• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA Spying on Ranchers

hazlnut said:
These ranchers sound retarded.

Anything to bash the EPA. All the poor white trash will vote conservative until their kids are born with one eye because the Koch bros dumped crap into their water.

This country is doomed if regulators can't enforce rules.
Click to expand...

That almost sounds like you are insulting ranchers, calling them poor white trash. A large portion of my family, including my late grandfather are ranchers, and yes, are conservatives. They are good, pretty honest folk. They also know hard damn work doing simple things like putting up posts across many many acres for days on end from sunup to sundown.
My grandfather (a highly educated man, who was a veterinarian) , I do not know how he would react to this. My intuition is he may have been perfectly fine with a fly-over, because he was an impatient man and didn't like to be bothered when he felt like he didn't need to be.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree-
he said THESE ranchers not ALL ranchers. I am a rancher. I didn't think he was talking about all or us.
 
ksu_aviator said:
This could be an interesting battle. How high does law enforcement need to be when they fly over your property? 10,000 feet? 1000 feet? 1foot? Clearly, a line must be drawn.

In this case, I think it is very easy for the EPA to monitor the water supply and then get a warrant to search suspected lands via air. It seems to me that the over flights for the sake of over flights is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Simply monitoring water for pollution is ineffective. All it tells you is that a waterway is polluted, you don't typically get a source for it. For example, I live in the KC area. Probably half the rivers and fishable streams in Kansas have fish consumption advisories due to agricultural runoff. The issue is much worse on the Kansas side than on the Missouri side because in Missouri farmers are required to have much larger buffer zones around rivers and streams. The Kansas River is heavily polluted in its middle and lower reaches. How could you possibly determine a source for agriculture runoff pollution on it just from testing the water when you have hundreds (if not more) farms backing right up to the river on its entire length?

When you have a country that has 300 million people in it, lots of industry, and a lots of high intensity farming, you have to have strict environmental enforcement to mitigate pollution from all that industry and farming. As the population grows, environmental enforcement must grow along with it. For example, the pesticide chlordane was banned by the EPA in 1983. Its highly toxic to humans and animals and is tied to birth defects. Today, almost 30 years after Chlordane was banned, catfish caught from the Kansas River still are contaminated with Chlordane. Farming and ranching are some of the biggest sources of water pollution.
 
“Searching” for pollution infractions should be no different than “searching” for drugs, stolen property or any other suspected crime, you need a SEARCH warrant, or at least you should. The EPA seems to think it is above the constitution.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
“Searching” for pollution infractions should be no different than “searching” for drugs, stolen property or any other suspected crime, you need a SEARCH warrant, or at least you should. The EPA seems to think it is above the constitution.
Click to expand...
Even in the examples you cite they can "search" for anything without a warrant as long as they do so from public right-of-way, and do not enter the property itself. What's needed is for you to brush up on what is and is not Constitutional.
 
There is a principle called in plain sight.

A cop stops a car for speeding and while talking to the driver he spots a roach in the ashtray or a powder on the console. He doesn't need a warrant to seize the suspected drugs for evidence.

Answering a domestic and the cop sees a mirror on the table with white powder residue, again he doesn't need a warrant to seize the evidence.

A police helicopter doesn't need a warrant to spot pot fields out in the country.

A EPA plane doesn't need a warrant to over fly an illegal trash dump out in the country.

In plain sight...
 
radcen said:
Even in the examples you cite they can "search" for anything without a warrant as long as they do so from public right-of-way, and do not enter the property itself. What's needed is for you to brush up on what is and is not Constitutional.
Click to expand...

If a cop drives by and see’s pot growing in your yard it’s one thing, if he however goes around a neighborhood looking over fences actively seeking pot growers it’s a different thing altogether. That is what the EPA is doing by flying over ranches looking for pollution and the DEA does the same thing looking for pot. Both are out of control government agencies leading us down the road to tyranny.
 
So it is a height of driver's seat issue? Tall enough to see over a fence and good to go?

You really want to pick that nit?

Overflights have already been used for years, though some seem intent to claim surprise such things are done and others attempting to make it look like a peeper instead of professional doing a lawful function of the government.

