Anybody battling a similar dirty bird might identify with this item...


WMD at Shilshole Bay


There's at least one WMD at Shilshole Bay. Odds are, the (w)inged, (m)alevolent
(d)efecator is perched on "Indulgence" at this very moment. Hussein the Great
Blue Heron must have a rather specific taste in boats, as our little tug is
obviously one of the dirty bird's favorite hangouts.

Evidence of some WMD may controversial and debatable, but there is no mistaking
the "fallout" from the winged, malevolent defector. Hussein the Heron
terrorizes the boat deck, the aft bulkhead, and the cockpit with a mess that
resembles a gallon of white paint
poured over regurgitated pizza.

I have surprised Hussein on some occasions when he has touched down to do his
dastardly deed. If nature held a contest for ugly birds, the turkey buzzard
wold likely take the crown. Even so, an angry, flapping, squawking, prehistoric
throwback of a great blue heron would finish no lower than "Miss Begottenality"
or Second Bummer Up.
I've seen him perched on the rocky riprap, watching warily from his evil port
or starboard eye while I wash, wax, sand, and varnish his bathroom. Hussein
must be suffering as he waits, with his spindly bird knees locked together and
an expression of profound urgency plastered across his primitive, carnivorous,
beak. If Hussein could think at all, he might well wonder, "When will that ugly
human being get off my boat so I can properly redecorate the poop deck?"

I'm not sure where Hussein does his thing when we're out of the slip for an
extended period of time, but he always seems relieved when we return. During
our recent four-month absence I hoped that our heron would have staked out a
new habitual target. No such luck. Oh well, Hussein's onslaught is survivable
with a sense of humor and correctable with a stiff deck brush. The most serious
challenge may soon prove to be the Shilshole Marina Management. According to
the moorage contract addendum the Port of Seattle recently required all tenants
to sign, we may soon have to devise a holding tank or other system to prevent
Hussein the heron's waste from entering the waters of the marina.

A committee of landlubber environmentalists, (all ignorant about boats and
marine systems), must have devised Shilshole's new "Best Management Practices".
It is now illegal to use a Type I or Type II marine sanitation device within
the limits of the marina.
The only allowable options will be the use of a Type III MSD, (holding tank),
or hiking across the parking lot to the shoreside rest rooms.

The vast majority of boaters are extremely concerned about the quality and
character of the marine environment. This is where we choose to spend our free
time, and we naturally prefer that the water be as unpolluted as possible. The
environmentalist over-regulators are apparently unaware that a gallon waste
treated in a Type I or Type II treatment system has a lower fecal coliform and
bacterial count than the same quantity of waste treated at a shoreside
facility. Waste treated on board is processed at private expense, and when
thoroughly sterilized it is dumped back into the sound. Waste pumped out of a
holding tank is treated at public expense, is often less effectively
sterilized, and is ultimately dumped back into the sound.

Since the recent policies were enacted, we have noticed a brand new "Sani-Tug"
pumpout boat circling through the marina. "Sani-Tug" empties holding tanks, in
exchange for a service fee. One has to wonder whether the company located at
Shilshole to take advantage of a suddenly increased demand, or whether the
regulations were tightened up to enhance business prospects for the firm.

We have seldom used our Type I head in the marina. We will follow the rules and
trek up to the parking lot when nature calls. We will carefully consider the
new "encouragement" to install a gray water holding system, and we'll continue
to keep dust, soap, and cleaning chemicals out of the water as much as
practicable.

Even though Hussein the heron spends enough time on "Indulgence" that he could
be considered a "liveaboard", I will steadfastly refuse to install a dedicated
holding tank to keep heron waste from washing through the scuppers and into the
sound. If Shilshole management can't remove the terrorist (w)inged,
(m)alevolent (d)efecator from "V" dock, I'd hope to see the staff down there a
bit more regularly to keep fresh diapers on Hussein. After all, what's good for
the Gould is good for the gander.

(Gould 0738) wrote in
:

the terrorist (w)inged,
(m)alevolent (d)efecator from "V" dock, I'd hope to see the staff down
there a bit more regularly to keep fresh diapers on Hussein. After
all, what's good for the Gould is good for the gander.


Why stop w/ the waterfowl?

