- Thread starter Rkh
- Start date
The so-called ban is all that new. They just keep limiting the amount of emissions allowed from anything sold new and called a "wood stove." They first did this years ago but a higher amount of emissions were allowed. When they did it - anything sold as a "wood stove" had to be tested and certified by the EPA. One work-around was and still is - just buy a used wood-stove. Another work-around was to buy something sold as a "wood furnace" instead. Seems now even "wood furnaces" must be EPA certified. So now the price will go up even further for those that insist on only buying new.
I find it absurd that I can cut firewood from my woods - and be driving home with it and be arrested or ticketed if I don't have paperwork showing its origin. That's in good-old New York state. Nobody can cross a public highway with firewood unless there's paperwork to show where it came from.
I find it absurd that I can cut firewood from my woods - and be driving home with it and be arrested or ticketed if I don't have paperwork showing its origin. That's in good-old New York state. Nobody can cross a public highway with firewood unless there's paperwork to show where it came from.
I think the "ban" is on anything sold as new has to meet new EPA particulate requirements.
To outright ban burning of wood in stoves is beyond stupid, think of the millions of people in the USA north of the Mason/Dixon line that burn wood 4 months out of the year. The newer stoves give off very little smoke, I had one a few years back, almost no odor.
Besides, it would be real tough to go all over the place and "find" everyone that had a stove that did not meet the EPA's requirements. Come and get me..........oops, Mr. EPA guy fell face first on the concrete side walk....Twice.
To outright ban burning of wood in stoves is beyond stupid, think of the millions of people in the USA north of the Mason/Dixon line that burn wood 4 months out of the year. The newer stoves give off very little smoke, I had one a few years back, almost no odor.
Besides, it would be real tough to go all over the place and "find" everyone that had a stove that did not meet the EPA's requirements. Come and get me..........oops, Mr. EPA guy fell face first on the concrete side walk....Twice.
And the paperwork NYS requires is a statement written on the back of an envelope such as: I JD Maris attest that this wood was grown and processed in the town of xxx. Not a terribly cumbersome requirement in my mind.
Bans on moving firewoods are present in many states as an attempt to slow the spread of the Emerald Ash borer and other invasive species.
Bans on moving firewoods are present in many states as an attempt to slow the spread of the Emerald Ash borer and other invasive species.
I read that article on several different news sources to include "Faux". The articles, [b:f01e0bb6fb]all of them[/b:f01e0bb6fb], explained what the EPA wants to do. And if you watch the EPA track record it is in fact the opening move in trying to ban them. Or don't you think the EAP long standing assault on coal and diesel didn't start the same?
Rick
Geo-TH,In
Well-known Member
Recently our local news reported on a man who lived next to a smoking chimney. This man was on oxygen. He put plastic over his windows to keep the smoke out. The man has COPD. News reported there wasn't a thing the man could do about the air pollution, except to move.
COPD kills over 120,000 Americans annually—the equivalent of one death every four minutes.
Perhaps you would think differently if you had COPD.
COPD kills over 120,000 Americans annually—the equivalent of one death every four minutes.
Perhaps you would think differently if you had COPD.
farmerwithmutt
Well-known Member
In a way some of this is bieng done by the insurance companys try and put in a non approved wood stove i have an amish wood stove if the insurance company checks i might be in trouble they dont worry about epa polution etc
Who said anything about Emerald Ash Borers? I
mentioned cutting wood from my woods and driving
1000 feet down the road to my barn - in central New
York. No Ash Borers there yet. Where I am right
now in northern Michigan they are all over the
place. Every ash tree I own is dead or dying from
them.
mentioned cutting wood from my woods and driving
1000 feet down the road to my barn - in central New
York. No Ash Borers there yet. Where I am right
now in northern Michigan they are all over the
place. Every ash tree I own is dead or dying from
them.
Yes and it's more-or-less "closing the barn door after the horse gets out." Last I read the Emerald Ash Borers were shipped to NY from Michigan years ago by a nursery stock dealer. I'm all for trying to prevent such invasions but it's too little too late. Just one more insipid regulation to deal with. It's very easy to write out a form and fill it full of fiction (it proves nothing and certainly not "origin").
Last year when I was cutting a bunch of dead white birches down in Indian Lake NY (central Adirondacks). A bunch of campers came by asking if they could buy wood. I told them they could take all they wanted for free. Then they asked for a "certificate of origin" and I couldn't help them. No electricity, no computer, no printer, no forms. So they were afraid to take it to their camp a 1/4 mile down the road. Instead they went to a local Stewarts Shop and bought a bunch of plastic-wrapped firewood bundles for a high price. Seems a little absurd to me but I don't have an answer to all the water and forest invasions and infestations.
Here in Michigan I own forest on both sides of the big Mac Bridge that New Yorkers built. I can't legally bring any wood back and forth. No "permits." That would of made sense years back before the invasion of the Ash Borers. Now they are all over the place on both sides of the Mac Bridge. What difference does it make now?
Last year when I was cutting a bunch of dead white birches down in Indian Lake NY (central Adirondacks). A bunch of campers came by asking if they could buy wood. I told them they could take all they wanted for free. Then they asked for a "certificate of origin" and I couldn't help them. No electricity, no computer, no printer, no forms. So they were afraid to take it to their camp a 1/4 mile down the road. Instead they went to a local Stewarts Shop and bought a bunch of plastic-wrapped firewood bundles for a high price. Seems a little absurd to me but I don't have an answer to all the water and forest invasions and infestations.
Here in Michigan I own forest on both sides of the big Mac Bridge that New Yorkers built. I can't legally bring any wood back and forth. No "permits." That would of made sense years back before the invasion of the Ash Borers. Now they are all over the place on both sides of the Mac Bridge. What difference does it make now?
Dave H (MI)
Well-known Member
George, this is an interesting comment. I often wonder as I drive about in winter at how the smoke from all these wood and corn burners is handled by neighbors. I've got a 250 watt guitar amp that can be heard over a mile and if I played that loud the cops would be around sooner than later. But you can send a stream of smoke around your neighbors house 24/7 and that works for everybody? Except the poor guy who happens to be down wind? There is no way to keep smoke completely out of your house in those circumstances. Health risk and damaging to property. Always made me curious how they get away with it.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Yup, the EPA and DEC have had wood stoves in their sights for several years now.And anyone who thinks the ultimate goal isn't an outright ban of woodburning implements isn't paying attention. And to those of you who think the idea of banning wood furnaces is ludicris, since when has the EPA or DEC ever gave a rats butt about anything making sense or being citizen friendly?
They passed an ordinance here in Montcalm County to address that. You're SUPPOSED to have a minimum height on chimneys for wood burners,even outdoor burners. It resulted from somebody in town complaining about a short stack on his neighbor's outdoor wood stove.
I don't know that it's regularly enforced,but it gives them the authority to do something if there's a complaint.
I don't know that it's regularly enforced,but it gives them the authority to do something if there's a complaint.
I saw the report on Fox News. I also read the text. 100% accurate. Fox clearly stated "Wood stoves already installed or for sale are not affected by the regulations, the EPA announced Friday."
Besides Fox News - here's the info directly from the EPA . . .
EPA: On January 3, 2014, EPA proposed revisions to the residential wood heater new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The draft revisions apply to new heaters ONLY and do not apply to existing wood stoves and other wood heaters installed in peoples’ homes
What types of wood heaters are covered under the current rule?
The current rules, issued by EPA in 1988, only apply to new catalytic and non-catalytic wood stoves and wood stove inserts. Any wood stove or wood stove insert built after 1988 must meet EPA's mandatory smoke emission limit of 7.5 grams of smoke per hour (g/h) for non-catalytic stoves and 4.1 g/h for catalytic stoves.
Which wood heaters are covered by the proposed rule?
The proposed updates would strengthen the emissions standards for new wood stoves, while establishing federal air standards for other new wood heaters, including outdoor and indoor wood-fired boilers (also known as hydronic heaters).
The proposed standards also would set particulate matter (PM) emission limits for newly manufactured adjustable-rate woodstoves, pellet stoves, wood-fired hydronic heaters, forced-air furnaces, masonry wood heaters, and a type of previously unregulated woodstove known as a “single burn rate” stove.
