted three that may have been of interest. An article in The Times Herald Record newspaper, The Gunks Fire Plan and a youtube video of a recent controlled burn at the Mohonk Preserve. The 4th link was another THR article about the Overlook Fire.

None of which supports your argument.

The onus is still upon you to offer some form of support for your argument.

The name calling just reflects poorly on your own character.

Top
#65170 - 06/02/12 07:04 PM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: Rickster]
Mark Heyman Offline
old hand

Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 1123
Loc: South Jersey (Pinelands)
We should note that the mention of "natural" fires is irrelevant. The risk that home owners are exposed to is uncontrolled forest fire. It makes no difference whether a fire that burns their home was started naturally or unnaturally. It might well be that more fires are started by careless humans, but it simply doesn't make a difference in their overall risk.

Reducing the fuel load in a forest by prescribed burns in a forest can significantly reduces the overall risk, not increase it. Some home insurance companies offer discounts for meeting standard fire prevention guidelines which can include prescribed burns to this effect.

Top
#65179 - 06/02/12 11:58 PM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: Advocacy group]
cfrac Offline
addict

Registered: 04/26/08
Posts: 456
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group

Try reading your own links jackass......


The person who posts under the title Advocacy Group seems to have made the rights of private land owners the number one issue in their life and in doing so looks down upon all concepts of shared resources. When the Mohonk Preserve, an organization that shares its land, makes any decisions as to the use of its land the Advocacy Group person is upset, even if that action is one that would benefit that person's private land.

What is funny is that this Advocacy Group person continues to make their "private land" arguments to the visitors of Gunks.com, which in turn is a group of people that tend to be supportive of organizations that allow recreational pursuits to be enjoyed on their land. Then when someone contradicts them they react with antagonism as if they were expecting the audience, the group that overwhelmingly supports land preserves, to agree with them.

Top
#65180 - 06/03/12 01:31 AM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: cfrac]
Advocacy group Offline
addict

Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 653
Loc: New Paltz,Marbletown,Gardiner,...
Cfrac, the mohonk preserve is not the same as the landowners that own Lantern hill or Farley ledge and other private lands that are free and currently open to the public. We fully support Private landowners who allow access to their private property. We don't support many of the tactics that the Mohonk Preserve uses to acquire land. We are currently working on a tri state land access database that we think will be good for all landowners. It involves a partnership of land that is currently closed with land that is currently open and will be similar to Stopken.org except on a larger scale. The basic idea is that if you trespass on closed land you are then banned from all participating open lands as well. No one likes trespassers, even the Mohonk Preserve. As far as not liking anything about the Mohonk Preserve, nothing could be further from the truth. We look forward to the day when they can coexist in peace with all of their neighbors.

Thanks, MPNA
_________________________
The MPNA is an advocacy group for adjacent neighbors of the Mohonk Preserve. In the event of a dispute with the Mohonk Preserve, we can offer assistance in obtaining experts in the following areas; Surveying, Lawyers, Title, expert witnesses, ancient document research, and Maps.

Top
#65181 - 06/03/12 01:43 AM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: Advocacy group]
cfrac Offline
addict

Registered: 04/26/08
Posts: 456
Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
Cfrac, the mohonk preserve is not the same as the landowners that own Lantern hill or Farley ledge and other private lands that are free and currently open to the public. We fully support Private landowners who allow access to their private property. We don't support many of the tactics that the Mohonk Preserve uses to acquire land. We are currently working on a tri state land access database that we think will be good for all landowners. It involves a partnership of land that is currently closed with land that is currently open and will be similar to Stopken.org except on a larger scale. The basic idea is that if you trespass on closed land you are then banned from all participating open lands as well. No one likes trespassers, even the Mohonk Preserve. As far as not liking anything about the Mohonk Preserve, nothing could be further from the truth. We look forward to the day when they can coexist in peace with all of their neighbors.

Thanks, MPNA


Sounds like someone else is typing. Is that true?

"As far as not liking anything about the Mohonk Preserve, nothing could be further from the truth."

So your group is opposed to prescribed burns because they threaten adjacent land with fire?

Top
#65183 - 06/03/12 01:46 PM Re: Prescribed Burns [Re: cfrac]
Mark Heyman Offline
old hand

Registered: 12/23/99
Posts: 1123
Loc: South Jersey (Pinelands)
Originally Posted By: cfrac

The person who posts under the title Advocacy Group seems to have made the rights of private land owners the number one issue in their life and in doing so looks down upon all concepts of shared resources. When the Mohonk Preserve, an organization that shares its land, makes any decisions as to the use of its land the Advocacy Group person is upset, even if that action is one that would benefit that person's private land.

What is funny is that this Advocacy Group person continues to make their "private land" arguments to the visitors of Gunks.com, which in turn is a group of people that tend to be supportive of organizations that allow recreational pursuits to be enjoyed on their land. Then when someone contradicts them they react with antagonism as if they were expecting the audience, the group that overwhelmingly supports land preserves, to agree with them.

Well written cfrac.

Originally Posted By: Advocacy group
… We don't support many of the tactics that the Mohonk Preserve uses to acquire land. …


And if true, many of us, certainly me, wouldn't either!!!

But what you write is so sensationalized, one sided, and often incorrect, that I don't think many here take you seriously at all! The prescribed burn issue is a great example. Prescribed burns are generally accepted in the US, and are commonly used to reduce the risk of wild fires, yet you write as though they are increasing the risk to the Mohonks neighbors. When we see you insist on incorrect and sensationalized information, propaganda, we can't believe anything you write.


You might be publicizing an significant issue, but you are hurting your cause the way you have gone about it here

Top
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored