Here's an item that might generate some on-topic opinions. (Rough draft of an
upcoming editorial)

Boating's Tawdry Public Image


As yet another editorial deadline approaches, a massive oil spill in East
Passage remains unsolved. Newspapers and the broadcast media have reported the
number of seabirds and marine mammals effected, and interviewed spokespersons
for the various regulatory agencies responsible for cleaning up the mess and
mitigating environmental damage. Sadly enough, this incident has the potential
to impact recreational boating in ways that certainly surpass the need to scrub
oily scum from the waterline.

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
to minimize our imprint. Even some individuals who should certainly know
better, (some of them from Washington State), have made irresponsible and
uninformed public comments about common boating practices and exacerbated our
tawdry public image. Some of these individuals are spokespeople for publicly
funded enforcement agencies, and perhaps they are merely hoping to improve job
security by whipping up anti-boating sentiment among active environmentalists.

How badly are we viewed? Scott Fields, in an essay titled "The Environmental
Pain of Pleasure Boating" states that recreational watercraft inflict more
environmental damage than an "oil tanker breaking apart." He claims the
accumulated environmental damage from petroleum products, human and pet waste,
trash, and potentially toxic metals foul coastal waters, lakes, and rivers.
Fields asserts that noise from boats damages the hearing of boat operators and
passengers, and disrupts or damages sea life.

Some faulty logic must have influenced a 1996 EPA fact sheet titled "Boating
Pollution Prevention." The report notes that there are 12-million marine
engines in the United States, and that on the basis of number alone marine
engines must therefore be among the "leading causes" of hydrocarbon and nitrous
oxide pollution.
For such a claim to be true, the average pleasure boat would need to smoke like
a 19th Century locomotive. Twelve million marine engines, many of which have
advanced pollution controls that have evolved in a manner similar to
terrestrial vehicle engines, would certainly all be working overtime to wrest
the status of a "leading cause" from perhaps 150-million automobile and light
truck engines. The overwhelming majority of pleasure boat engines operate fewer
hours in a year than the engine in a typical family car will operate in a
month.

Scott Fields' essay cites a local source, Eric Olsson of the Washington Sea
Grant Program in Seattle, as an expert on the irresponsible refueling practices
of recreational boaters. 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."

In addition to air and petroleum pollution, there are endless efforts to
over-dramatize the effects of bottom paint, human waste, and waterfront
businesses like boatyards and marinas. Each of the pollution issues raised by
our critics can be considered legitimate, but the boating related causes tend
to be hysterically exaggerated. While it can be true that water near marinas
can be polluted, little attention is paid to the fact that many of our marinas
are located near storm water runoff drains or at the terminal end of large
watersheds. Tons of pollutants from upland sources would be present in such
locations whether or not there were any pleasure craft in the area. But if
water is polluted, and there are boats about, and if it has to be somebody's
fault, (preferably somebody else), we boaters make excellent scapegoats.

We should take every reasonable step to minimize pollution. Responsible
boaters, as most of us tend to be, can enjoy the pastime without undue or
permanent damage to the environment.
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.

The alternative, suggested in the Scott Fields essay, is extremely draconian.
Fields quotes environmentalists who would prefer to see each individual boat
declared a "point source" for air and water pollution. If such a measure were
ever enacted, each pleasure boat would be individually required to obtain a
series of permits from the EPA for specific, common activities underway. The
expense and hassles associated with individual permitting and compliance
reporting to the EPA could potentially put an end to pleasure boating as we
know it. That might well be the unspoken agenda of certain extremists, and our
best and most effective countermeasure is to consciously improve our tawdry
public image.

I've read the same editorial every fall for years - just substitute
snowmobile(ing) for boat(ing) - except you left out the bit about our
contribution to the local economy.

The greenies do their best to tar all motorised recreational activities
with the same brush.

Sunny

Gould 0738 wrote:
Here's an item that might generate some on-topic opinions. (Rough draft of an
upcoming editorial)

Boating's Tawdry Public Image


As yet another editorial deadline approaches, a massive oil spill in East
Passage remains unsolved. Newspapers and the broadcast media have reported the
number of seabirds and marine mammals effected, and interviewed spokespersons
for the various regulatory agencies responsible for cleaning up the mess and
mitigating environmental damage. Sadly enough, this incident has the potential
to impact recreational boating in ways that certainly surpass the need to scrub
oily scum from the waterline.

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
to minimize our imprint. Even some individuals who should certainly know
better, (some of them from Washington State), have made irresponsible and
uninformed public comments about common boating practices and exacerbated our
tawdry public image. Some of these individuals are spokespeople for publicly
funded enforcement agencies, and perhaps they are merely hoping to improve job
security by whipping up anti-boating sentiment among active environmentalists.