I wish I could find the article... but I read several years ago about a
river back east that they banned boaters and fishermen from using. It
seems that the fecal count was too high, so they assumed humans were the
problem. When it was retested later, the problem was even worse. After
a little investigating as to the source, (Imagine THAT concept!) it was
determined FISH were the cause! Apparently the fish concentration was
too high due to a lack of predators. So the all knowing
environmentalists eliminating the only remaining predator- fishermen.


It is now illegal to use a Type I or Type II marine sanitation device
within the limits of the marina.
.
.
.
The environmentalist over-regulators are apparently unaware that a
gallon waste treated in a Type I or Type II treatment system has a
lower fecal coliform and bacterial count than the same quantity of
waste treated at a shoreside facility.


It appears the ignorance / political correctness / madness is spreading.
NDZ's have there place, but Rhode Island and the Puget Sound are not
among them.

Perhaps it makes sense under the same logic that, "Liveaboards are not a
water-dependant use of shore-side space." I know a few of the people
that had to move out of Washington because the liveaboards were kicked
out citing a new law that only water-dependant activities were allowed!
After all, if a boat isn't "water-dependant," then we can clean up the
environment by making more pollution right...

In article ,
Aaron marauderATcrosswinds.net wrote:

(Gould 0738) wrote in
:

the terrorist (w)inged,
(m)alevolent (d)efecator from "V" dock, I'd hope to see the staff down
there a bit more regularly to keep fresh diapers on Hussein. After
all, what's good for the Gould is good for the gander.


Why stop w/ the waterfowl?

I wish I could find the article... but I read several years ago about a
river back east that they banned boaters and fishermen from using. It
seems that the fecal count was too high, so they assumed humans were the
problem. When it was retested later, the problem was even worse. After
a little investigating as to the source, (Imagine THAT concept!) it was
determined FISH were the cause! Apparently the fish concentration was
too high due to a lack of predators. So the all knowing
environmentalists eliminating the only remaining predator- fishermen.

Similar thing happened on the Chesapeake. Seems the racoon population in
the area had gotten so high that a good rain would wash their fecal
matter into the water, raising the bio count high enough to close the
fishery.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

In article ,
Aaron marauderATcrosswinds.net wrote:

(Gould 0738) wrote in
:

the terrorist (w)inged,
(m)alevolent (d)efecator from "V" dock, I'd hope to see the staff down
there a bit more regularly to keep fresh diapers on Hussein. After
all, what's good for the Gould is good for the gander.


Why stop w/ the waterfowl?

I wish I could find the article... but I read several years ago about a
river back east that they banned boaters and fishermen from using. It
seems that the fecal count was too high, so they assumed humans were the
problem. When it was retested later, the problem was even worse. After
a little investigating as to the source, (Imagine THAT concept!) it was
determined FISH were the cause! Apparently the fish concentration was
too high due to a lack of predators. So the all knowing
environmentalists eliminating the only remaining predator- fishermen.

Similar thing happened on the Chesapeake. Seems the racoon population in
the area had gotten so high that a good rain would wash their fecal
matter into the water, raising the bio count high enough to close the
fishery.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

(Gould 0738) wrote in
:

the terrorist (w)inged,
(m)alevolent (d)efecator from "V" dock, I'd hope to see the staff down
there a bit more regularly to keep fresh diapers on Hussein. After
all, what's good for the Gould is good for the gander.


Why stop w/ the waterfowl?

I wish I could find the article... but I read several years ago about a
river back east that they banned boaters and fishermen from using. It
seems that the fecal count was too high, so they assumed humans were the
problem. When it was retested later, the problem was even worse. After
a little investigating as to the source, (Imagine THAT concept!) it was
determined FISH were the cause! Apparently the fish concentration was
too high due to a lack of predators. So the all knowing
environmentalists eliminating the only remaining predator- fishermen.


It is now illegal to use a Type I or Type II marine sanitation device
within the limits of the marina.
.
.
.
The environmentalist over-regulators are apparently unaware that a
gallon waste treated in a Type I or Type II treatment system has a
lower fecal coliform and bacterial count than the same quantity of
waste treated at a shoreside facility.


It appears the ignorance / political correctness / madness is spreading.
NDZ's have there place, but Rhode Island and the Puget Sound are not
among them.

Perhaps it makes sense under the same logic that, "Liveaboards are not a
water-dependant use of shore-side space." I know a few of the people
that had to move out of Washington because the liveaboards were kicked
out citing a new law that only water-dependant activities were allowed!
After all, if a boat isn't "water-dependant," then we can clean up the
environment by making more pollution right...