Silly really....
 
notquiteright said:
So it is a height of driver's seat issue? Tall enough to see over a fence and good to go?

You really want to pick that nit?

Overflights have already been used for years, though some seem intent to claim surprise such things are done and others attempting to make it look like a peeper instead of professional doing a lawful function of the government.

Silly really....
Click to expand...

Freedom is taken away one little piece at a time. They get you used to something like flying over your prop without a warrent and soon they are looking in your windows.
 
awww the old slippery slope argument... I loved it most when used to fight commies in every sh*thole country around the world!

the problem with your 'argument' as weak as it is, hinges on something that belies part of it's name-

Common sense not being very common.

a man standing in the county road without my permission is a bit annoying under certain circumstances

a man standing in my house without my permission is a bit dead under most circumstances, a cop had better announce and have that warrant.

You seem to lack the ability to tell public use from private, the EPA agent can't come ON my property to peek INTO my window but can fly 500 feet over my land and see all he/she can as long as they DON't peek into my windows.

Your logic reminds me of the argument that a man's fingerprints are protected and can't be used against him in a court of law as they incriminate him and we are protected from self incrimination... :roll:
 
I am a HUGE slippery slope theorist, but there is no slope here on which to slip. The skies are public. Ger over it.
 
radcen said:
I am a HUGE slippery slope theorist, but there is no slope here on which to slip. The skies are public. Ger over it.
Click to expand...

At one time you actually did own the air space above your property until the advent of the plane then the law became obsolete. Planes had to be able to over fly private property to get from point A to point B. So far so good.

I have said before how DEA helicopters circle my house in late summer looking for a pot growing operation because I live in a remote area, have a big garden and a green house. They come in so close I can see their faces. Step 1 down the slippery slope, I assume you are OK with this.

Now the EPA is flying drones over ranches and using high power cameras to looking for pollution violations. You also seem OK with this. Step 2 down the slippery slope.

So now we have drones taking pictures of our private property. When they develop a small helicopter drone that can fly circles around your house taking pictures through your windows will you be OK with that too? Are the skis still public? Where does the sky begin and your right to privacy end?

Can you see the slippery slope yet?
 
Sawyer-
It is easy to imagine all manner of '1984' scenarios. I guess if you watch enough movies you can envision anything. But what makes me very dismissive of the slippery slope crowd is they rant a great deal but do little if anything about it. I suppose they figure the rest of society is like them, grumble but do nothing. I can see a face 500' away and that is by FAA regs. Did the helo come around daily? File a harassment complaint.

But as mentioned by others, there is no slippery slope, so get a grip.
 
notquiteright said:
Sawyer-
It is easy to imagine all manner of '1984' scenarios. I guess if you watch enough movies you can envision anything. But what makes me very dismissive of the slippery slope crowd is they rant a great deal but do little if anything about it. I suppose they figure the rest of society is like them, grumble but do nothing. I can see a face 500' away and that is by FAA regs. Did the helo come around daily? File a harassment complaint.

But as mentioned by others, there is no slippery slope, so get a grip.
Click to expand...

I described the slippery slope we have already slipped down, have some more coffee, wake up.
 
Sawyer-
ummmm no you didn't. You made up some stuff and declared it angled.

First of all no one ever owned the airspace over their land as private citizens. Do you have ANY documentation on that?

You then make some crazy jump from cops on public right of ways to them trespassing without a warrant to peek in on you.

You rant about seeing faces, did you see them everyday? Do you see them now? Just what slippery slope you having trouble with?
 
notquiteright said:
Yeah making sure ranches are not dumping manure slurry into streams is making them frog march!

Get over it, given the underfunding the 'I hate gov' politicians engage in just how does the EPA monitor pollution? Drive to every ranch/pig operation/chicken factory?

It's called using technology to reduce costs. The tin foil crowd is free to disagree. FYI- I don't have a problem with them over flying my ranch, why would you have a problem with them flying over yours?
Click to expand...

Billy the Kid said:
Well I'd agree, but did you see where they had a "warrant in hand" to do this? If not, then isn't this action unconstitutional?

I can see by you post it would be okay with you if they "monitored" your actions every now and again, without cause or warrant. But it wouldn't be okay in my book.


Just asking. :)
Click to expand...

:doh The government doesn't need a warrant to fly over U.S. air space. They don't even need a warrant to survey potential criminal activity. To put that notion into perspective, does a private dictative need a warrant to monitor the comings and goings of a suspected cheating spouse when hired by the husband or wife? I think not. So, why should the federal government have to have a warrant to monitor pig and/or chicken farmers and cattle rangers of suspected illegal dumping of animal waste in our drinking water?

Now, once the fed decides to narrow its surviellance to a specific target, that's a different story especially if they shift their monitoring activity from the air to the ground and federal agents decide to set foot on the suspect's land. But as long as all they're doing is monitoring activity and they have probably cause to do so much like your local police, no warrant is necessary.
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
Sawyer-
ummmm no you didn't. You made up some stuff and declared it angled.

First of all no one ever owned the airspace over their land as private citizens. Do you have ANY documentation on that?

You then make some crazy jump from cops on public right of ways to them trespassing without a warrant to peek in on you.

You rant about seeing faces, did you see them everyday? Do you see them now? Just what slippery slope you having trouble with?
Click to expand...

Unlimited air rights existed when people began owning real estate. It was not something that anyone really concerned themselves with before the 20th century. The first legal limits placed on air rights came about because of the airplane. Eventually, owners only had rights to airspace that they could reasonably use. It would be impractical for the development of air travel for individual landowners to own all the air above them, because airplanes would be constantly trespassing.

Air rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will accept your apology, I don't hold a grudge. :)
 
I fully agree that what the EPA is doing is legal. Anything that is out in the open is up for grabs...even if that something is in the middle of 500 acres.

But I am begining to have concerns. Technology is getting so advanced that I have no doubt that eventually there will be technology that can see every little detail inside a brick house with no windows from across the street. (or perhaps farther) So I think that we need to start asking ourselves where do we draw the line? When does all this technology that can be used without physically invading someones home become an invasion? When will we start requiring warrants for this technology to be used?

The Right to Privacy and the Right to a Search Warrant is quickly getting obsolete.
 
It is an interesting concept, but flawed. Perhaps that is why when a challenge became practicable the term disappeared not unlike a petty tyrant declaring himself Lord of all the earth, heavens and the seas....

until some bigger tyrant put his head on a pike. ;)

A man can declare any damn thing he can think of, enforcing that 'right' is the key point.

Was there ever a case where a man successfully sued another over that column of air up to Heaven back in the 1600's? Up above 500'.

More like as soon as there was a way to USE that column of air the landowner's 'claim' was meaningless.

Again, declare any fantasy you like, believe any fantasy you wish. You don't own what you don't control.

Doesn't matter how long ago the claim was made, it was meaningless then and meaningless now.

No slippery slope, just fantasy fading as it meets reality...

Divine right of kings
Spontaneous generation
Spanish claim to the entire New World
Ownership of everything below St. Peter's Gate

Good try though... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
It is an interesting concept, but flawed. Perhaps that is why when a challenge became practicable the term disappeared not unlike a petty tyrant declaring himself Lord of all the earth, heavens and the seas....

until some bigger tyrant put his head on a pike. ;)

A man can declare any damn thing he can think of, enforcing that 'right' is the key point.

Was there ever a case where a man successfully sued another over that column of air up to Heaven back in the 1600's? Up above 500'.

More like as soon as there was a way to USE that column of air the landowner's 'claim' was meaningless.

Again, declare any fantasy you like, believe any fantasy you wish. You don't own what you don't control.

Doesn't matter how long ago the claim was made, it was meaningless then and meaningless now.

No slippery slope, just fantasy fading as it meets reality...

Divine right of kings
Spontaneous generation
Spanish claim to the entire New World
Ownership of everything below St. Peter's Gate

Good try though... :peace
Click to expand...

You really need to work on your apology skills, they are somewhat weak.
 