Are all wood heaters covered by this proposed rule?
The proposed rule would not affect existing woodstoves and other wood-burning heaters currently in use in people’s homes. EPA has a number of tools available to help local governments address existing heaters, including “Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke.” Issued by EPA’s Burn Wise program, this comprehensive document covers local regulations, voluntary programs, funding mechanisms and best burn practices - all of which can help reduce particle pollution from existing wood-burning appliances.
The proposal also would not apply to new or existing heaters that are fueled solely by oil, gas or coal, and it would not apply to outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, pizza ovens or chimineas.
Besides Fox News - here's the info directly from the EPA . . .
EPA: On January 3, 2014, EPA proposed revisions to the residential wood heater new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The draft revisions apply to new heaters ONLY and do not apply to existing wood stoves and other wood heaters installed in peoples’ homes
What types of wood heaters are covered under the current rule?
The current rules, issued by EPA in 1988, only apply to new catalytic and non-catalytic wood stoves and wood stove inserts. Any wood stove or wood stove insert built after 1988 must meet EPA's mandatory smoke emission limit of 7.5 grams of smoke per hour (g/h) for non-catalytic stoves and 4.1 g/h for catalytic stoves.
Which wood heaters are covered by the proposed rule?
The proposed updates would strengthen the emissions standards for new wood stoves, while establishing federal air standards for other new wood heaters, including outdoor and indoor wood-fired boilers (also known as hydronic heaters).
The proposed standards also would set particulate matter (PM) emission limits for newly manufactured adjustable-rate woodstoves, pellet stoves, wood-fired hydronic heaters, forced-air furnaces, masonry wood heaters, and a type of previously unregulated woodstove known as a “single burn rate” stove.
Are all wood heaters covered by this proposed rule?
The proposed rule would not affect existing woodstoves and other wood-burning heaters currently in use in people’s homes. EPA has a number of tools available to help local governments address existing heaters, including “Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke.” Issued by EPA’s Burn Wise program, this comprehensive document covers local regulations, voluntary programs, funding mechanisms and best burn practices - all of which can help reduce particle pollution from existing wood-burning appliances.
The proposal also would not apply to new or existing heaters that are fueled solely by oil, gas or coal, and it would not apply to outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, pizza ovens or chimineas.
TomH in PA
Well-known Member
Perhaps you should actually read the report before commenting on it. Otherwise you might end up looking a bit foolish
EPA proposes restrictions for new wood stoves
EPA proposes restrictions for new wood stoves
I hate Government regulations created by the CITY idiots that are elected.
I also hate being in town right next to a wood burning SMOKE generator called a wood stove. My wife has breathing issues. We can't visit a very good friend ,that lives in town, during any cold weather. He has neighbors on both sides that have outside wood stoves with very short smoke stacks. When they first fire them it looks like a steam engine running at full power. Even inside his house you about gag on the smoke fumes. HE has tried all the legal actions he can and nothing has gotten any better. HE is thinking about suing them both for loss of property valve because of their smoke.
I burnt wood on the farm for years. Not an issue because the stove was over a mile from any other home. Also I had a full height chimney.
Switched to a corn stove 10 years ago or so. There is almost zero smoke out of the stack on it. A much cleaner burning unit.
Also a former customer has a newer outside wood stove. It has the filter/converter in the stack. He burns much less wood than the old style units. I think the converter makes it more efficient.
I don't have the answer but with todays lack of caring for your neighbor there needs to be something done to control the smoke. I know that any smoke is a health hazard. Wood smoke would be lower than some other things but it is not good long term either.
I see wood stoves getting attacked in several ways:
1) Insurance companies. If I ran one I would have a blanket ban on any inside wood stove, for coverage. They DO raise the risk of fire.
2) Neighbors are going to sue claiming health hazards. Even if the suit is not won the cost of defending from it will be a burden.
3) Many towns and counties are including wood stoves in their zoning rules. Many just about make it impossible to have a new one installed.
If your in the country and are not close to anyone then they are fine. In towns or even where there are close neighbors I see the need for common sense and courtesy but both of those are getting to be rare now.
