Last Thursday night, June 26th, Sen. Bill Nelson on the floor of the U.S.
Senate requested "unanimous consent" on S. 2766, the Clean Boating Act of
2008 (aka, EPA Permit Relief Bill) and it was about to pass, thus sparing 17
million Americans from the onerous, new EPA Regs when.one, lone Senator
objected. But that was all it took to stop the bill cold in its tracks on
its way to enactment. With just 18 congressional "working" days left before
the Sept. 30th deadline, Sen. Lisa Murkowski has chosen to try to advance
the interests of commercial fishing vessel owners above the interests of
51,000 Alaskan recreational boat owners - to say nothing of the 17 million
American boat owners in the other 49 states.

For full story and links click he

http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=2735

Claus

This is much worse news than most of you realize. According to the letter
of the law, unless something changes, it will be illegal to have a
recreational vessel in the water after Sptember 30 unless the bilge pump
turned off, every other discharge point disabled, and it has a tarp with a
rain collection system over it. This will be the case until each vessel
gets an EPA incidental discharge permit. It will probably be 1 -5 years
before the permit is drafted and implmented. Then comes the backlog as every
boat in the nation tries to register.

Obviously, they are not going to go around and try to enforce this. It will
be like a lot of things. Official policy will be to ignore it unless some
other incident brings the permit lack to their attention. So, if the Coast
Guard doesn't like your looks or thinks you went too close to that tanker
dock, they'll just pull over for a safety inspection, ask to see your EPA
permit, hand you a fine and instructions to have your boat hauled (or bilge
pump turned off and rain catching cover installed) immediately or face
further fines. A blank check to kick any boat completely off the water any
time they want. Homeland security will love this.

They won't do it to enough vessels to create a backlash that would motivate
congress to fix the mess. It will be like the "No Fly List". It will
happen to just enough people to establish a precedent of taking away a big
chunk of the "freedom" they tell us we are spending all that money in Iraq
to defend. We'll hear that it has happened to a few people but most of us
won't know who although we'll see some on "60 Minutes" on night. Meanwhile,
the threat of something we now take for granted being taken away at someone
in a uniform's whim will be hanging over us every time we untie the
docklines.

Sure, a lot of people died and a lot of expensive real estate was destroyed
in 911. It is important to realize though that freedom is something
different. Since 911, not one iota of freedom has been taken from us by
terroists. Every bit of the freedom we have lost has been taken by our
government.

--
Roger Long

The lone Senator did the right thing. Invasive species have gotten into the
waters where no commercial vessels have ever gone. Where did these species
come from? From small boat owners. The new EPA regs should apply to
everyone, not just commercial enterprises. Here is some info for those more
concerned about the planet and civilization rather than just having a
convenient boating experience:

http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/index.shtml

The mudsnail found in Idaho didn't come from a commercial ship:

http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/a...mudsnail.shtml

Not from a commercial ship:

http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/a...bullfrog.shtml

Many others did not come from commercial ships. Furthermore, the unwanted
species are moved around within the country by private recreational boats:

In fact, in some states mandatory inspections by law enforcement officials
are required:

http://parks.state.co.us/Boating/NewBoatInspection

This rigorous program should be instituted on a national level.





"claus" wrote in message
...
Last Thursday night, June 26th, Sen. Bill Nelson on the floor of the U.S.
Senate requested "unanimous consent" on S. 2766, the Clean Boating Act of
2008 (aka, EPA Permit Relief Bill) and it was about to pass, thus sparing
17 million Americans from the onerous, new EPA Regs when.one, lone Senator
objected. But that was all it took to stop the bill cold in its tracks on
its way to enactment. With just 18 congressional "working" days left
before the Sept. 30th deadline, Sen. Lisa Murkowski has chosen to try to
advance the interests of commercial fishing vessel owners above the
interests of 51,000 Alaskan recreational boat owners - to say nothing of
the 17 million American boat owners in the other 49 states.

For full story and links click he

http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=2735

Claus

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:56:00 -0600, "Popeye"
said:

The lone Senator did the right thing.

Nice troll.

Ainagonna happen. Nor is Roger's parade of horribles going to happen. I'd
recommend a rereading of that classic Chicken Little.

I'd recommend reviewing the laws enacted by many of the states regarding
invasive species. The EPA rules are pretty watered down compared to what
states have already enacted. The lone Senator did do the right thing, he
spoke his conscience. If the goal of the EPA rules is to stop invasive
species, why should the vast number, or any number, of boaters be exempt
especially when these invasive species are shown to come from every type of
boater? If the goal is to punish business, then by all means sock it to them
but don't cry when goods become really expensive or unavailable.

As far as Roger's complaint of losing rights/freedoms they all went out the
window as soon as the boat hits the water. Under Federal Admiralty
Jurisdiction the citizen has almost no rights and certainly no right to
trial by jury, a Constitutional provision only valid on land.

Well Popeye, here is what it is. You are truly talking out of your ass.
Recreational boats do not flush balast tanks. They occasionaly have to pump
bilges, but that is leaked water that has entered the hull through very
small orifaces and when that occurs , the transit distance that water
traveled is miniscule, which creates no species threat. Yet you have no
conscience in the denial of common sense rights to your fellow citizens.
Please give these listeners your logic on why we have to absorb the cost of
your ignorance without just reprisal? I for one, am outraged.
Steve

"Popeye" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:56:00 -0600, "Popeye"
said:

The lone Senator did the right thing.

Nice troll.

Ainagonna happen. Nor is Roger's parade of horribles going to happen. I'd
recommend a rereading of that classic Chicken Little.

I'd recommend reviewing the laws enacted by many of the states regarding
invasive species. The EPA rules are pretty watered down compared to what
states have already enacted. The lone Senator did do the right thing, he
spoke his conscience. If the goal of the EPA rules is to stop invasive
species, why should the vast number, or any number, of boaters be exempt
especially when these invasive species are shown to come from every type
of boater? If the goal is to punish business, then by all means sock it to
them but don't cry when goods become really expensive or unavailable.

As far as Roger's complaint of losing rights/freedoms they all went out
the window as soon as the boat hits the water. Under Federal Admiralty
Jurisdiction the citizen has almost no rights and certainly no right to
trial by jury, a Constitutional provision only valid on land.

Steve,

You asked some good questions of which I have already answered. Invasive
species can come from any boat, not just tankers or commercial boats. If the
object of the law is to reduce invasive species then all boats should take
the proper measures to mitigate the risk. The proposed modifications to the
EPA rules creates loopholes for low end commercial operations while
penalizing high end commercial operators. The rules do nothing to stop
invasive species for recreational boaters. This is so important that many
states have enacted mandatory inspections or impoundment of the boat. The
inspectors are armed in some states. Now if the states have taken such
action why is the federal gov't so lax? Go back and read the links I
provided in previous posts you'll see invasive species dont come exclusively
from commercial craft. I've seen game wardens inspect fishermen's boots for
invasive species. It's a serious problem that can cause tremendous economic
and environmental damage. I hope this helps to explain things.

"Steve Lusardi" wrote in message
...
Well Popeye, here is what it is. You are truly talking out of your ass.
Recreational boats do not flush balast tanks. They occasionaly have to
pump bilges, but that is leaked water that has entered the hull through
very small orifaces and when that occurs , the transit distance that water
traveled is miniscule, which creates no species threat. Yet you have no
conscience in the denial of common sense rights to your fellow citizens.
Please give these listeners your logic on why we have to absorb the cost
of your ignorance without just reprisal? I for one, am outraged.
Steve

"Popeye" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:56:00 -0600, "Popeye"
said:

The lone Senator did the right thing.

Nice troll.

Ainagonna happen. Nor is Roger's parade of horribles going to happen.
I'd
recommend a rereading of that classic Chicken Little.

I'd recommend reviewing the laws enacted by many of the states regarding
invasive species. The EPA rules are pretty watered down compared to what
states have already enacted. The lone Senator did do the right thing, he
spoke his conscience. If the goal of the EPA rules is to stop invasive
species, why should the vast number, or any number, of boaters be exempt
especially when these invasive species are shown to come from every type
of boater? If the goal is to punish business, then by all means sock it
to them but don't cry when goods become really expensive or unavailable.

As far as Roger's complaint of losing rights/freedoms they all went out
the window as soon as the boat hits the water. Under Federal Admiralty
Jurisdiction the citizen has almost no rights and certainly no right to
trial by jury, a Constitutional provision only valid on land.