How badly are we viewed? Scott Fields, in an essay titled "The Environmental
Pain of Pleasure Boating" states that recreational watercraft inflict more
environmental damage than an "oil tanker breaking apart." He claims the
accumulated environmental damage from petroleum products, human and pet waste,
trash, and potentially toxic metals foul coastal waters, lakes, and rivers.
Fields asserts that noise from boats damages the hearing of boat operators and
passengers, and disrupts or damages sea life.

Some faulty logic must have influenced a 1996 EPA fact sheet titled "Boating
Pollution Prevention." The report notes that there are 12-million marine
engines in the United States, and that on the basis of number alone marine
engines must therefore be among the "leading causes" of hydrocarbon and nitrous
oxide pollution.
For such a claim to be true, the average pleasure boat would need to smoke like
a 19th Century locomotive. Twelve million marine engines, many of which have
advanced pollution controls that have evolved in a manner similar to
terrestrial vehicle engines, would certainly all be working overtime to wrest
the status of a "leading cause" from perhaps 150-million automobile and light
truck engines. The overwhelming majority of pleasure boat engines operate fewer
hours in a year than the engine in a typical family car will operate in a
month.

Scott Fields' essay cites a local source, Eric Olsson of the Washington Sea
Grant Program in Seattle, as an expert on the irresponsible refueling practices
of recreational boaters. 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."

In addition to air and petroleum pollution, there are endless efforts to
over-dramatize the effects of bottom paint, human waste, and waterfront
businesses like boatyards and marinas. Each of the pollution issues raised by
our critics can be considered legitimate, but the boating related causes tend
to be hysterically exaggerated. While it can be true that water near marinas
can be polluted, little attention is paid to the fact that many of our marinas
are located near storm water runoff drains or at the terminal end of large
watersheds. Tons of pollutants from upland sources would be present in such
locations whether or not there were any pleasure craft in the area. But if
water is polluted, and there are boats about, and if it has to be somebody's
fault, (preferably somebody else), we boaters make excellent scapegoats.

We should take every reasonable step to minimize pollution. Responsible
boaters, as most of us tend to be, can enjoy the pastime without undue or
permanent damage to the environment.
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.

The alternative, suggested in the Scott Fields essay, is extremely draconian.
Fields quotes environmentalists who would prefer to see each individual boat
declared a "point source" for air and water pollution. If such a measure were
ever enacted, each pleasure boat would be individually required to obtain a
series of permits from the EPA for specific, common activities underway. The
expense and hassles associated with individual permitting and compliance
reporting to the EPA could potentially put an end to pleasure boating as we
know it. That might well be the unspoken agenda of certain extremists, and our
best and most effective countermeasure is to consciously improve our tawdry
public image.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:16:00 -0400, Sunny wrote:

I've read the same editorial every fall for years - just substitute
snowmobile(ing) for boat(ing) - except you left out the bit about our
contribution to the local economy.

The greenies do their best to tar all motorised recreational activities
with the same brush.
-------------------------------

And they are getting good at it. The rest of us will be made to
suffer because of the noisy and obnoxious snowmobile/jetski crowd.

Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:16:00 -0400, Sunny wrote:


I've read the same editorial every fall for years - just substitute
snowmobile(ing) for boat(ing) - except you left out the bit about our
contribution to the local economy.

The greenies do their best to tar all motorised recreational activities
with the same brush.

-------------------------------

And they are getting good at it. The rest of us will be made to
suffer because of the noisy and obnoxious snowmobile/jetski crowd.

I'm a boater and a snowmobiler, but I don't happen to do jetskis or
bikes. None of the above have a monopoly on noisy and obnoxious, but all
do themselves a disservice when they point fingers at each other -
thereby advancing the greenie cause.

I have been the volunteer Lake Steward for my chosen corner of paradise
going on 15 years, because I care enough to monitor and manage the
impact of recreational activities on the local environment. I've learned
that stewardship is largely about educating all users on how to minimise
their environmental footprint, and most certainly not about pitting user
groups against each other.

Sunny

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:51:34 -0400, Sunny wrote:

I have been the volunteer Lake Steward for my chosen corner of paradise
going on 15 years, because I care enough to monitor and manage the
impact of recreational activities on the local environment. I've learned
that stewardship is largely about educating all users on how to minimise
their environmental footprint, and most certainly not about pitting user
groups against each other.

======================================

That's commendable Sunny but I am anti noise where ever I find it.
Unfortunately I find it in the great outdoors a lot more often than
I'd like. Unless you have the most quiet snow mobile ever built, I'm
probably anti it also. That's just the way I am. To me snowmobiles
and PWCs both sound like runaway chainsaws and have no place anywhere.

Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:51:34 -0400, Sunny wrote:


I have been the volunteer Lake Steward for my chosen corner of paradise
going on 15 years, because I care enough to monitor and manage the
impact of recreational activities on the local environment. I've learned
that stewardship is largely about educating all users on how to minimise
their environmental footprint, and most certainly not about pitting user
groups against each other.