I also hate being in town right next to a wood burning SMOKE generator called a wood stove. My wife has breathing issues. We can't visit a very good friend ,that lives in town, during any cold weather. He has neighbors on both sides that have outside wood stoves with very short smoke stacks. When they first fire them it looks like a steam engine running at full power. Even inside his house you about gag on the smoke fumes. HE has tried all the legal actions he can and nothing has gotten any better. HE is thinking about suing them both for loss of property valve because of their smoke.
I burnt wood on the farm for years. Not an issue because the stove was over a mile from any other home. Also I had a full height chimney.
Switched to a corn stove 10 years ago or so. There is almost zero smoke out of the stack on it. A much cleaner burning unit.
Also a former customer has a newer outside wood stove. It has the filter/converter in the stack. He burns much less wood than the old style units. I think the converter makes it more efficient.
I don't have the answer but with todays lack of caring for your neighbor there needs to be something done to control the smoke. I know that any smoke is a health hazard. Wood smoke would be lower than some other things but it is not good long term either.
I see wood stoves getting attacked in several ways:
1) Insurance companies. If I ran one I would have a blanket ban on any inside wood stove, for coverage. They DO raise the risk of fire.
2) Neighbors are going to sue claiming health hazards. Even if the suit is not won the cost of defending from it will be a burden.
3) Many towns and counties are including wood stoves in their zoning rules. Many just about make it impossible to have a new one installed.
If your in the country and are not close to anyone then they are fine. In towns or even where there are close neighbors I see the need for common sense and courtesy but both of those are getting to be rare now.
Mark - IN.
Well-known Member
There is a lot of shadow government stuff taking over the U.S. What I'm referring to, is "appointed", "non-elected" cabinet and administration members legislating from their offices between them, their staff members, and the special interest groups buying them dinners and gifts, and not from the floors by vote through our third branch of government, the legislature that our constitution mandates...and getting away with it. This is another perfect example of just that. Another one just happened last week at some trucking plant where, "...and that's why I instructed the EPA to increase the CAFE standards on...". There are a million such examples. Good for me that I'm on the backside of my life and will be gone before they completely get away with overthrowing our constitution, and most unfortunate for the young folks being born today and in the future that never experienced an America that was once land of the free, and home of the brave. But then again, a lot of the youngsters of today have voted for, and will continue to vote for the people that bring, allow, encourage these shadow government actions, because they figure its a good trade off so long as they get free to them, life time supplies of cheetos, flat screen TVs, iPad and Iphone Ver. 200,000,000.
There's an old saying, "...make your bed, and you WILL sleep in...". Another one, "...allow them to run over you, and they will keep...".
Seems that the ONLY folks that don't have a pen and a telephone are We The People that actually DO own this country that ARE the employers of the very yayhoos...
Mark
There's an old saying, "...make your bed, and you WILL sleep in...". Another one, "...allow them to run over you, and they will keep...".
Seems that the ONLY folks that don't have a pen and a telephone are We The People that actually DO own this country that ARE the employers of the very yayhoos...
Mark
I don't care for some of the things politicians come up with just as much as the next guy, then again, like JD seller, I don't appreciate someone smoking out the neighborhood either.
It just seems per the complexities of the human race, some people just don't seem to either care or comprehend the efficient and correct use of a wood stove, in addition to being inconsiderate to others by virtue of what they do.
Its been discussed here, the use of wood burning stoves and other equipment many times. Lots of variables.
Common sense should dictate, well seasoned firewood, suitable for burning, with proper combustion, not choked off, or using green, wet or otherwise unsuitable wood fuel. Full height chimney is a must, even then smoke can drift back down.
Start up does not need to be done with heaps of trash or papers, or anything that sends thick plumes of un combusted gases out the stack, you build a fire just like a camp fire, small tinder, ascending up to kindling, and you as the end user knows, you need enough of these materials to last a season. When its warmer out, I have to cold start more often, but am cognizant of how I do it so the initial start up smoke is minimized, the stack runs clear with a very light amount of soot if I use pine kindling, or a slight hue of blue, with dry wood that fire will take off and I check the stack every time. It gets better with modern equipment, but with a conventional stove, set up correctly, there is no need for smoldering nuisance smoke at all. My father is thick headed, nice air tight stove, several year seasoned wood and he would choke off the oxygen so much it would smolder white smoke, fill the yard, get into the one barn. Hate to say it, but its people that do these things that cause problems. He has or had COPD too, much better now, but asthma and other respiratory issues were chronic. Ironic and hypocritical for sure, maybe he's changed, but while I worked at the place, I wanted to cap off that darned chimney. I spent a winter using that stove and that super dry wood, clear stack all the time, really easy start up and dial back the combustion air to get a long clean burn was no issue, too much and it smokes, there is an optimum range, and you do have to maintain a certain flue temperature, its that simple. Some people just do not get it, have a lot of neighbors, this is a real problem, common sense, not regulation is what is needed, just that some people don't have a lick of common sense.
It just seems per the complexities of the human race, some people just don't seem to either care or comprehend the efficient and correct use of a wood stove, in addition to being inconsiderate to others by virtue of what they do.
Its been discussed here, the use of wood burning stoves and other equipment many times. Lots of variables.
Common sense should dictate, well seasoned firewood, suitable for burning, with proper combustion, not choked off, or using green, wet or otherwise unsuitable wood fuel. Full height chimney is a must, even then smoke can drift back down.
Start up does not need to be done with heaps of trash or papers, or anything that sends thick plumes of un combusted gases out the stack, you build a fire just like a camp fire, small tinder, ascending up to kindling, and you as the end user knows, you need enough of these materials to last a season. When its warmer out, I have to cold start more often, but am cognizant of how I do it so the initial start up smoke is minimized, the stack runs clear with a very light amount of soot if I use pine kindling, or a slight hue of blue, with dry wood that fire will take off and I check the stack every time. It gets better with modern equipment, but with a conventional stove, set up correctly, there is no need for smoldering nuisance smoke at all. My father is thick headed, nice air tight stove, several year seasoned wood and he would choke off the oxygen so much it would smolder white smoke, fill the yard, get into the one barn. Hate to say it, but its people that do these things that cause problems. He has or had COPD too, much better now, but asthma and other respiratory issues were chronic. Ironic and hypocritical for sure, maybe he's changed, but while I worked at the place, I wanted to cap off that darned chimney. I spent a winter using that stove and that super dry wood, clear stack all the time, really easy start up and dial back the combustion air to get a long clean burn was no issue, too much and it smokes, there is an optimum range, and you do have to maintain a certain flue temperature, its that simple. Some people just do not get it, have a lot of neighbors, this is a real problem, common sense, not regulation is what is needed, just that some people don't have a lick of common sense.
Dennis (VA)
Member
You may want to venture to Salt Lake City, Utah to see why the EPA, under the approval of Congress who with Nixon wrote and passed the law establishing the EPA and monitors its actions, wants to regulated Wood Stoves. Salt Lake looks like Beijing and the population is suffering from a variety of respiratory aliments. Result, a number of companies who were considering locating there are reconsidering.
In may own area,Clean Coal Ash from Duke Energy is poisoning the Dan River and will eventually poison the drinking water for Norfolk area. The tree huggers in North Carolina wanted sue Duke Energy but the elected officials intervened and fined Duke $99K, which surely didn't cause Duke to solve the leaking of the ash ponds before they failed and dumped tons of ash and still are.
Oh, our/trusted elected officials received hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions including the T.P. Governor, $249K were of course not affected by by the bribes, sorry contributions.
It's ashamed our great grandfathers aren't around to tell you the story of the Granger movement which they formed to seek Government protection and regulation of the railroads to protect them, farmers, from the money grabbing railroads who were being,robbed by shipping rates. I guess Fox, would have called the railroads, Transportation Friends and our great grandfathers, hoe huggers.
In may own area,Clean Coal Ash from Duke Energy is poisoning the Dan River and will eventually poison the drinking water for Norfolk area. The tree huggers in North Carolina wanted sue Duke Energy but the elected officials intervened and fined Duke $99K, which surely didn't cause Duke to solve the leaking of the ash ponds before they failed and dumped tons of ash and still are.
Oh, our/trusted elected officials received hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions including the T.P. Governor, $249K were of course not affected by by the bribes, sorry contributions.
