January 30, 2013
Subject: Natural Buffers - Are They a Tempest in The Teapot or a
Storm in a Glass of Water - Response to "Natural Buffers - Don't miss
1st Distribution: Addressees in the
original "Natural Buffers - Don't miss this!" (sent January 1,
2nd Distribution: American Property
Owners, American Property Rights Groups,My Freedom Foundation, Freedom
Legal Foundations (sent January 3, 2013)
3rd Distribution: Washington House,
Senate, Governor's Staff, ATG, WA Supreme Court, King County Municipal
Corporation, WA state DOE (sent January 6, 2013)
4th Distribution: Jefferson County WA
(sent January 14, 2013)
5th Distribution: Association of
Washington Counties (sent January 20, 2013)
6th Distribution: Local Media (sent
January 22, 2013)
7th Distribution: American Planning
Association, National Association of Counties, National Association of Cities,
National League of Cities, National Governors
8th Distribution: Montana
House, Senate, MSU Land, Montana Associations of Counties, Friends and Business
Associates (Prior feedback, additions and corrections
Please find attached above a 81 page
Adobe PDF presentation originally done in Microsoft
PowerPoint which was developed over the last two plus months using 8 years
of research and involvement in property rights. After reading the email
response directly below I was driven to further educate myself about "buffers",
e.g. where the concept of "buffers" came from along with any
other independent credible material I could flush out. I have
also have been vicariously and personally living through the
assault upon private and public property especially in Washington and
Montana. I found so much counter-intuitive
green discovery which reinforced my decision to reach out
and share this material with anyone who has an open mind. I hope
this presentation attached expands your awareness enough to at least question
everything you have been told about buffers and share this with others so more
people may take the green bull by the horns and wrestle it back into the
slaughter house corral where it belongs.
Our land, water, and all life forms
in heaven and earth have long been worshiped and deified by
primitive and "modern" man to this day. I would guess this started
about when the medicine men and the witch doctors and then the church grew to
power. Then more manipulation was gradually overlaid by the
monarchies with self bestowed "divine rights" of the Kings and
Priests. Then the states and their environmental NGO's overlaid their self
bestowed "sovereign rights" until the globalist called in their
loans outflanking everyone.
As well intended or not as all
these wizards and magicians were, the gullible allowed themselves to
be gathered into flocks and led down the path of self righteousness
through mass hypnosis and hysteria over the millenniums. It was easy to do since
few were educated back then. The Salem, Massachusetts Witch Trials come to
mind. Today it is equally easy to fool the masses for different
reasons. The educated are so politically and academically biased they
cannot see the buffers from the big picture. Furthermore,the academic
cult loathe outside independent opinion which is contrary to their current
faddish funded agenda. This is understandable, as who wants to lose
their job by debating the "truth" when you simply can cook the research, present
the study to the corporate controlled media and environmentally passionate
and draw up the worst conclusions for the quickest takings while
receiving public funding at the same time, i.e. pump and dump.
This presentation is a compilation
from some 8 years of research as a property owner in Washington and
Montana for our further "awakening". You are free to decide what are
the facts and the truth herein which is more freedom than the local
property and business owners are offered. This is assuming you
find enough definition in either of those words ("facts and truth") to
have some meaning to justify taking property or a local business and throwing
the human life forms and local business into the street while making
the site a heritage area.
The attached presentation may be old
news and new news for some of you and shocking news to others. It is
designed to shock those who refuse to think out of the box. Speaking
of which none have been more shocked than I over the last 8 years of
research. I was raised in a government family in Montana, my Father was a
U.S. Forest Ranger and retired out as a Range and Wildlife Conservation Staffman
on the Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, Montana for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. However, my respect for government has totally
changed over the last decade for many reasons since those youthful
cherished memories of growing up on various Montana Ranger Stations.
Something has happen to cause our Free and
Limited Republic to turn good people into fanatics who believe they
are given the awareness, authority, power and agenda, good or bad, to
destroy people's lives, property and local businesses. Even if these good
fanatical people are absolutely right in their belief system and their
"science" regarding say "buffers", they could never get away with it in a
True and Honest free limited Republic. In a free Republic the
rightful individual state Citizen is sovereign and free without
exception. That is to say, the state and the church are not sovereign. I am
not alone in this thinking.
No one loves the mountains,
rivers, lakes, sound and the ocean more than I
do. However, population density directly affects behavior in a
very strange way, maybe not the way you think. I did a study on this
subject before retiring from The Boeing Company in 2000.
In short we found the more distance between people at work, the more productive
they become and conversely the tighter they are packed, the less
productive. High density correlates to lower productivity, lower
density correlates to higher productivity, i.e. people like their space.
One can make an easy case it is
much more efficient to create more buffers of physical space
around people than around their environment. People who are racked, packed
and stacked like ants and bees in municipal corporations and political
subdivisions especially around Puget Sound Washington and other high density
city and county municipal corporations create more problems than
for the want of green environmental buffers. When you loosen up
the population densities, the demand on and for buffers drops dramatically. This
logic goes against the UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development swill and everything
the UN and its hierarchy of global to local green planning
associations stand for. This leads into the presentation
In other words the rural areas are not the
problems. The problems are the high density
municipal corporations and subdivisions which are locking up and taking
massive sections of land and water directly and indirectly all over America and
the world while they increase their density and dump their real and
political propaganda waste into the mainstream, rivers, lakes, air and
ocean. This green extreme thinking is not unlike the disease gangrene
where the body tissue becomes infected, killing the cells thereby leading to the
death of the extremity and often the patient. This condition spreads
like a wild fire around the country where the municipal and subdivision planning
units apply worse case high density scenarios across its control
including the lowest density rural areas. They do this
while taking more and more of our public and private property using
green buffer labeling and constantly fanning the green flames. Municipal
madness is a hypocritical, highly aggressive systemic cancer and gangrene
like ideology where the act of planning becomes a virus and bacteria
devouring the patient all while the property and business owner is not sure why
they are loosing the feeling and use of their limbs.
Thank you for your time and consideration
of this presentation "Natural Buffers - Are They a Tempest in The Teapot or a
Storm in a Glass of Water".
"A man should look for what is, and not
what he thinks should be."
"As Layman P'ang was dying, his friend,
the Governor Yu Ti Yu, came to visit one last time.
P'ang put his head on his friend's knee
and spoke his last words: "I beg you, see all phenomena as empty.
Beware of thinking as real what is
Take care of yourself in this world of
shadows and echoes."
Little Zen Calendar
Friday, January 18, 2013
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:44
Subject: RE: Natural Buffers - Don't miss
needed to send this response in order to point out what appears to be some
discrepancies in connecting the email below with conditions in the Hood Canal
region, in which I believe you are making your point.
USGS report is not new (2002) and was done on a very densely populated lake in
from this perspective I don’t think it is a reasonable comparison, but
forwarding someone’s out-of-context interpretation of a science report to
compare a phosphorus limited lake system to the nitrogen limited marine system
of Hood Canal just doesn’t seem sensible.
graphic defended, and pointed out in the email (‘figure 7’) compares in part,
the dissolved phosphorus levels in an ‘unfertilized wooded’ site with a
‘regular-fertilizer lawn’ site. The data shows the median concentration
for the ‘wooded’ site was 1.99 mg/L. The median for the ‘lawn’ site is
.77 mg/L, although for reasons described in the text*, the ‘lawn’ calculation
does not include ‘outliers’ of 1.9 and 2.7.
in mind the point be trumpeted is a difference in the medians of just
1.2 mg/L … without the outliers.
was a study about the ‘run-off from lawns’, specifically investigating
whether ‘the phosphorus movement from lawns’ was a problem and whether
“maintaining lush lawns may conflict with lake manager goals to minimize
is some text taken from the report to illustrate this, and to show the
limitations of the results.
was not within the scope of this study to measure runoff volumes from each of
the sites and quantify the mass of nutrients transported
of the nutrient load from lawn runoff may not actually reach or be deposited
in the lake because of varying flowpaths, soil permeability, breaks in slope,
vegetative buffers and other obstructions; however, in many cases, lawns
extend and slope continuously to the water’s edge to provide a direct source
annual phosphorus load from the nearshore area of the lake may be greater than
the 430 pounds previously estimated.”
runoff samples (about 30 percent) overflowed the collecting bottle and may not
be truly representative of the mean concentration form each
number of samples from some categories was relatively small for rigorous
all about public education… especially when we’re all looking at, and
discussing the issues and information relevant to the our backyards.
would be careful to wave this around in support of dismissing shoreline
what it’s worth, this sort of information dissemination really distracts
from what you and I and everyone else is trying to do, which is to find a
reasonable approach to interacting with the world around us so it continues to
provide the things which provide for us.
Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
From: ken shock
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 3:02
To: Susan Gulick; Susan Porto
Subject: Fwd: Natural
Buffers - Don't miss this!
This seems rather important, given the
perpetual attacks on private property rights of rural residents, based on
their supposed negative human impacts.
Given the import of this
information, and the fact that you and I do not always agree on what should be
shared with the WRIA 16 group - I am making a direct distribution to all.
Apologies to anyone who takes offense at the effort in public
Physicist and 29 year Brinnon
resident, riverfront Dosewallips
firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:29
To: CAPR GOV
Subject: [capr-gov] Natural
Also at the Board of Governors meeting this evening we
discussed buffers. The attached is a USGS study that shows that
natural vegetation contributes more unwanted nutrients to
the water than developed yards with lawns. In fact, in some cases 2 to 3
times more than when the land owner uses an "environmentally unfriendly"
fertilizer. Look at Figure 7 on page 4 and Table 3 on page
The point is this... There is an unstated assumption that
development is bad and natural is good. Therefore, the environmentalists
assume that "natural vegetation" is the ideal condition to have
bordering water bodies and any developed land is therefore worse for the
environment. It's a fatal mistake on our part to concede this argument
before any negotiation begins on buffers. It simply isn't true and this
study gives us proof. ANYTHING alongside the water will have some effect
and natural is not necessarily better. Decaying vegetation produces
larger quantities of nutrients than developed land. Natural buffers are
actually MORE harmful to water bodies than well cared-for and maintained
When presented with this evidence see how people respond.
If they reject it without question, that is proof they are not really
pro-environment, but anti-development. If someone
is really concerned about protecting the environment, then they
should welcome methods to achieve better results. However, if their real
goal is to damage property owners, they won't want to hear the truth.
Their reaction to this information will reveal their true
The attached file is also available at the link below.
President, King County Chapter
Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR)