wood and pellet stove ban
- Thread starter Barnie
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
BlueRidgeMark
Addicted to ArboristSite
They always do. A little bit here, and little bit there, just like Marx advised.
It's called boiling a frog.
It's called boiling a frog.
jeeptj19992001
Addicted to ArboristSite
same country that outlawed guns what do you expect......
Open fireplaces are exempt. So, what inventive person will use an "open" fireplace to heat their home?
Actually, the common-sense law would dictate based on pollution effect, particulate/hour.
Oops, my bad. We're talking politicians here...
Actually, the common-sense law would dictate based on pollution effect, particulate/hour.
Oops, my bad. We're talking politicians here...
blackdogon57
Addicted to ArboristSite
Get your facts straight before you post - Guns are not "outlawed" in this country.
Last edited:
jeeptj19992001
Addicted to ArboristSite
Yes. i know a few rules
You may own a handgun in Canada. The conditions of ownership are much more regulated, though, than the conditions in many US states.
Handguns with a barrel length less than 4.1 inches, or those designed to fire .25 or .32 ammunition are designated prohibited. As such there are very tight criteria for ownership.
Most other handguns would be designated as restricted weapons.
There are only 4 justifications for restricted weapon ownership: target shooting at a registered club; collecting; employment; or defence of life.
Most permits are issued for the first 2 scenarios.
In order to transport a restricted weapon, you must obtain an Authority to Transport certificate.
Want to know all the relevant requirements for firearms posession, storage, and transportation in Canada? See the Canadian Firearms Center's web site:
You may own a handgun in Canada. The conditions of ownership are much more regulated, though, than the conditions in many US states.
Handguns with a barrel length less than 4.1 inches, or those designed to fire .25 or .32 ammunition are designated prohibited. As such there are very tight criteria for ownership.
Most other handguns would be designated as restricted weapons.
There are only 4 justifications for restricted weapon ownership: target shooting at a registered club; collecting; employment; or defence of life.
Most permits are issued for the first 2 scenarios.
In order to transport a restricted weapon, you must obtain an Authority to Transport certificate.
Want to know all the relevant requirements for firearms posession, storage, and transportation in Canada? See the Canadian Firearms Center's web site:
Griffbm3
ArboristSite Guru
I like burning Hickory, it smells nice.
Oh yeah, and I like Canada, it smells nice too.
Oh yeah, and I really like woodstoves, and chainsaws, and trees.
But one thing I can't do, recite law. But man, I love firewood...
Oh yeah, and I like Canada, it smells nice too.
Oh yeah, and I really like woodstoves, and chainsaws, and trees.
But one thing I can't do, recite law. But man, I love firewood...
BlueRidgeMark
Addicted to ArboristSite
BlueRidgeMark
Addicted to ArboristSite
jburlingham
Addicted to ArboristSite
socialism....
Take away guns so they can't fight back
Take away free heat so they have to buy taxed fuels
what do they take away next?
I stay here in the US
where i can have my gun collection, I use my saw, I can cut wood and live happy.
Canada does have some interesting bacon, great beers and good hockey, I wont rule out visitation.
Take away guns so they can't fight back
Take away free heat so they have to buy taxed fuels
what do they take away next?
I stay here in the US
where i can have my gun collection, I use my saw, I can cut wood and live happy.
Canada does have some interesting bacon, great beers and good hockey, I wont rule out visitation.
wkpoor
Addicted to ArboristSite
Wasn't that the same province that tried to defect from Canada? You think there is liberalism here in the states... Quebec makes all of US look hard core. They love Europe and don't care much for Americans.
Been up there a bit. Doesn't surprise me....cold as h*ll there in winter and they want to ban wood stoves...figures as much.
Been up there a bit. Doesn't surprise me....cold as h*ll there in winter and they want to ban wood stoves...figures as much.
WidowMaker
Addicted to ArboristSite
=====Take away guns so they can't fight back
Take away free heat so they have to buy taxed fuels
what do they take away next?
I stay here in the US
where i can have my gun collection, I use my saw, I can cut wood and live happy.
Canada does have some interesting bacon, great beers and good hockey, I wont rule out visitation.
Until Jan, 20,2009. Then its going to be a fast down hill slide.:censored: :censored: crats
MATTYB11
ArboristSite Operative
That's the key right there. With high percentage of people using wood heat they are losing out on a lot of $
jburlingham
Addicted to ArboristSite
Very true, but 2012 isnt that far off
Bowtie
Gearhead
+1
I will quit burning wood for heat when politicians quit being scumbags and selling out America.
urhstry
ArboristSite Operative
amen!
Do politicians forget what this country was built upon? What did they use for heat before wood??? moon granite?
Do politicians forget what this country was built upon? What did they use for heat before wood??? moon granite?
AOD
Addicted to ArboristSite
If it wasn't for wood heat nowhere north of the Tropics would have ever been settled by early humans. In fact, if it wasn't for burning wood, humans would have never learned to cook or even lived in caves. Now if hundreds of generations of cave people lived around wood smoke everyday and survived, I can't imagine it is all that bad for people as they make it seem. If wood smoke was really all that hazardous humans would have died out 100,000 years ago.
KsWoodsMan
Addicted to ArboristSite
From the article
The "they" that want to ban them is not the same ones that use them.
Regardless of what they have, politicians should be forced to live on the average income of their constitiants not what they vote themselves to get for the year. That'll never pass the Senate though.
Last edited:
jburlingham
Addicted to ArboristSite
A variety of places are trying to ban wood burning, claiming some BS studies on pollution and health effects. Interestingly enough, I found the following paragraph on the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Website.
Firewood harvesting from State land can provide several benefits. As a public service, firewood provides people an opportunity to reduce home heating costs. Wood is a renewable resource. Carefully planned harvests can provide residents with wood for many years. When wood is substituted for fossil fuel there is a net savings in carbon release to the atmosphere. A firewood harvest can also provide aesthetic improvements in the State Forest by reducing post harvest woody debris on the forest floor.
Sounds to me like these so called studies are a big bag of horse crap. Buring wood has Less carbon release.
Firewood harvesting from State land can provide several benefits. As a public service, firewood provides people an opportunity to reduce home heating costs. Wood is a renewable resource. Carefully planned harvests can provide residents with wood for many years. When wood is substituted for fossil fuel there is a net savings in carbon release to the atmosphere. A firewood harvest can also provide aesthetic improvements in the State Forest by reducing post harvest woody debris on the forest floor.
Sounds to me like these so called studies are a big bag of horse crap. Buring wood has Less carbon release.