It's ashamed our great grandfathers aren't around to tell you the story of the Granger movement which they formed to seek Government protection and regulation of the railroads to protect them, farmers, from the money grabbing railroads who were being,robbed by shipping rates. I guess Fox, would have called the railroads, Transportation Friends and our great grandfathers, hoe huggers.
And if some of you guys would pay attention the EPA still has ANY internal combustion engine in it's sights. They would like to see everything electric in the long run.
On their agenda is the complete shut down of burning fossil fuels. The problem there is how to generate enough electricity. Nuke power plants are just too expensive. Wind and solar isn't producing nearly enough to be anything more than supplemental power. So they are still looking for solutions. The EPA isn't looking for compromises. It's their way or the highway.
Some potential solutions that have been floated in/at the EPA is making the entire US population move to TX leaving the rest of the US to go back to nature (claiming that we all could live there, use mass transit and almost no fuel for heating).Elimination of some human life to control population and reduce the human foot print (got that directly from a retired US EPA worker). Forcing people to buy only certain vehicles (saw that under Clinton when his administration looked at trying to pass a law restricting the sale of SUV's and trucks to only those who could prove a need).
They need to change the law so that all EPA and OSHA regs have to be passed into law like any other law.
Now don't take this the wrong way. I do believe we have to take care of the environment but we also have to live.
Rick
On their agenda is the complete shut down of burning fossil fuels. The problem there is how to generate enough electricity. Nuke power plants are just too expensive. Wind and solar isn't producing nearly enough to be anything more than supplemental power. So they are still looking for solutions. The EPA isn't looking for compromises. It's their way or the highway.
Some potential solutions that have been floated in/at the EPA is making the entire US population move to TX leaving the rest of the US to go back to nature (claiming that we all could live there, use mass transit and almost no fuel for heating).Elimination of some human life to control population and reduce the human foot print (got that directly from a retired US EPA worker). Forcing people to buy only certain vehicles (saw that under Clinton when his administration looked at trying to pass a law restricting the sale of SUV's and trucks to only those who could prove a need).
They need to change the law so that all EPA and OSHA regs have to be passed into law like any other law.
Now don't take this the wrong way. I do believe we have to take care of the environment but we also have to live.
Rick
Iowa Barber
Member
Rick, what you say makes a lot of sense. I'm going to call my senator and see what he what he thinks and can do about it. It might be time for all to do that. Thanks Brian
old
Well-known Member
- Location
- Camdenton Missouri
Face it the EPA is just another part of the gov intent on taking our freedoms away from use one at a time.
Data to support what?
That the EPA has stated more than once that they want to do away with IC engine? They has stated that more than one.
The EPA was recently quoted in the news as saying they are going to make it so expensive to burn coal for electricity that it will force going to natural gas. That they are against drilling for gas and oil? Now add 2+2???? That wind and solar are only reasonably good for supplemental power? that too can be looked up. For a city the size of Fargo ND (not very big) it would require a wind farm covering 40 square miles. Start looking at the size of NYC and how many square miles that would take. Same thing with solar. You are talking many square miles to power anything. As far as moving everyone to TX IIRC even Al Gore was part of that idea.
I can go on. But except for the rant about eliminating human life I listened to while repaired the retired EPA guys computer everything else can be researched on your computer. When I told him well when they start that you should be first in line he told me "OH no, you have to have people like me around to make sure it happens".
Rick
Yes, right. And even though other news sources have reported the exact same thing, because it's Fox it can't possibly be accurate. We instead should go to truly trustworthy sources like MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Comedy Channel, HuffPo, etc. right? Or we can just ask the gov't because we all know they'd NEVER lie!
Gosh, the ignorance displayed these days is amazing.
fixerupper
Well-known Member
If the city folks who burn wood would look at the actual cost of cutting, splitting and hauling that wood into town they would give it up and burn nat gas instead. Those who can burn wood cheaper than gas live in rural areas separated from the neighbors far enough to not be obnoxious to them. My dad grew up in a small town of around 600 people from 1924 till 1948 . He said on some winter mornings with low air pressure the town would be covered with a smoky haze from the coal and wood burning furnaces being fired up when people got out of bed. Jim
730 virgil
Well-known Member
- Location
- IL Wis state line near Monroe Wi
i think i'm right on this correct if i'm wrong.
that GREAT abundant LBJ (lyndon johnson) created the epa with an executive order. another exceutive order gone nutso.
does that give anyone any second thoughts about the nut job in white house now.
that GREAT abundant LBJ (lyndon johnson) created the epa with an executive order. another exceutive order gone nutso.
does that give anyone any second thoughts about the nut job in white house now.
