| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Potential on-topic starter
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. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Boating's Tawdry Public Image
* Good article, even though I'm fairly critical of it below. * Bothers me when people (not you here) pick on SUVs using lots of gas but don't see their own wastefullness. In our case it might be using boats that gulp 5+ gallons per hour. But many people I know have something they do that gulps resources. * Requiring a license for recreational boaters might help. I know it's been discussed much here & agree with many of the reasons against it. But if more boaters knew the dammage they caused, it's solutions, and the fines & penalties for doing it, that would have to help. ~ Might help the boating's image in other ways too. 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 * Bull ship. How many stories do we see right here in rec.boats of all the stupid, uninformed, unskilled, etc. etc., boaters out there that are doing stupid stuff that bothers us? Do you really believe that "most" boaters are trying to be "careful stewards of the environent"? ~~ I think a few try to be "careful stewards", most are somewhat aware of the environment, and many don't give it much thought at all. I think most pleasure boaters, at best, try to follow the laws in existence and don't go out of their way to pollute. But many will be careless with oil or gas. Setting up the situaion as the "non-boaters" are "under informed" and that "most" boaters are "careful stewards" is disingenuous and antagonizing. Some faulty logic must have influenced a 1996 EPA fact sheet.... The report notes that there are 12-million marine engines...and that they ...must therefore be among the "leading causes" of ...pollution. ... Twelve million marine engines...would certainly all be working overtime to wrest the status of a "leading cause" from perhaps 150-million automobile and light truck engines. * Certainly 12 million marine engines aren't nearly equal to 150 million car engines in the pollution they produce. But you change the wording & meaning from "amoung the leading causes" to "leading cause". This is not only faulty logic but dishonest discourse. It's so sad when people have a decent and valid point then ruin it by being intellectually dishonest and/or overstating their case. Don't you see that, yes, your words will rally the people that already agree with you (your base?) but it gives everyone that disagrees with you a reason to dismiss your thougts (which are great later in the article) as biased propoganda? 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." * Of course boats aren't designed to spill and they are overstating their side. But the reality is many people routinly spill gas when refuling exactly for the reasons alluded to. You calling Olsson's statement "outrageous" when it's something that does routinely happen is a nice way to avoid a very real issue. Why not use this as common gound. Admit that it happens and suggest that this is a point where the boating interestes might work on a solution. I'll bet that for $5 to $15 more per boat manufacturers could put in something that eliminates many of the spills that happen when refuling. This is a much better consession than the proposed "point source" classification. 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. * Now you're talking. Admitting there are things we can & should do and that we need to make an effort inform the non-boating public. Gary |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry if this has been addressed, but I stopped coming here to actually try
and discuss boats because of the fact that it's impossible to find a on-topic thread in here. I'm wondering if it's possible to create a .mod group for boating? Even though I've been on the 'net for a long time I have no idea what it takes to create a newsgroup. I'm willing to do some work on the groups behalf, but I have no idea where to start. Thoughts? Mark |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. :-) |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm wondering if it's possible to create a .mod
group for boating? No need, there are several already. Most of the people like yourself who are unhappy with the rec.boats format have relocated to groups like boatered.com, thehulltruth.com, iboats.com, etc. It is interesting that some of these moderated groups have huge numbers of OT posts as well. They put all the OT posts together in the same folder, and try to enforce some rules against personal attacks and name calling. If your only interest is to zero directly in on why your BrandX outboard starts cutting out when it has been running for a couple of minutes, you can go straight to that department, get your information, and get out. Those who pine for a moderated group have several to choose from. Good luck. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Krause wrote:
Chuck...have you seen those missing explosives? Let's see ... 400 *thousand* tons located and destroyed. 400 tons missing. Not too bad. Eisboch |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Off Topic Posting Has Finally Hit Its Inevitable Bottom. | General | |||
| Starter Search | General | |||
| 115 mercury starter problem | General | |||
| Replaced starter (now clicking) | General | |||
| Starter Problems? or Solenoid Prolems? | General | |||
Linear Mode