"Steve Lusardi" wrote in message
...
Well Popeye, here is what it is. You are truly talking out of your ass.
Recreational boats do not flush balast tanks. They occasionaly have to
pump bilges, but that is leaked water that has entered the hull through
very small orifaces and when that occurs , the transit distance that water
traveled is miniscule, which creates no species threat. Yet you have no
conscience in the denial of common sense rights to your fellow citizens.
Please give these listeners your logic on why we have to absorb the cost
of your ignorance without just reprisal? I for one, am outraged.


Well, Steve, I'm afraid the outrage is just starting. Just you wait and see
what happens if Obama happens to gain the Presidency. The country will then
have a Democrat house and senate and the presidency.

Taxes will skyrocket. Energy will become even more scarce. The economy will
tank. More and more laws removing your rights, freedom, wallet and property
will quickly be passed. The country will take a giant leap towards socialism
the likes of that seen in the Soviet Union in its heyday - just prior to it
crumbling under its own weight as all communist countries do sooner rather
than later.

Yes with Obama at the helm the looters will have free reign to steal the
citizenry blind. Regulate them to death and this great country of ours will
have a law on the books so you can be arrested or taxed or fined for
everything you do. It's likely to make breathing illegal as it is a source
of CO2 which the liberal courts have defined as a pollutant.

You need a permit for rain running off your boat's deck? Next you'll need to
pay for a permit to legally breathe. It's coming. So get your boat ready to
leave this country before it goes completely down the tubes and martial law
is declared and you are locked in. It's going to come to that if the
Democrats get their way. Believe it!

--
Gregory Hall

Elsewhere on that same site is a good explanation of the rules:

http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=1013

The scenario I presented in another response isn't going to happen due to a
clever dodge by the EPA. This probably wouldn't stand up to the original
court ruling that started all this but it will take enough time for that to
work its way through the process that something will get worked out in the
meantime.

Evidently the way it will work is this:

The EPA will issue a blanket "permit" to cover all recreation vessels. Your
boat will be legal on October 1 because you'll "have" that permit even
though you don't have a piece of paper. If they find you violating any of
the provision in the regulations covering commercial vessels however, they
can fine you five figures per day and revoke your "permit". If you can
afford to keep your boat after this, you'll then have to apply for the full
permit.

Fortunately, the Coast Guard is too busy to enforce any of this.

--
Roger Long

This EPA requirement is a total bureaucratic nightmare - and it appears that
there is absolutely no concerted outrage or protest by the recreational
boating community...

Wake up, boaters, and start calling, emailing or writing to your so-called
"elected representatives" to pass the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (S.2766 and
H.R. 5949) NOW, as these new regulations will take effect on September 30 at
11:59pm.


"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Elsewhere on that same site is a good explanation of the rules:

http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=1013

The scenario I presented in another response isn't going to happen due to
a clever dodge by the EPA. This probably wouldn't stand up to the
original court ruling that started all this but it will take enough time
for that to work its way through the process that something will get
worked out in the meantime.

Evidently the way it will work is this:

The EPA will issue a blanket "permit" to cover all recreation vessels.
Your boat will be legal on October 1 because you'll "have" that permit
even though you don't have a piece of paper. If they find you violating
any of the provision in the regulations covering commercial vessels
however, they can fine you five figures per day and revoke your "permit".
If you can afford to keep your boat after this, you'll then have to apply
for the full permit.

Fortunately, the Coast Guard is too busy to enforce any of this.

--
Roger Long

"claus" wrote in message
. ..
This EPA requirement is a total bureaucratic nightmare - and it appears
that there is absolutely no concerted outrage or protest by the
recreational boating community...

Wake up, boaters, and start calling, emailing or writing to your so-called
"elected representatives" to pass the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (S.2766
and H.R. 5949) NOW, as these new regulations will take effect on September
30 at 11:59pm.


I'm not the least bit worried about it. It's total bull**** and totally
unenforceable. I've ignored the waste disposal laws to date because they are
equally stupid and unenforceable. I just don't understand what everybody is
so upset about.

This is garbage legislation. It's not even legal and it cannot be enforced.
Don't get your panties all in a wad because of this stupidity. Don't bother
protesting to some lame government official. They are the problem and not
the solution. The solution is a hefty dose of civil disobedience.

Wilbur Hubbard