Fight the Fence - Do not allow MV Land Bank to desecrate Tradewinds!
125 Comments
A
Anonymous
8 years ago
Follow your own policies.
A
Ashley
8 years ago
Time for compromise!!!
C
Cristina Mayhw
8 years ago
Non of this makes any sense. What is the real reason The Land Bank wants this fence? Please let us know so we can be part of the solution.
D
Diane Aureden
8 years ago
Is there no way to compromise? I walk at 6:30 in the morning. The views change daily; I would hate looking through an ugly fence . . .
R
R Scott Patterson
8 years ago
Fence is a bad idea.
R
Robert Cecil
8 years ago
For Bunny and Igor
K
Kalani Gonzalez
8 years ago
For Bunny & Igor!
H
Hank Bauer
8 years ago
Please no fence. It would not really serve any practical purpose.
J
James Lindsay
8 years ago
No fence!
T
Thomas Treacy
8 years ago
On this matter, the Land Bank is out of control.
W
Wagner pereira
8 years ago
Why do that?
L
L Garrett Brown
8 years ago
A definitive no to destroying the visual beauty of Tradewinds. We’re staying off of the field in compliance already.
D
Doug Pease
8 years ago
I'm all for conservation but this solution is crazy. Sounds like ConCom is running rampant.
K
Karyn W Caliri
8 years ago
Please do not ruin Trade Wind Preserve with horrible, unsightly fence.
R
Roger Becker
8 years ago
Fence? I don't think so.
M
MARYANN HALLER
8 years ago
Don't build that wall!!
D
David Hobart
8 years ago
Two other thoughts:
- That minuscule increase in the existing trail system, noted above, might just increase the user population on-trail compliance to nearly 100%, instead of the 95% estimated in the MV Times article.
- The LB noted a cost consideration: How much for the fence and its yearly maintenance - vs no fence?
D
David Hobart
8 years ago
Seems to me that the construction and existence of a fence itself would have a major impact on the endangered species habitat, besides being a major eyesore.
Further: why do people cross the runway/taxiway? Because they do not wish or cannot complete the entire trail circuit around the perimeter. As a compromise, I suggest two 3 ft x 300 ft paths across the middle of each of the runway/taxiway. Properly constructed - of small rock or wood borders - and sited so as to not impact the endangered species' current habitats, this additional path area amounts to less than 0.03% of the sanctuary's area and approximately a 1% increase in the already approved existing trail system. I can't imagine that this minute increase would have any measurable impact on the endangered species' habitats. Coupled with signs which direct people to the approved trail system, posted at entrances to the field or where there are indications of prohibited use, this might be acceptable to all. The signs could read: "To protect endangered species habitat, please remain on the posted paths", with arrows to those paths and/or a "You are here" map of them.
M
Mariane Quintao
8 years ago
Keep the land as it is!!!
E
Emma Schumann
8 years ago
Featured
I don't see how planes can land there without disturbing the landscape, and dogs and 18 inch wide trails are a problem? Deer, skunk, raccoons...they walk freely through the area as God intended. Trade Winds is used and appreciated by so many more people than those with planes. Stop the insanity and use some common sense please.
Follow your own policies.
Time for compromise!!!
Non of this makes any sense. What is the real reason The Land Bank wants this fence? Please let us know so we can be part of the solution.
Is there no way to compromise? I walk at 6:30 in the morning. The views change daily; I would hate looking through an ugly fence . . .
Fence is a bad idea.
For Bunny and Igor
For Bunny & Igor!
Please no fence. It would not really serve any practical purpose.
No fence!
On this matter, the Land Bank is out of control.
Why do that?
A definitive no to destroying the visual beauty of Tradewinds. We’re staying off of the field in compliance already.
I'm all for conservation but this solution is crazy. Sounds like ConCom is running rampant.
Please do not ruin Trade Wind Preserve with horrible, unsightly fence.
Fence? I don't think so.
Don't build that wall!!
Two other thoughts: - That minuscule increase in the existing trail system, noted above, might just increase the user population on-trail compliance to nearly 100%, instead of the 95% estimated in the MV Times article. - The LB noted a cost consideration: How much for the fence and its yearly maintenance - vs no fence?
Seems to me that the construction and existence of a fence itself would have a major impact on the endangered species habitat, besides being a major eyesore. Further: why do people cross the runway/taxiway? Because they do not wish or cannot complete the entire trail circuit around the perimeter. As a compromise, I suggest two 3 ft x 300 ft paths across the middle of each of the runway/taxiway. Properly constructed - of small rock or wood borders - and sited so as to not impact the endangered species' current habitats, this additional path area amounts to less than 0.03% of the sanctuary's area and approximately a 1% increase in the already approved existing trail system. I can't imagine that this minute increase would have any measurable impact on the endangered species' habitats. Coupled with signs which direct people to the approved trail system, posted at entrances to the field or where there are indications of prohibited use, this might be acceptable to all. The signs could read: "To protect endangered species habitat, please remain on the posted paths", with arrows to those paths and/or a "You are here" map of them.
Keep the land as it is!!!
I don't see how planes can land there without disturbing the landscape, and dogs and 18 inch wide trails are a problem? Deer, skunk, raccoons...they walk freely through the area as God intended. Trade Winds is used and appreciated by so many more people than those with planes. Stop the insanity and use some common sense please.