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."

"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

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.

"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

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:55:56 -0500, "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.

That was before the advent of ETEC. :)

"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

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.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..



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.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to that.
But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing is what
they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in it.

Unfortunately, the only fair way to deal with it is to have a across the
board fuel surcharge that applies to everyone. Use more, pay more. Heck,
congress is pushing to raise federal cigarette taxes to discourage smoking.
Everyone that smokes will pay with no special consideration to those who can
afford it and those that can't.

Eisboch

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, 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.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

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.