Opinion of Thomas Tao
Hi, Thanks DCR for inviting the public and thank you for posting the meeting. I’d very much like to attend, however I may have another appointment—Go Trump. Please present my comment and argument at the meeting if you can.
Let me first summarize both party’s positions regarding to current debate of the timber rattlesnakes. The supporters of this project want to expand timber rattlesnakes otherwise a relatively common and widely distributed species at and beyond its current northern boundary of its natural habitat; and they believe they can contain any danger posted to the public; we disagree firmly. We believe climate changes or the global warming along with the endangered statute the State should help it survive or expand. We should not use public resources to play with—it sounds unnecessary and wasteful. We disagree firmly. We believe the safety or well being of the public is put in danger. The snake does swim, the monitoring tags may fall off or be damaged or cease to function, and the snakes will reproduce at the island, how to monitor hatchlings? How to prevent them from spreading in the future? Etc. So we have two options, either kill the project or let it move forward and many of us have made it known our wanting to kill the project and many arguments have been posted on this site and others.
The public does need a contingency plan or insurance policy such as;
(1) Within 20 miles range of the Quabbin were currently no timber rattlesnakes are found, when an incident involving timber rattlesnakes occurs, The State of Massachusetts agrees to promptly pay all damages to the victims, including persons, animals, and properties, with loss of lives, loss of wages, loss of ability to make a living, and any losses associated with the incident;
(2) The State of Massachusetts agrees to post and maintain a bond of $10B from which all claims are to be paid;
(3) Automatic waivers of personal immunity for those responsible for this project against civil and criminal litigations filed by victim (s)
Why the third term is important in the plan-the statues of their public employment may insulate from the legal and financial liabilities and this type of protection needs to be torn apart. These responsible parties include those who manage and are responsible for the project, are directly involved in, and those politicians who approve and sign on the project. Since they are so sure that no harm will be done to the public despite of all data and evidence we say otherwise, they should have no problems to agree with this term, do they?
With due respects,