On Jun 4, 6:54*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:37*pm, "YukonBound" wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message

....

REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D-FL) wants Repubs sent to prison for supporting
drilling but he can start with me (although I am not repub) and I'll
make him look as foolish as he is.
MY beaches (Yes MINE as I am a 5th gen Florida native) used to be
pristine and clear of condos and I could walk them without some idjit
yankee telling me it belongs to him. *There used to be salt marshes
that produced crabs and redfish but they were filled for development
spurred by tourism. *I used to be able to walk into the sand dunes to
a sheltered spot and build a fire and see the glory of the night sky,
now the dunes were levelled for hotels and the night sky is nothing
but neon. *Given a choice between tar balls and tourism, there is no
doubt, I'd take the tar balls. *Oil jobs pay well, tourism pays
minimum wage. *Once condos foul the beaches, it is effectively forever
whereas the oil will be gone soon enough. *I'd go so far as to believe
that tourists with their suntan grease have probably put more oil in
MY beach sand than BP will.

I get it.... you are a 'valued repeat customer' of Looney's Special Georgia
Bud.
This will do you no good in the long run. *If you want an example.... just
see The Freak up in Connecticut.

Fishermen were out of work because of the ban on gill nets ( a good
idea poorly executed). *Shrimpers are out of work due to farm raised
asian shrimp and oystermen are out of work because of run-off from all
those new homes raising bacteria counts. *Oil would be a great
replacement and would pay better, tourism is a filthy business whereas
oil is relatively clean.
Yes, oil does degrade as I have shown via several articles and by
papers I have shown from Alaskan State agencies. *You may pretend it
does not but that is like pretending wood does not rot.

Every few years the hotel owners bitch about the beach erosion (a
natural process) so the state pays to have it "renourished" by pumping
sand back up onto it in front of hotels. Tar balls, big deal, pump
some sand on top of it. If the eco-fools had not convinced people
that oil was evil, NW Florida could have real industry and not the
fake tourist "industry" where poor people sell their souls because
they have nothing else. I saw the poor fish houses sell out to condo
builders because they could no longer afford the taxes on their
waterfront property and then the fishermen and shrimpers have no place
to put their boats. If we had an oil industry, those docks would be
loading crew boats instead of being sold to condo developers.
So, YES, the eco-fools are to blame for the demise of Florida for not
allowing an industry that would have allowed the coast to remain in
the hands of its native owners.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Jun 4, 6:54 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:37 pm, "YukonBound" wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...

REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D-FL) wants Repubs sent to prison for supporting
drilling but he can start with me (although I am not repub) and I'll
make him look as foolish as he is.
MY beaches (Yes MINE as I am a 5th gen Florida native) used to be
pristine and clear of condos and I could walk them without some idjit
yankee telling me it belongs to him. There used to be salt marshes
that produced crabs and redfish but they were filled for development
spurred by tourism. I used to be able to walk into the sand dunes to
a sheltered spot and build a fire and see the glory of the night sky,
now the dunes were levelled for hotels and the night sky is nothing
but neon. Given a choice between tar balls and tourism, there is no
doubt, I'd take the tar balls. Oil jobs pay well, tourism pays
minimum wage. Once condos foul the beaches, it is effectively
forever
whereas the oil will be gone soon enough. I'd go so far as to
believe
that tourists with their suntan grease have probably put more oil in
MY beach sand than BP will.

I get it.... you are a 'valued repeat customer' of Looney's Special
Georgia
Bud.
This will do you no good in the long run. If you want an example....
just
see The Freak up in Connecticut.

Fishermen were out of work because of the ban on gill nets ( a good
idea poorly executed). Shrimpers are out of work due to farm raised
asian shrimp and oystermen are out of work because of run-off from all
those new homes raising bacteria counts. Oil would be a great
replacement and would pay better, tourism is a filthy business whereas
oil is relatively clean.
Yes, oil does degrade as I have shown via several articles and by
papers I have shown from Alaskan State agencies. You may pretend it
does not but that is like pretending wood does not rot.

Every few years the hotel owners bitch about the beach erosion (a
natural process) so the state pays to have it "renourished" by pumping
sand back up onto it in front of hotels. Tar balls, big deal, pump
some sand on top of it. If the eco-fools had not convinced people
that oil was evil, NW Florida could have real industry and not the
fake tourist "industry" where poor people sell their souls because
they have nothing else. I saw the poor fish houses sell out to condo
builders because they could no longer afford the taxes on their
waterfront property and then the fishermen and shrimpers have no place
to put their boats. If we had an oil industry, those docks would be
loading crew boats instead of being sold to condo developers.
So, YES, the eco-fools are to blame for the demise of Florida for not
allowing an industry that would have allowed the coast to remain in
the hands of its native owners.

We are really fortunately that you have no say in what happens.