paul wheaton wrote:
I suppose one could be concerned with animal poop in the water. First, my impression is that the danger of pathogens with animal manure is greatly less than with people poop. Is that accurate? Next, are there not paths where this can be mitigated? Plus, if we keep our animals from eating that feed, and thus, they don't poop in the water, doesn't that just leave more for wildlife that eats the same feed and then poops in the same water?
And one could be concerned with waters edge being destroyed by excessive animal traffic. I would think there are ways to mitigate that too.
There must be a great deal that I currently do not yet understand. What am I not seeing?
How about we set some of our greed aside and use some common sense?
"If I have land with a river running through it, I want to use that river!"
I think that comment gets you a D on your permie scorecard. If you have land with a river running through it, you have a responsibility to that land and to that river.
"And, further, things can be done to clean the water as it passes."
I can't believe you even said that.
Wild animals passing through don't usually do an incredible amount of damage. Penned animals do.
As far as I'm concerned, Sepp Holzer is not God.
Also, the attitude that if you own land alongside a river you should be able to use it for your special purposes is simply rationalizing your particular form of destruction.
Riparian areas are intensely fragile ecosystems. If you could find any that aren't damaged (HA!), you would probably find that they have been left alone (probably totally inaccessible, about the only way to avoid Man's rampant destruction). No camping, no boat ramps, no reconstruction, no renovating an area to encourage sport fish, no tilling, no plant harvesting, no logging, no livestock.
Just leave it alone!
paul wheaton wrote:
there are folks that are making laws saying that land owners are not allowed to use land classified as "riparian". Why?
rose macaskie wrote:
Leah Sattler the world is full of factory farms backed up by enormous multinationals that really and truly overburden the system with rubbish. Are you one of their followers discrediting a person who tries for cleaner methods?
You are getting cross with a fervent admirer of permaculture, that is of sustainable farming and one of the tenets of this type of farming is not having more rubbish than you can deal with, the right amount of manure, it is all about responsable treatment of the land ain't you wasting your energy attacking someone who was unlikely to have more pigs than the place could sustain cleanly, you did not even ask Paul Wheaton how many pigs he meant to put by his river or at any rate didn ot get a reply before getting on a moral high horse about animals by rivers.