I would like to get in on this
Thanks

There are some definate problems in SE MN, Here is another–http://www.fillmorecountyjournal.com/Main.asp?SectionID=16&SubSectionID=109&ArticleID=15123

Pretty sad!

But this thread had served a purpose, to bad no one jumped in. So take it easy DA, till next time.

Welcome Snarky, no firestorm here, DA and I have agreed to disagree before, not that I disagree with him that much.

Thanks for you opinion on this! And like you mentioned getting the tires here, could have a bigger impact than the plant its self. Who knows? lets just hope it doesn’t happen.

D.A. the manure story made me laugh and the air story made me cry. But I was hopeing for a better rebuttal from you.

“The reality is feedlots, tire plants, and ethanol plants are a basis for people to make a living.”—–Yes, but another reality is that they are necesary evils to allow city folk to survive

Ethanol burns cleaner than petroleum and allows you to drive to work with less harmful emmisions, and(even though I’m against it) a tire plant would produce energy to help satisfy our ever growing populations demand for electricity and find another use for old tires other than keeping the tarp down on the manure pile , and I can guarantee you that your burger and chops came from a feedlot if you bought them at the grocery store.

We are all entitled to a opinion, but an educated opinion requires knowledge of the whole. I would think most country hicks would much rather see the feedlots, tire plants and ethanol plant located right in the towns that consume the majority of these products. It would improve our quality of life, and farmers could just no till/ low till all the corn, bean and grains needed, and just ship it where its needed. But then again, we would still have to use pesticides to ensure those crops, and who wants to be exposed to that?!? Heck, I propose that every household be required to produce enough corn and soya to cover their own finished use requirements, aniamal units and power included.

I’m just poking a little fun at you Dave, I know you mean the best when you speak, I wouldn’t bother posting otherwise. I’m just throwing my uneducated opinion at you to give you another veiw.

Plant or not, I’m relieved that at least a study will be done, and that it was not allowed to just be pushed thru.

I live just over 15 miles from the proposed site and “up wind”, far enough to probably not directly affect me in any way. But I’m definately against it for my own personal reasons. In theory it is a good idea, but why not put it somewhere that is already contaminated, like Nevada.lol

I’ll side with joey on the feed lot comment though, kinda low. We all got to eat. I’d be willing to bet a beverage of your choice, you don’t even know what constitutes a feedlot, not to mention the multitude of laws that go with them.

One of the streams considered that is already under some special regs is the the Jim W mentioned, Camp creek. This stream also has several miles of stream side easement and habitat improvement.

Unlike D.A., I am willing to let anyone who is concerned with Trout and its management here in SE MN, know what the original 15 streams discussed 5/7/03 are. These changes will touch everyone not just TU and SEMTAG. And as you can see by the responces and comments recieved by the DNR about LTM they are not the only ones concerned about fishing for trout. But so not to ruffle feathers to badly, I will not post them here, but if you are interested PM me or contact me at [email protected]

Dave you stated ” LTM will become a reality by 2004 or 2005 depending upon if the DNR steps up to the plate and makes a viable and relevant solution to this situation. If not, it will get ugly….very ugly .” You make it sound as if the DNR are the ones not ready to move foward. When in fact it was TU and semtag who said no. And yes, LTM could be “shelved” for a couple years, if TU fights it.

So this question comes to mind, what 15 streams do you want to see LTM on.