Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 60 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Doug K
« on: March 30, 2022, 10:23:23 am »

As stated in the last post...

Raised Earthen Embankments along the Erie Canal from Buffalo to Lockport are almost "non-existent". You have a to go a few miles EAST of the City of Lockport, to find raised earthen dams on either the North or South side of the waterway. So the pictures provided by Pastor Chuck Jennings may be just trees along the edge of flat terrain along the Canalway.

While many members from this Facebook group have asked Mr. Jennings to expand his photographic view, to show if these tree issues are on the embankments or not, so far he has NOT complied.

Have to wonder why he hasn't complied, or should the readers simply assume these "pretty pictures" are just sections of trail along "dug canal channels", not actually earthen embankment sections.



https://www.nyscanalintegrity.org/program-and-maps
Posted by: Doug K
« on: March 30, 2022, 07:53:07 am »

What more can be said about the ignorance of this "socially biased" Facebook group that hasn't been stated before?

After awhile it just gets old... watching a group of people try to explain away the "truth" of unsafe trees on hazardous embankments, with it all happening right before their eyes.

Look at that picture again... this tree is NOT on a raised embankment. The ground all around it, is much higher than the canal in the background. It's even higher than the trail section running along next to it.



So it's just another feeble attempt by members of this group, to bury the truth about Canal Safety that they don't like to hear about or discuss..

This picture was also captured in the Lockport area, where the Erie Canal is made up of many "dug channel" sections. So it's obvious that the person who took this picture can't tell the difference between a raised embankment dam or the side of a natural hill along the Erie.

Mr. Jennings, who posted this image, is a pastor in that area. Most leaders, who play the "God Card", are also "anti-science" since the tendency is to believe Science & Religion don't mix well, or support each other. So there is also the "inherent bias" that comes with mixing a public safety issue with a "religious viewpoint" that "God will make it all right".

Shame on Pastor Jennings for being so callous towards the lives & safety of  Erie Canal neighbors, who ARE in danger from hazard dams, simply because he thinks "pretty pictures" are the reason trees should stay on unsafe embankments.

With a statement like this, all we can say is "Thank God that Pastor Chuck isn't in charge of safety for the public, or neighbors, along the Erie Canal Corridor"

Chuck Jennings: Even when great winds blow down one of these big old growth trees, there’s no damage to the canal embankment. It seems to me, some people are just making stuff up.

Really? The Canal Corporation released 300+ pages of a NYS SEQR Environmental Review, and it's all "made up"?

And all the Guidelines, Rules, and Safety Manuals from FEMA, NYS DEC, and the US Corp of Engineers for Embankment Dams, all those are "made-up" too?


But it's what is NOT being stated that matters MUCH more here folks, because the truth lies somewhere it between what's said and what's not being stated.

1) If the DEAD tree had fallen the "other way", blocking the Canal Trail, would the group be whining that it was now in the way of their walk? 

2) And why is there no discussion about how someone using that trail may have been seriously hurt by this tree falling that other way?

3) What about the claim by the group that Trees "stabilize" the earth? There is a minimal amount of "earth" on those exposed roots. Because DEAD trees have DEAD roots, and they wither away over time,  they shrink in size, and roots cause major issues on water impounding embankments, like those along the Canal System.



Tree roots only stabilize ONE THING... the tree itself. And now we see that only happens until the tree dies of old age, and then becomes a possible safety issue the next big windstorm

4) Where are the pictures of all the birds and animals who lost their home when the tree fell? This group says they will stay there mourning the loss of their habitat.

5) Has Kevin Gallagher measured the impact of losing this tree on the Oxygen content of the world around it? After all, that was a claim made about climate change and reduced oxygen as a result of this proposed embankment maintenance work.

6) If "clear-cutting" was really happening along the Erie Canal, which is harvesting trees for their wood value, why isn't the Canal Corporation gathering all this "free money" laying all over the ground? They should be sending work crews down to go get the wood, cut it and sell it with lumber costs at an all time high.

Though I have never seen a 2x4 made from old dead Cottonwood Trees myself, I'm sure someone will say it's possible...like Kevin Gallagher.

No, it's obvious that this group cannot see the "forest for the trees". 



In fact, this Stop the Canal Clear-cut group still fails to see the Earthen Dams under the trees, the inherent danger of hazardous dams to their Community, and the fact that they are "part of the problem" with Canal Safety, not part of the "solution".

They say they are trying to "help" but all they have really done is "harass" the owners of the Canal with their dribble.

Ignorance of the Public, to the safety issues in their own community, is a terrible thing to watch...isn't it?

Watching this "Public Facebook Group", making total fools of themselves trying to defend their ignorance... well that's where it becomes "bizarre", doesn't it?

Posted by: Michael Caswell
« on: March 30, 2022, 05:33:45 am »







You can see how 'conditioned' these people are. They wear blinders to the truth. They ignore everything the experts tell them in preference to the rantings of a few crazy people.

Their logic is astoundingly warped. Don't they realize that one tree that does not rip an embankment open when it falls, doesn't guarantee that the next felling will result in the same result?

Don't they see that they have just proved our point, that trees on an embankment are dangerous, and that they do fall over.

I guess there are those that aren't blind, but they can't see!