======================================

That's commendable Sunny but I am anti noise where ever I find it.
Unfortunately I find it in the great outdoors a lot more often than
I'd like. Unless you have the most quiet snow mobile ever built, I'm
probably anti it also. That's just the way I am. To me snowmobiles
and PWCs both sound like runaway chainsaws and have no place anywhere.


Runaway chainsaw sounds about right for some of the big outboards
screaming past my place when the lake is calm.

Sunny

On 27 Oct 2004 02:46:02 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

The alternative, suggested in the Scott Fields essay, is extremely draconian.
Fields quotes environmentalists who would prefer to see each individual boat
declared a "point source" for air and water pollution. If such a measure were
ever enacted, each pleasure boat would be individually required to obtain a
series of permits from the EPA for specific, common activities underway. The
expense and hassles associated with individual permitting and compliance
reporting to the EPA could potentially put an end to pleasure boating as we
know it.

===========================================

Be very, very afraid. These people are dangerous, creative and well
funded. They also hate boats and boaters. We need to polish our
image, chuck the bad apples, and the marine trades who service them.
We also need to band together to form an effective political and legal
advocacy group.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:58:04 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 27 Oct 2004 02:46:02 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

The alternative, suggested in the Scott Fields essay, is extremely draconian.
Fields quotes environmentalists who would prefer to see each individual boat
declared a "point source" for air and water pollution. If such a measure were
ever enacted, each pleasure boat would be individually required to obtain a
series of permits from the EPA for specific, common activities underway. The
expense and hassles associated with individual permitting and compliance
reporting to the EPA could potentially put an end to pleasure boating as we
know it.

===========================================

Be very, very afraid. These people are dangerous, creative and well
funded. They also hate boats and boaters. We need to polish our
image, chuck the bad apples, and the marine trades who service them.
We also need to band together to form an effective political and legal
advocacy group.

Sea Grant and Ocean Conservancy are probably the two most strident and
"anti" groups there are. And to tell the truth, I'm not so sure they
are all wet in some areas.

There is some kind of boat rally over Memorial Day or something out
west where there are so many boats, the air literally turns brown from
the exhaust. Is that a positive image?

My two glass boats are white and I have to scrub them at least once a
week just to get the oil and other scum off of them - and it ain't
just green algae either.

Every once in a while, I launch my Ranger for inshore fishing at Barn
Island and have to launch through the brown lumps that sure as hell
ain't chopped sea weed.

And if you gas up at a marina for gas and spill a little, over comes
the nice dock helper with a bottle of detergent, sprays it down and
the gas sinks to the bottom - it's doesn't go away, it just sinks.
They don't use the enzyme treatment because it's too expensive.

On the other hand, take East Greenwich Bay a part of Narragansett Bay.
The runoff from lawn fertilizer has virtually destroyed the ecosystem
in EGB, but try and convince the landowners of that - it's impossible.

Take a ride around Webster Lake when the water is clear and look on
the bottom - I'll bet there are at least a couple of thousand dollars
[1] worth of bottles and cans down there not to mention
other...er...stuff.

And jet ski's - don't get me started on those things. :)

I don't know what the answer is, but there has to be one. Maybe we
can develop some kind of idea that guys with venues like Chuck has can
promote and get moving in a positive direction.

Take care.

Tom

"The beatings will stop when morale improves."
E. Teach, 1717

[1] Ok, it's a slight exaggeration, but still, you get the idea.

And if you gas up at a marina for gas and spill a little, over comes
the nice dock helper with a bottle of detergent, sprays it down and
the gas sinks to the bottom - it's doesn't go away, it just sinks.

Whenever I fuel up, I get a free bio-diaper from the fuel dock. My fuel system
is located so I can hold the diaper at the vent and operate the nozzle at the
same time.
While fueling, I listen carefully for the sound of fuel just beginning to
gurgle in the vent line, and that's the point at which the tank is considered
"full" and fueling stops.
If I fail to hear the gurgling sound and a teaspoon of diesel does come
shooting out the vent, the diaper will catch it.

If the vent were some distance from the deck cap, it wouldn't be all that tough
to ask my wife to hold the diaper at the vent, or even tape it in place when
running single -handed. Several companies make devices to catch any fuel
accidentally forced through the vents, and much like anything else they sell us
for boating some of the designs probably work better than others.

If the dock boy needs to come running with the detergent bottle, I would submit
that there may be room to improve the fueling procedure.

A few ounces of fuel can spread over a wide surface area, and that's just the
sort of spectacle that doesn't do our public image a lot of good. :-)

jador moi je le met dans mes favoris!!! tro coooool
as white as a sheet this been
gay magazine miami

Anyway, All the Best.