What is to prevent a guy.........Like me from welding up some steel plate to make a wood stove.
You see.......Now you have ban the act of welding, then maybe ban chainsaws too cause they fuel the fire for the wood stove. If someone wants a wood stove bad enough they will either make one or buy one.
You see.......Now you have ban the act of welding, then maybe ban chainsaws too cause they fuel the fire for the wood stove. If someone wants a wood stove bad enough they will either make one or buy one.
Russ from MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- Bemidji MN
Sure you can weld something up, but try to legally get insurance on the building it goes in!
Part Time Pete
Well-known Member
- Location
- Leatherstocking Region NY
There are two things any government wants from their constituents
1. Their money
2. Their independence
Burning wood represents both of these - it's a fuel they can't tax, and a fuel you can grow yourself
1. Their money
2. Their independence
Burning wood represents both of these - it's a fuel they can't tax, and a fuel you can grow yourself
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I'll know that the ban is coming, when zero says If you like your woodstove, you can keep your woodstove!
Ted in NE-OH
Well-known Member
There is a case coming before the Supreme Court to see What the limit of power is for the EPA . Will be interesting.
Well, if people in Utah are getting smoked out, let the people in Utah regulate wood stoves!
Why would we need the federal government decide that I can"t burn wood in massachusetts because there are people in Utah with respiratory problems!!!!!
THAT is the issue here. Let the states do what the states are supposed to do - take care of their own.
Get the FEDERAL government OUT of our faces.
There aren't many issues in our lives that have a one size fists all solution.
Why would we need the federal government decide that I can"t burn wood in massachusetts because there are people in Utah with respiratory problems!!!!!
THAT is the issue here. Let the states do what the states are supposed to do - take care of their own.
Get the FEDERAL government OUT of our faces.
There aren't many issues in our lives that have a one size fists all solution.
"Thou shalt not burn" is one of the commandments of the EPA. In a decade or so it will be pointless to strike a match as there will be nothing left to legally ignite. What was once a well-meaning agency with set goals and standards that were common sense to the masses has become a extremist group financed by our tax dollars.
More fun from the EPA is yet to come. It will really awaken people if/when the EPA gets their way on declaring what are "navigable waterways".
I highly encourage anyone to do a search for "Mike and Chantell Sackett" to see the hel! the EPA can and does put people through over nothing, and to get a good idea of how EPA procedure works.
I wish I could find the clip of an EPA higher-up behind a podium where he says something like (and I'm paraphrasing the best my memory will allow) ....."Back when invaders conquered a civilization, the victors went in and killed a group of citizens in front of the others. That showed those who remained who was in charge. Those left fell in line immediately. Making public examples of some will show our power and authority to the rest." It was on youtube, but I can't find it now.
AG
More fun from the EPA is yet to come. It will really awaken people if/when the EPA gets their way on declaring what are "navigable waterways".
I highly encourage anyone to do a search for "Mike and Chantell Sackett" to see the hel! the EPA can and does put people through over nothing, and to get a good idea of how EPA procedure works.
I wish I could find the clip of an EPA higher-up behind a podium where he says something like (and I'm paraphrasing the best my memory will allow) ....."Back when invaders conquered a civilization, the victors went in and killed a group of citizens in front of the others. That showed those who remained who was in charge. Those left fell in line immediately. Making public examples of some will show our power and authority to the rest." It was on youtube, but I can't find it now.
AG
Jim Phelps
Member
EPA gets its power and direction from the Executive office, flood external_link's office with mail and such maybe he will get the message.
Dan T in MO
Member
EPA began under Nixon
Iowa Barber
Member
Did Nixon have the line-item veto power? I don't know,do you? abundant control of houses?
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy