Again, you are still just insisting on something that is obviously NOT TRUE.

It doesn't matter how well behaved you think your dog is, if it is off leash it is a threat to everyone and to the animals and environment that they are in.

Why are so many dog people assume that everybody loves dogs?

Again, a significant portion of the population has a well deserved fear of dogs and having to encounter an unleashed animal can be quite traumatizing and ruin someones day.

Why do so many dog owners insist on never considering the negative impact that their selfish, narcissistic, behavior has on the people around them?

Yup, it's not just tourists!

We have more than our fair share of irresponsible, selfish dog owners here already, the tourists just compound the problem.

>Those two would lie down at the top, bothering no one

But they ARE obviously bothering people. Have you even bothered to read the comments here? This is why folks hate dog people, they go around claiming that their animal is "bothering no one" even where people are expressing that they are, in fact, quite bothered by this selfish and inconsiderate behavior.

A significant portion of the population has a well deserved fear of dogs. About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs every year in the US alone.

This is also very irresponsible towards the wildlife, unleashed dogs chase and harass animals and leave waste behind.

Fwiw: People who let their dogs off leash are selfish a-holes, who have no respect for the place they are visiting, or the people who are negatively affected by their narcissistic behavior.

I am sure there were people who's hike was ruined by this incredibly selfish behavior.

There is no legitimate reason to let your pet off leash in public, don't be that person, have a little respect.

Tourists come here imagining that the whole state is their personal dog park because they are out in the country. It is super inconsiderate to not leash your dog anywhere that is not your own personal property or an off leash area of a dog park.

Then they get on social media and tell everyone how "dog friendly" it is here and post a million pictures of their untrained pet off leash all over the place.

It is NOT ok to let your pet roam free on hiking trails people. It's also not ok to bring your dog into stores and restaurants, which I see tourists trying to do all the time.

>Stowe

This is absolutely false, there is a leash law in Stowe, this is just a rumor started by an inconsiderate dog owner. Unfortunately dog people are super selfish and can't be bothered to simply Google the town to see if there is a leash law.

Pro-tip, pretty much every town in Vermont has a leash law.

This thread is pretty much nothing but pro-nuke trolls spreading propaganda

Reprocessing is not a solution, it is prohibitively expensive and compounds the waste problem tenfold and creates a whole lot of more very dangerous radioactive waste in ways that make it even more difficult to manage, while being a huge proliferation risk while only recycling a small portion of the waste.

Yeah, they built on in the USA too, but it is likely never going to be used because there are a number of flaws and obvious safety concerns.

Until it is actually implemented, it is nothing but vaporware.

Also, it's not like they are going to just chuck it in a hole and walk away if they ever actually decide to use it. That would be incredibly reckless and irresponsible. No it is going to need to be guarded and managed for many thousands of years, at the taxpayers expense.

No, it is not useless, it is pointing out the obvious lie that the nuclear industry keeps promoting that nuclear fission is somehow "carbon free"

Not to mention all of the many contaminated sites scattered all over the globe related to the mining, refining, waste storage and fuel fabricating. Far too numerous to list.

This is not a viable plan, it is vaporware that the nuclear industry uses as an excuse to irresponsibly keep making a super dangerous poison at the taxpayers expense. Even if it was actually built, (which would be super irresponsible) you can't just shove it into a hole and walk away, it will need to be guarded and managed a great expense to the future taxpayers.

>It is a non-issue. The vaults currently in service have had little to no issue containing the waste, simple as.

This is absolutely false, a Holtec cask is only good for about 100 years, which, in the context of super dangerous radioactive waste that will need to be managed and stored for tens of thousands of years is not even close to being a "non-issue".

Do we just keep making bigger and bigger casks like some sort of radioactive russian matyoshka doll to put the failing, now radioactive casks into?

You obviously either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are just straight up lying.

There is no viable plan to deal with this super dangerous waste.

Don't forget about the incredibly dirty business of mining, refining and producing the fuel. Super toxic poison, spread out over many, many sites.

There is currently no viable plan to deal with this waste, which will have to be managed and guarded for time scales that are longer than there have been humans, tens of thousands of years, at the taxpayers expense.

>Nuclear waste storage is a non-issue.

This is incredibly ignorant and just straight up wrong.

The IPCC assumes that after a couple of years that this super dangerous, difficult to manage radioactive waste just magically disappears into a hole somewhere with zero management or oversight, which is absolutely ludicrous.

The reality of it is that it is going to remain a huge, expensive, liability that needs to be constantly managed and guarded for many thousands of years to come, at the taxpayers expense.

Only if you do not account for the enormous carbon footprint of guarding and managing the super dangerous nuclear waste these poison factories produce, for the next 20,000 years

>A nuclear power plant already has 0 carbon output.
>
>This is a lie the processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require extremely large amounts of energy. Nuclear power plants also are built with large amounts of metal and concrete, which require large amounts of energy to manufacture. Fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, and fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear
power plant, so the emissions from burning those fuels should be
associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate.a lie

This is a great picture!

I am looking forward to my next day trip on this lovely train. Peeping on some leaves while sipping on a nice cup of tea, with some good tunes in my headphones makes for a wonderful "me" day, away from my normal life. I like to go south to Northampton Ma and spend the two hour layover visiting shops and getting lunch before the scenic ride back north.

It is just straight up pro-nuclear propaganda

Nuclear fission is not clean or "carbon free" at all, this is pure propaganda.

In these poison factories produce some of the most dangerous toxins known to man which we will have to pay to guard and manage for timescales that are longer than there have been humans.

Solar, hydro, tidal and wind are the answer to producing hydrogen that is actually green. These dangerous antiques should have been retired decades ago, it is super irresponsible to keep these gigantic liabilities running.

It might be fine, just bring head nets and hats for everybody and dress in long sleeves and pants.

I too have been very much enjoying peeping on some leaves and I am also a long time resident. What a wonderful time to be living in such a beautiful place, I am so grateful to be here amongst the colorful hills and valleys of Vermont! I like stopping to smell the roses too.

Additionally, I believe if it is within the highway easement, then it is on state property and not allowed.

If it is a town road, then you have to look up the rules for your town.

Here is a link to the rules for political signage in Vermont.

​

Edit: word