On Jun 1, 7:25 am, "NOYB" wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

...

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench:
http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

The court didn't do this without a kick in the ass from someone else. Who
is the owner of the foot?

Environmentalist groups. But a court shouldn't be beholden to any special
interests.

Since "The Environment" allows the human economy to exist, I question
your definition of special interests. Due to mindless population
growth, nature suffers a death of 1,000 cuts each day. Every "petty"
regulation can help offset increasing pressure on waterways.

I question the respect for nature of many (power) boaters. They seem
much more interested in noise and speed than aesthetic values, so
illegal discharges wouldn't be surprising. Par for the course with the
motorsports, F-nature crowd. Dumping in the middle of a lake or river
is easy to get away with, like going in your swim trunks. I say tough
luck if they have to be permitted. It might make them think twice
before casually tainting the water.

Read about the recent Camp Lejeune, NC toxin revelations if you think
everyone takes water quality seriously. This happened for same reason
they have to put No Dumping placards on street drains leading to
rivers.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Everything you have originates in nature. A little respect is in order.

"Enough Already" wrote in message
s.com...


Read about the recent Camp Lejeune, NC toxin revelations if you think
everyone takes water quality seriously. This happened for same reason
they have to put No Dumping placards on street drains leading to
rivers.


Nice!

"An EPA investigator, Tyler Amon, acknowledged Tuesday that officials had
considered accusing some civilian Navy employees of obstruction of justice.
Amon, who testified despite objections from the Bush administration, said
some employees interviewed during the criminal investigation appeared
coached and were not forthcoming with details.

Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, the panel's ranking Republican, said he was
puzzled why criminal charges weren't pursued."



The administration was uncomfortable with questions. What a surprise.

"Enough Already" wrote in message
s.com...
Due to mindless population
growth, nature suffers a death of 1,000 cuts each day

Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. He's working hard to eradicate the
world of 1.2 billion Muslims. It's the Democrats who are allowing the
overpopulation to continue.

And if it were up to me, I'd add kayakers and blow-boaters to that list.

I just read some of the links on your website. Don't take this the wrong
way, but YOU'RE ****ING NUTS.

a.. Couples should voluntarily limit their family-size to two or fewer
children, and not just for personal economic reasons. This sort of restraint
goes against natural inclinations but "death control" (modern medicine) must
be matched with birth control for balance to occur. It's a small price to
pay for preserving the future.
a.. The government should eliminate tax breaks for children, either
altogether or after a family already has two kids. Tax breaks encourage
population growth by artificially reducing the cost of having children.
a.. Likewise, welfare subsidies that increase with family size should be
dropped as soon as possible. A family cap law in New Jersey has shown good
results.
a.. Pregnant teenagers should be denied all government assistance unless
they identify the fathers and are subject to the same standards of parental
competency as adoptive parents.
a.. Like it or not, abortion prevents millions of unwanted births each year,
and is such a widely used (albeit unpleasant) form of birth control that it
must be kept legal forever. Well-meaning people who recoil at the thought of
a dead fetus would do well to think about the millions of already-born kids
who die from hunger each year. The real world does not allow for
single-issue panaceas.



"Enough Already" wrote in message
s.com...
On Jun 1, 7:25 am, "NOYB" wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

...

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench:
http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

The court didn't do this without a kick in the ass from someone else.
Who
is the owner of the foot?

Environmentalist groups. But a court shouldn't be beholden to any
special
interests.

Since "The Environment" allows the human economy to exist, I question
your definition of special interests. Due to mindless population
growth, nature suffers a death of 1,000 cuts each day. Every "petty"
regulation can help offset increasing pressure on waterways.

I question the respect for nature of many (power) boaters. They seem
much more interested in noise and speed than aesthetic values, so
illegal discharges wouldn't be surprising. Par for the course with the
motorsports, F-nature crowd. Dumping in the middle of a lake or river
is easy to get away with, like going in your swim trunks. I say tough
luck if they have to be permitted. It might make them think twice
before casually tainting the water.

Read about the recent Camp Lejeune, NC toxin revelations if you think
everyone takes water quality seriously. This happened for same reason
they have to put No Dumping placards on street drains leading to
rivers.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Everything you have originates in nature. A little respect is in order.

On Jun 1, 5:44 am, "NOYB" wrote:
This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench:http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

Where ya been?

Repost from last March.........



Waterfront Watch, Mar 21

Don't Pump the Baby Out with the Bilge Water


Maybe we should send up a collective flare and hope that somebody will
notice. Once again it appears that well-intentioned Great and Powerful
Wizards (please pay no mind to that man behind the curtain) have
entirely overlooked the interests of pleasure boaters while seeking to
protect the environment.

A recent court decision in a lawsuit filed against the US
Environmental Protection Agency by a Portland, Oregon group known as
the Northwest Environmental Advocates could potentially require all
pleasure boaters to purchase "discharge permits" from state
governments. The newly regulated discharges in question have nothing
to do with untreated human waste, engine oil, trash and garbage, or
other nasty stuff that any responsible boater will voluntarily contain
and dispose of appropriately ashore. Anything passing from a boat
into the surrounding waters will be considered a discharge.

Want to wash your boat? You will need a permit for the wash and rinse
water to "discharge" through your scuppers and into the sound.

Too much water in the bilge? Too bad. You may not be able to switch on
that bilge pump without a state permit.

So fed up that you're ready to start your engine and motor off to some
country with more reasonable regulations? Not so fast, that cooling
water cycling through the raw water side of your system becomes a
"discharge". (We won't even be allowed to escape without a permit!)

Despite the draconian potential effects of the legal ruling, there
wasn't actually a conspiracy against pleasure boaters. The Northwest
Environmental Advocates sued to address a worthy issue: the discharge
of ballast water from foreign vessels in US ports.
Ships entering American waters from overseas ports often travel with
enormous amounts of water in the bilge to serve as ballast.
Unfortunately, when a ship takes on ballast water huge numbers of
marine plants and animals are scooped up in the process and will be
released whenever and wherever the vessel pumps its bilges. Most of
the foreign organisms die in the new environment, but certain species
discover that they have been introduced to an area where they have no
natural predators.

With natural balance disrupted, many of these immigrant life forms
(such as the zebra mussel) tend to compete too efficiently for food
and habitat and can ultimately eliminate native species that have long
served as integral links in important eco-system relationships. A new
species supplanting a native species may no longer be considered
edible by predators higher on the food chain. Organisms at the top of
the food chain (such as humans), have a vested interest in sustaining
a healthy eco-system with co-dependent plants and animals that thrive
in the local environment.

The Northwest Environmental Advocates demanded that states issue
permits to any vessel planning to discharge into waters of the state.
Presumably, the states aren't going to issue permits to all applicants
without some level of prior inspection, and perhaps even requiring
that a state inspector be on hand when the material in question is
being discharged. When the court ruled in favor of the Northwest
Environmental Advocates, it omitted any specification that the ruling
applied only to commercial shipping. Similar previous regulations have
always specifically exempted recreational boaters, but no such
exemption is included in the regulations mandated by the court
decision.

States typically lack the will, and most certainly lack the manpower,
to enforce a regulation that would require pleasure boaters to apply
for permits prior to starting an engine, pumping a bilge, taking a
shower, or washing the highway and industrial soot from the house and
decks. Washington State alone would need thousands, if not tens of
thousands, of inspectors and permit processors to monitor every single
discharge of any material from all vessels of any description. The law
would be routinely ignored, but perhaps not entirely.

The potential risk is that some zealous environmental extremist could
seize upon the court's oversight. In the ultimate fantasies of some
fanatics, the waters of the Pacific NW would be unsullied by any human
activity afloat. Leaping salmon, cavorting porpoises, and spouting
whales wouldn't be obliged to dodge around any boats or ships, (with a
possible exception for limited numbers of extensively regulated and
duly licensed kayaks, of course). It would never rain, the sun would
never set, beribboned unicorns and Technicolor rainbows would be seen
everywhere, and the gentle breezes would always be warm. With a
glaring defect in the newly refined law, the opportunity remains for
such an extremist to seek a court injunction or other legal avenue to
disrupt pleasure boating.

Most boaters make conscientious environmental choices. The few that
persist in dumping holding tanks in inland waters or pumping the bilge
after an oil change "accident", deserve to be ostracized by the
responsible majority. Our recreational enjoyment depends upon
maintaining acceptably clean waterways and a healthy fishery.
Environmental activists on the radical fringes of that movement would
do well to recognize that the average pleasure boater isn't a serious
threat to the eco-system.

We can indeed send up a flare by contacting our congressional
representatives and urging them to exempt pleasure vessels from the
court ruling mandating that all vessels apply for discharge permits.
Let's not pump the baby out with the bilge water.

On Jun 1, 8:06 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

Most boaters make conscientious environmental choices. The few that
persist in dumping holding tanks in inland waters or pumping the bilge
after an oil change "accident", deserve to be ostracized by the
responsible majority. Our recreational enjoyment depends upon
maintaining acceptably clean waterways and a healthy fishery.
Environmental activists on the radical fringes of that movement would
do well to recognize that the average pleasure boater isn't a serious
threat to the eco-system.

But there are constantly MORE of these innocent, average boaters,
vying for space in finite waters. The U.S. population is projected to
exceed 400 million and perhaps 500 million by mid-century. All this
talk of "invasive species" is overlooking the most obvious one. Growth-
addicts accept the constant crowding of natural places as inevitable
progress. Others see it as the mindless suffocation it really is.

I don't see evidence of "responsibility" in a good percentage of the
boating public, especially the PWC crowd. Whether or not they're into
illegal dumping, they lack respect for basic peace & quiet, and are
happy to cause wake intrusions. Fast powerboats should be limited to
areas far offshore, or "white trash" reservoirs that weren't natural
lakes to begin with.

Boaters who complain about having discharges controlled may have more
to hide than they admit. The mere presence of gasoline or diesel
exhaust in or around water is unnatural. I also question the video
clip where he claims fees could be over $1,000 if enacted. Is that per
year, or lifetime?

Of course, Bush's EPA (Environmental Pillaging Agency) isn't eager to
enforce anything that inconveniences people, who are infinitely more
important than nature, even though nature is keeping them alive.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/


When animals exceed carrying-capacity we call it overpopulation.
When humans exceed carrying-capacity we call it "economic growth."

On Jun 12, 8:28?pm, Enough Already wrote:

But there are constantly MORE of these innocent, average boaters,
vying for space in finite waters. The U.S. population is projected to
exceed 400 million and perhaps 500 million by mid-century. All this
talk of "invasive species" is overlooking the most obvious one. Growth-
addicts accept the constant crowding of natural places as inevitable
progress. Others see it as the mindless suffocation it really is.


I'm part of the group that didn't self-create. Somebody else is
responsible for my presence on the planet, I didn't ask or decide to
be born but now that I am here I don't plan to commit suicide to
reduce my impact on Gaia.

I don't see evidence of "responsibility" in a good percentage of the
boating public, especially the PWC crowd. Whether or not they're into
illegal dumping, they lack respect for basic peace & quiet, and are
happy to cause wake intrusions. Fast powerboats should be limited to
areas far offshore, or "white trash" reservoirs that weren't natural
lakes to begin with.


Defining all boaters by what you consider to be the thoughtless
actions of some stereotypical PWC'ers is pretty extreme.




Boaters who complain about having discharges controlled may have more
to hide than they admit. The mere presence of gasoline or diesel
exhaust in or around water is unnatural. I also question the video
clip where he claims fees could be over $1,000 if enacted. Is that per
year, or lifetime?

The problem with the regulation is the definition of "discharge".
Cooling water picked up from a lake or ocean and passed through the
exceptionally clean water jacket of an engine becomes a discharge when
it is expelled. Any boat needs to "discharge" bilge water to remain
afloat. If you and your zero-population-frowth buddies are out
kayaking and one of the kayaks ships some water.....don't you dare
bail it out! (That's a "discharge" under the law).

Certain discharges, like untreated sewage, garbage, or petroleum
products are prohibited by law and should be. The legislation only
permits discharges "incidental to the normal operation of a boat."
One can certainly boat without pumping sewage directly overboard, but
it's pretty tough to stop rainwater from running across a deck and
over the side. That rainwater is technically a "discharge", and is
probably less polluted than the rainwater that runs off the roof of
your house, or my house, etc. Would you recommend we all tear the
roofs off of our houses? I'm sure the answer is no.


Of course, Bush's EPA (Environmental Pillaging Agency) isn't eager to
enforce anything that inconveniences people, who are infinitely more
important than nature, even though nature is keeping them alive.

E.A.

Many of us were raised to be "conservationists". I'd like to think I'm
among such a group. A conservationist is one who believes in using
natural resources sparingly and responsibly- and in the case of
renewable resources using them at a rate that is no faster than they
will regenerate.

I'm not sure what some of the younger green people are all about.
How dare they breathe, excrete waste, wear natural or synthetic
fibers, ride in an automobile or (heavens!) own a computer with which
to access a group such as this? All of those actions adversely impact
the millions of species that were here before people. You undoubtedly
are aware of the enormous disposal problems and hazardous wastes
associated with computers.....

(some of that hazardous waste appears in this NG on a regular
basis)...

Should you not be allowed to own a computer, even if you are
responsibile when you dispose of it, simply because it's possible to
point out examples of other computer owners who are not responsible?


http://enough_already.tripod.com/

When animals exceed carrying-capacity we call it overpopulation.
When humans exceed carrying-capacity we call it "economic growth."

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench:
http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx



of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as
habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial...

annoyances, you see...

On Jun 1, 10:15 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench:
http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as
habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial...

annoyances, you see...

A fair trial. humph... Guess it depends on how much money you have.
Now that more and more are financially fit, the financially fit are
being targeted too and you just don' t like the level playing field do
you? Your comment is little more than a cliche', Please tell me how
your constitutional rights have been infringed on by Bush. Please name
anyone who's have by Bush's policy. It's really just a talking point
like the years the libs cried about the rules allowing FBI to check
into someones library reading. Crying for years when in fact as of
last fall, the FBI had asked for exactly zero library records, none,
nada. no ones constitutional rights have been slammed. You talk as if
this is some across the country sweep. Of course the only time my
constitutional rights were stomped on by dirty establisnment was
during the Carter adminstration. Your talking points have no basis in
fact, they just make you sound silly and uninformed.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 1, 10:15 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench:
http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as
habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial...

annoyances, you see...

A fair trial. humph... Guess it depends on how much money you have.
Now that more and more are financially fit, the financially fit are
being targeted too and you just don' t like the level playing field do
you? Your comment is little more than a cliche', Please tell me how
your constitutional rights have been infringed on by Bush. Please name
anyone who's have by Bush's policy. It's really just a talking point
like the years the libs cried about the rules allowing FBI to check
into someones library reading. Crying for years when in fact as of
last fall, the FBI had asked for exactly zero library records, none,
nada. no ones constitutional rights have been slammed. You talk as if
this is some across the country sweep. Of course the only time my
constitutional rights were stomped on by dirty establisnment was
during the Carter adminstration. Your talking points have no basis in
fact, they just make you sound silly and uninformed.


Exactly zero library records? You may want to check your facts. You
probably won't, though. You may also want to ponder why it's difficult to
check these facts. Do you know why?