Billy the Kid said:
EPA planes spying on ranchers? Lawmakers want answers - U.S. News

"A Nebraska cattlemen’s group is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to stop pollution-control flights over ranches, claiming it amounts to spying on citizens. EPA, meanwhile, says the flights are an effective way to quickly spot -- and stop -- pollution from manure lagoons and other waste at large livestock operations."


Ya just gotta love the gov't. I guess the EPA just wants to make sure all ranchers are walking in lockstep.


Wonder how they got a warrant to do this? Wonder who's next on the spy-in-the-sky's "lookie see" program? Maybe your backyard?
Click to expand...

It's because the GOP keeps giving out government contracts to defense companies to build drones for security so they can campaign on a law and order platform because they don't want to be seen as a bleeding heart liberal.
 
samsmart said:
It's because the GOP keeps giving out government contracts to defense companies to build drones for security so they can campaign on a law and order platform because they don't want to be seen as a bleeding heart liberal.
Click to expand...


Got a link? Thanks.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I fully agree that what the EPA is doing is legal. Anything that is out in the open is up for grabs...even if that something is in the middle of 500 acres.

But I am begining to have concerns. Technology is getting so advanced that I have no doubt that eventually there will be technology that can see every little detail inside a brick house with no windows from across the street. (or perhaps farther) So I think that we need to start asking ourselves where do we draw the line? When does all this technology that can be used without physically invading someones home become an invasion? When will we start requiring warrants for this technology to be used?

The Right to Privacy and the Right to a Search Warrant is quickly getting obsolete.
Click to expand...

I don't see a big difference in the gov't entering a food service establishment for a health inspection, and the EPA checking the racncher's property for pollution inspection. You want "probable cause" warrants applied only for ranchers, or for restaurants as well? Both reataurants and ranchers have responsibilities to ensure no harm to public safety is done, and both involve private property, simply because the rancher's 'customers' do not visit his facility, he takes his beef to market, that does not mean that he may pollute the water with impunity, any more that a restaurant may declare their kitchen "private" and allow inspection of the dining area only, without a warrant. If raw sewage is found in running in a street curb, must the police now get a warrant to examine the yards in the neighborhood to determine the source of the spill?
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
I don't see a big difference in the gov't entering a food service establishment for a health inspection, and the EPA checking the racncher's property for pollution inspection. You want "probable cause" warrants applied only for ranchers, or for restaurants as well? Both reataurants and ranchers have responsibilities to ensure no harm to public safety is done, and both involve private property, simply because the rancher's 'customers' do not visit his facility, he takes his beef to market, that does not mean that he may pollute the water with impunity, any more that a restaurant may declare their kitchen "private" and allow inspection of the dining area only, without a warrant. If raw sewage is found in running in a street curb, must the police now get a warrant to examine the yards in the neighborhood to determine the source of the spill?
Click to expand...

I am really in the minority here but I completely disagree with you on this one. A rancher’s ranch is no different to him than somebody who lives in a condos porch is to him. It is his private property and he should be assured the right to privacy on his land. If pollution shows up downstream then the EPA should get a search warrant to come onto his land and have a look around just as they would to come in his house.
When the DEA choppers circle my house and garden I can’t tell you how angry I get. If it wasn’t for the consequences of such an action I would most certainly open fire. I once walked out with a 30-06 in my left hand while I gave them the finger with my right hand, I was just daring them to file charges and expected cops to show up but they never did. I was careful not to aim my rifle at them so the only pics they had of me was carrying a rifle which is not illegal. They did fly away though; I think I made my point.
 
Sawyer-
you would most certainly be dead. I doubt you carrying your rifle scared the chopper away, more like they got what they wanted, a view of the garden, and left. Cops see firearms all the time, now point it at them and yes they will be scared.

Yes you are a minority as you keep insisting on bogus 'rights'. Grow a pot plant on your condo balcony and see what everyone, to include the Supreme Court, says about the 4th Amendment. The police/EPA/citizen has every right to LOOK at your property OUTSIDE your home. To come ON your property and SEIZE something you own is another story, but you can't stand on your front porch and engage in illegal activity and expect the cop driving by on routine patrol to turn a blind eye.

I live at the end of a dirt road. I understand the difference between inside my house and pissin off the front porch. You are the king of your castle, not a stairway to heaven...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom