113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling
resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing
747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing
be eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.



We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.

The vast majority of Americans don't own a boat, they would say that all
boaters should be taxed to save our limited resources. Since I don't
trailer a boat, and don't own a pickup truck, I think all pick up trucks
should pay a 100% surcharge on all gas purchased.

113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:
Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification
for burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just
for kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

Large boats with smaller engines would burn less fuel per hour, but the
MPG would be worse since they have to run the same distance, dummy.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:59:50 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling
resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing
747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing
be eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.



We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.

The vast majority of Americans don't own a boat, they would say that all
boaters should be taxed to save our limited resources. Since I don't
trailer a boat, and don't own a pickup truck, I think all pick up trucks
should pay a 100% surcharge on all gas purchased.

Well I think any car whose parent company is located in another
country should be taxed at 200% each year.

Cars from companies HQ'd in the US shouldn't be taxed.

Oh - special consideration for those who drive vehicles made by Ford -
as in a special bonus payment from the gubmint for supporting the best
car brand on the planet.

Except for Mustangs - even the best make mistakes from time-to-time.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:59:50 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling
resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing
747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing
be eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.


We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.
The vast majority of Americans don't own a boat, they would say that all
boaters should be taxed to save our limited resources. Since I don't
trailer a boat, and don't own a pickup truck, I think all pick up trucks
should pay a 100% surcharge on all gas purchased.

Well I think any car whose parent company is located in another
country should be taxed at 200% each year.

Cars from companies HQ'd in the US shouldn't be taxed.

Oh - special consideration for those who drive vehicles made by Ford -
as in a special bonus payment from the gubmint for supporting the best
car brand on the planet.

Except for Mustangs - even the best make mistakes from time-to-time.

I agree with all of your points, but think we need to make sure Mazda is
included in the tax support, since they are a division of Ford.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording
it. It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling
resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing
747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing
be eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.



We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing
the big users into boats with smaller engines.

The vast majority of Americans don't own a boat, they would say that all
boaters should be taxed to save our limited resources. Since I don't
trailer a boat, and don't own a pickup truck, I think all pick up trucks
should pay a 100% surcharge on all gas purchased.


Works for me. :}

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Nov 9, 6:08 pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:35:52 -0500, HK wrote:
Yep.

The latest Sport Fishing magazine has a profile of a 42' Yellowfin
center console with FOUR 300-hp outboards. Engines burn 113 gph at WOT
(67 mph) but only (!) 41 gph at a 40 mph cruise.

Well, fools and their money are soon parted, but I believe anyone who
buys one of these deserves to be hit with some sort of horrific fuel
wastage tax, maybe a non-tax deductible charge of, say, $20,000 just for
owning such a resource waster.

Boats and fuel wastage like this just puts us all deeper in the hole to
the Saudi pigs.

Here is an even bigger way to get deeper into the hole. How much more
should those folks pay?

http://www.nice-ventures.com/blog/up...ASY-CRUISE-SHI...

I always thought you did pay on a Carnival. Most people got seemingly
deathly ill ont he first day. did anyone ever figure out why?

113 gallons per hour...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:12:38 -0500, BAR wrote:

HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?


What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?
As high as diesel fuel has risen, it is still a relatively small
percentage of overall costs with a large sportfish. The guys being
impacted the most are the ones with large gas engines. Those boats
tend to be smaller and less expensive which makes fuel cost a much
larger piece of the overall budget.

Anyone thinking about buying a large diesel powered boat that is
worried about fuel costs just can't afford it.
You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Does your 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat waste huge amounts of
dwindling resources for your fun?

Give it up man - it's not going anywhere.

We get the point.

I think I've finally figure it out. Harry is the idiot everyone keeps
around because his antics are funny as hell. Nobody, I hope, believes
the crap he throws around.

113 gallons per hour...
 

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:32:10 -0500, HK wrote:

We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.

Absolutely, all Yamaha outboards more than 20 hp should be hit with a
$20K/year surtax. And let's tax inefficient V8 SUVs while we're at
it, especially Toyota 4 Runners and people who live in homes with more
than 1,000 sq ft per person. Then we can start on private aviation of
all types.

Better yet, let's go to fuel rationing. Bring in Fidel, he'll know
how to implement all this.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:43:57 -0500, HK wrote:

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is a
matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."

Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch




There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier
air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

You seem bitter about something, Harry. Are the guys with the big
boats catching all your fish?