Boating's Tawdry Public Image


* Good article, even though I'm fairly critical of it below.

* Bothers me when people (not you here) pick on SUVs using lots
of gas but don't see their own wastefullness. In our case it might be
using boats that gulp 5+ gallons per hour. But many people I know
have something they do that gulps resources.

* Requiring a license for recreational boaters might help. I know it's
been discussed much here & agree with many of the reasons against
it. But if more boaters knew the dammage they caused, it's solutions,
and the fines & penalties for doing it, that would have to help. ~ Might
help the boating's image in other ways too.



Most boaters try to be careful stewards of the environment, but under
informed
non-boaters have little or no appreciation for the many steps we routinely
take

* Bull ship. How many stories do we see right here in rec.boats of all the
stupid,
uninformed, unskilled, etc. etc., boaters out there that are doing stupid
stuff
that bothers us? Do you really believe that "most" boaters are trying to be
"careful stewards of the environent"? ~~ I think a few try to be "careful
stewards",
most are somewhat aware of the environment, and many don't give it much
thought
at all. I think most pleasure boaters, at best, try to follow the laws in
existence and
don't go out of their way to pollute. But many will be careless with oil or
gas.

Setting up the situaion as the "non-boaters" are "under informed" and
that "most" boaters are "careful stewards" is disingenuous and antagonizing.



Some faulty logic must have influenced a 1996 EPA fact sheet....
The report notes that there are 12-million marine engines...and that they
...must therefore be among the "leading causes" of ...pollution.
...
Twelve million marine engines...would certainly all be working overtime to
wrest
the status of a "leading cause" from perhaps 150-million automobile and
light
truck engines.

* Certainly 12 million marine engines aren't nearly equal to 150 million car
engines
in the pollution they produce. But you change the wording & meaning from
"amoung the
leading causes" to "leading cause". This is not only faulty logic but
dishonest discourse.

It's so sad when people have a decent and valid point then ruin it by being
intellectually
dishonest and/or overstating their case. Don't you see that, yes, your words
will rally the
people that already agree with you (your base?) but it gives everyone that
disagrees
with you a reason to dismiss your thougts (which are great later in the
article) as
biased propoganda?


The outrageous statement attributed to Olsson reads,
"Boats are designed to spill. That's their flow gauge. People who are
refueling
boats literally look over the side and fill it until it shoots out the
vent.
It's become part of the operation for filling a boat."

* Of course boats aren't designed to spill and they are overstating their
side. But the reality is many people routinly spill gas when refuling
exactly for
the reasons alluded to. You calling Olsson's statement "outrageous" when
it's
something that does routinely happen is a nice way to avoid a very real
issue.

Why not use this as common gound. Admit that it happens and suggest that
this is a point where the boating interestes might work on a solution. I'll
bet
that for $5 to $15 more per boat manufacturers could put in something that
eliminates many of the spills that happen when refuling. This is a much
better
consession than the proposed "point source" classification.


Many of the most effective practices to control our environmental impacts
are
very easily accomplished and can immediately pay off with a more enjoyable
boating experience. Perhaps being clean boaters isn't enough to overcome
our
tawdry image; we must be certain that the public perceives us as good
stewards
of the environment rather than a primary cause of air and water pollution.


* Now you're talking. Admitting there are things we can & should do
and that we need to make an effort inform the non-boating public.


Gary