Frederick Burroughs wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:

Darwin proposed the "survival of the fittest." I think he also proposed
"size matters," though this may have been proposed by his wife. And
both laws fit our roads and waterways quite well.


Niche is as important, or more so than competition. While the bass
boaters are restricted to a two or three mile stretch of river behind
a dam, paddlers have a couple hundred miles of quiet, remotely
beautiful and largely unspoiled river.

But, that short stretch of river frequented by the bass fishermen is
an economic engine for the state, with boat registration, fishing
permits and fishing guide businesses.

Let the muthaboaters have their piers and concrete ramps. Paddlers are
happy to have a dirt or graveled pull-off from any state road that
runs near the water. There is little that can rival the beauty of
silently gliding on a waterway unassaulted by the hand and removed
from the noise of man. In fog-shrouded morning or gold and red-hued
evening, these quiet places become transcendent.

A canoe or kayak is the best time machine invented. It takes you into
the distant past (or far future, beyond the reign of man). It is not a
question of survival of the fittest. It becomes an appreciation of
aesthetics, an exercise of our brain's highest functions. No longer
anchored by primitive survival requirements, we progress into levels
of metaphysical beauty. We flow on currents of expanded consciousness.


Beautiful piece of writing indeed, but rather weak in justifying the
lion. Where's that money from motorboats going if not to pay THE
MACHINE, rather grinding I'd say...

Where's the law?

Things get more difficult all the time...

Beautiful day for kayaking. Perfect where I live, since I live here, in
a human jungle, mostly because I can walk to the bay, barely one block
away. So I just walked my kayak there until I heard someone--the park
guard--screaming. "No kayaks here!" "Why!?" I said. "Well,
regulations," he barked back. "But is there any law?" I insisted. He
informed me that the Parks Department doesn't want any legal suit from
people hurting themselves on the rocks... According to that logic, the
medical profession would be banned because you can bring suits against
doctors... And then I asked him if he didn't do anything about a
homeless couple near us, a common sight at the park. He challenged me,
"do they bother you?" And I say they don't bother me in quickly passing
through the park, but they sure scare the average family. In effect,
most of our parks remain no man's land.

Anyway I didn't take "no" for an answer, and I had him call the police.
But, of course, lion helps lion, and I was almost swallowed. And they
say they serve the community... I asked them why they don't take care
of the homeless in the park, and they anwered back that that was a
different issue. Thinking to myself, "shouldn't the issue be a clean,
safe park?" And then I asked, "where's the law that prevents me from
launching a kayak at this park?" They clued me in there's no law, only
the law of the guard, and roared at me to get lost at once or else...
And I say, I know that law, THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE...

NOTE: I called the Parks Department later and they confirmed the
prohibition. So a member of the community trying to have fun out there
is restricted by the "law"; the homeless though got the law on their
side. Where's the law?

donquijote1954 wrote:



Beautiful day for kayaking. Perfect where I live, since I live here, in
a human jungle, mostly because I can walk to the bay, barely one block
away. So I just walked my kayak there until I heard someone--the park
guard--screaming. "No kayaks here!" "Why!?" I said. "Well,
regulations," he barked back. "But is there any law?" I insisted. He
informed me that the Parks Department doesn't want any legal suit from
people hurting themselves on the rocks... According to that logic, the
medical profession would be banned because you can bring suits against
doctors... And then I asked him if he didn't do anything about a
homeless couple near us, a common sight at the park. He challenged me,
"do they bother you?" And I say they don't bother me in quickly passing
through the park, but they sure scare the average family. In effect,
most of our parks remain no man's land.

Anyway I didn't take "no" for an answer, and I had him call the police.
But, of course, lion helps lion, and I was almost swallowed. And they
say they serve the community... I asked them why they don't take care
of the homeless in the park, and they anwered back that that was a
different issue. Thinking to myself, "shouldn't the issue be a clean,
safe park?" And then I asked, "where's the law that prevents me from
launching a kayak at this park?" They clued me in there's no law, only
the law of the guard, and roared at me to get lost at once or else...
And I say, I know that law, THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE...

NOTE: I called the Parks Department later and they confirmed the
prohibition. So a member of the community trying to have fun out there
is restricted by the "law"; the homeless though got the law on their
side. Where's the law?



Perhaps you should stand up, take control of your life, and move out of
that overpriced slum that you appear to live in. Of course, I really
doubt that you'd fit in out in the country. All those rednecks, don't
you know? The ones that you appear to look down on. The ones that you
might have to depend upon to pull you out of the ditch, jump start your
car some time, or be part of the volunteer crew that comes to fight a
fire at your place. Heaven forbid that they might expect the same from you.

donquijote1954 wrote:


NOTE: I called the Parks Department later and they confirmed the
prohibition. So a member of the community trying to have fun out there
is restricted by the "law"; the homeless though got the law on their
side. Where's the law?


A couple of things... Maybe you can utilize the time when the law is
clocked out, say early in the morning or late in the evening? Less
competition at the water hole; predators still in bed, or watching the
evening news. No one is there to even have a 2nd thought.

We are after all moderately proficient and adaptable apes, but
handicapped by a weakness for habit and routine. Break the routine and
niche widens, competition diminishes, boundaries expand, stretch and
become porous. Go to the waters edge before first light and the world
is yours. Use the moon to open unknown universes. **** their 9 to 5 laws.

If you don't have one already, go get a DeLorme atlas for your state.
These atlases show all established public boat ramps and canoe
landings. Our affection for water is unique among apes; from our
heritage towards our destiny. Draw lessons from both shark and
sardine, and territorial ape.





--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:


NOTE: I called the Parks Department later and they confirmed the
prohibition. So a member of the community trying to have fun out there
is restricted by the "law"; the homeless though got the law on their
side. Where's the law?


A couple of things... Maybe you can utilize the time when the law is
clocked out, say early in the morning or late in the evening? Less
competition at the water hole; predators still in bed, or watching the
evening news. No one is there to even have a 2nd thought.

We are after all moderately proficient and adaptable apes, but
handicapped by a weakness for habit and routine. Break the routine and
niche widens, competition diminishes, boundaries expand, stretch and
become porous. Go to the waters edge before first light and the world
is yours. Use the moon to open unknown universes. **** their 9 to 5 laws.

If you don't have one already, go get a DeLorme atlas for your state.
These atlases show all established public boat ramps and canoe
landings. Our affection for water is unique among apes; from our
heritage towards our destiny. Draw lessons from both shark and
sardine, and territorial ape.


Well, that's exactly the way I go around it now: when the predators
sleep. Originally I bought a bigger kayak cart that allowed me to walk
3 times as much with ease. But still the launching itself was a pain,
having a seawall and a drop, and stinking water. Still use it before 9
pm because of the predator.

It's unbeliebably beautiful at night and comfortable, at least in the
summer, and I have some islands around that offer the right reward: NO
JUNGLE.

Closing to motorboats one day a weekend, not a bad idea for other
places. But they are already complaining. Well, the happy polluting
family can alway get their big fat arse on a kayak...


Rough water ahead for motorboats

Amanda Fehd
June 22, 2005
A proposal to close Emerald Bay to private motorboats for one day each
weekend in July and August because of exhaust pollution has boating
enthusiasts asking a lot of questions.

The plan is part of shorezone requirements that have been 15 years in
the making by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which regulates
environmental policies at the lake.

Largely overlooked, the issue could become more controversial as the
agency prepares to approve its final shorezone regulation - a decision
repeatedly delayed because there hasn't been consensus.

Research has found high levels of exhaust pollution in the bay - the
same pollution that significantly decreased in other areas of the lake
after the agency banned two-stroke engines in 1998.

Emerald Bay has become a hot spot of carcinogens and mutagens produced
by fuel combustion, said Colleen Shade, chief of the planning and
evaluation team for the agency.

The watercraft community sees the move as another means to chip away at
the rights of boaters on the lake, who fought a long battle when the
ban on two-stroke engines was proposed and eventually passed.

"The theory in the boating community is that they hope to eventually
ban power boats altogether in Lake Tahoe," said Ron Williams, owner of
a 76-fleet power boat rental company, Tahoe Keys Boat Rental. He spent
$200,000 converting his jet ski inventory to four stroke when the
two-stroke ban took place.

Agency spokeswoman Julie Regan acknowledged there is a demand for areas
in the lake to be non-motorized, but said the "TRPA has no interest in
banning all motorized watercraft on the lake.

"We understand that boating has an important history here, and that
it's always been a part of life on Lake Tahoe."

But Williams said he's starting to see a pattern in how the agency
handles problems.

"The TRPA likes to arbitrarily take away rights from the citizens and
the community and a lot of times, they come up with these half-baked
ideas," Williams said.

"Rights come with responsibility," said Regan. "We have a duty to
encourage recreation that is environmentally sustainable. You can love
a place (like Emerald Bay) to death. You can ruin a resource if you
don't manage it correctly."

Tour boats such as the M.S. Dixie would still have free reign in the
bay under the proposals. The paddlewheelers are already heavily
monitored, said Regan. In addition, the closure would not affect
canoes, kayaks, and sailboats.

Implementation is a long way off, said Regan. The TRPA Governing Board
would have to vote on the document and the earliest pilot project would
be next summer.

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/art...News/106220028

Here's a shark that ignores RECYCLING, and thus the need for a clean
community. Well, a filthy jungle is not his concern. It reminds me of
Jacques Cousteau's words: "Living like rats it's not my idea of life."

There's also good news, I mean on a small scale...

"Ten states across America already achieve an 80 percent recycling rate
for bottles and cans by requiring a refundable deposit on beverage
containers. The key to increase recycling on a national basis is
providing appropriate financial incentives," Woodall said.


Pepsi 'Broke Recycling Promise'
GrassRoots Recycling Network 27apr01
Shareholder Resolution Focuses Attention on Pepsi's Bottle and Can
Waste

ATLANTA, GA - PepsiCo Inc. (Ticker: PEP) broke its 1990 promise to make
soda bottles with 25 percent recycled plastic and the company has spent
millions of dollars lobbying against recycling legislation,
environmental leaders said today.

"More than 1.6 million Pepsi soda bottles and cans are thrown away
every hour in the United States. In one day, more than 40 million Pepsi
soft drink containers become litter or get sent to landfills and
incinerators," said Bill Sheehan, national network coordinator for the
Athens, Georgia-based GrassRoots Recycling Network.

"It's time for Pepsi to take responsibility for wasting billions of
beverage containers each year. We urge Pepsi shareholders to vote for
the recycling proposal, proxy item Number 6, at the annual shareholder
meeting in Dallas, Texas on May 2," Sheehan said.

PepsiCo is the nation's second largest beverage maker. PepsiCo
shareholders can vote via the Internet for the recycling proposal by
going to the GrassRoots Recycling Network web site, at www.grrn.org .

"We have targeted Pepsi for several reasons. First, because Pepsi broke
its 1990 promise to use recycled plastic in making new soda bottles.
Second, because the company increasingly relies on throwaway plastic
bottles, and three out of four end up in landfills or incinerators.
Third, because Pepsi has spent millions of dollars to defeat the most
effective beverage container recycling laws in the nation - bottle
bills," said Lance King, a spokesman for environmental groups
supporting the shareholder resolution.

Walden Asset Management of Boston, and Domini Social Investments of New
York, which together own $20 million worth of PepsiCo stock, submitted
the shareholder resolution. The non- binding resolution calls for
PepsiCo to meet two specific recycling goals by January 1, 2005:

* Make Pepsi plastic bottles with 25 percent recycled plastic; and *
Achieve an 80 percent national recycling rate for bottles and cans.

The PepsiCo recycling resolution is similar to one introduced at the
April 18 Coke shareholder meeting. That proposal received 5.2% 'Yes"
votes, representing 88.9 million shares worth more than $4 billion.

PepsiCo and Coca-Cola both promised in 1990 to use 25% recycled plastic
in their plastic bottles. Coke recently started using a small amount of
recycled plastic in the United States, and CEO Doug Daft announced at
the April 18 meeting that Coke has set a 10% recycled content goal by
2005 for their plastic bottles.

Environmental groups led by the GrassRoots Recycling Network have waged
a four-year campaign targeting Coca-Cola to take responsibility for
rising beverage container waste and declining recycling rates.
"Coke has been the focus of our campaign because they are the market
leader, with 44% of the U.S. soft drink market. Pepsi, with 31% market
share, has done nothing. Pepsi has gotten a free ride. But that is
about to change," said Sheehan.
"Plastics are now the largest portion of beverage container waste in
the United States.," Pat Franklin, executive director of the Arlington,
Virginia-based Container Recycling Institute said. "Beverage container
waste increased more than 50 percent from 1992 to 1999. Pepsi is a big
part of the problem."

"Pepsi needs to take responsibility for its bottle and can waste.
Throwing away billions of bottles and cans every year burdens local
government and taxpayers with clean-up costs, pollutes the environment,
and squanders valuable energy needed to make new containers from virgin
resources," Franklin said.

"The shareholder resolutions set realistic goals, based on actual
experience. Plastic soda bottles are made with 25 percent recycled
plastic in several countries, including Australia, Switzerland and
Sweden. Coke has started using recycled plastic again in the United
States, while Pepsi shirks its responsibility," Bob Woodall, executive
director of Atlanta, Georgia-based Waste Not Georgia, said.

"Ten states across America already achieve an 80 percent recycling rate
for bottles and cans by requiring a refundable deposit on beverage
containers. The key to increase recycling on a national basis is
providing appropriate financial incentives," Woodall said.

PepsiCo's recent acquisition of Gatorade brand, the sports drink
leader, is both good news and bad news from a recycling perspective.
"Gatorade reportedly uses some recycled plastic in making its bottles.
However, more than 80 percent of Gatorade plastic bottles get thrown
away, because only 2 states require a refundable deposit on this type
of beverage," Sheehan said. "Non- carbonated drinks, like teas, sports
drinks and water, are the fastest growing portion of the beverage
market, and the fastest growing contributor to beverage container
waste."
* More information is at www.grrn.org/media
* Contact: Lance King (703) 536-7282 Bill Sheehan (706) 613-7121

http://www.ecologycenter.org/iptf/no...enpromise.html