Well, I'm not going to speak in defense of the sardine in their
eternal quest to survive the big fish...

The issue here is, WHY A KAYAK OR CANOE MUST GIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY TO
THE MOTORBOATS?

Every weekend the intracostal waterway of Miami becomes a parade of
motorboats of all sorts, from the very big (the owners of this town)
to the very small (the noisy jet skis), often driven by intoxicated
drivers (I guess you call them "drivers," though seldom they are
accountable to the standards as vehicle drivers, like DUI), and almost
always running (or should I say "flying"?) up and down (again, with no
speed limit restrictions like regular drivers). So the task of
crossing these sea highways by paddle becomes something like a duck
crossing the hunting grounds, and you are the sitting duck...

But the ocean is also hunting ground. The other day (it was weekday,
hardly any boats out there), I went to out in my tandem kayak, which I
chose as bright as it could be (sunrise) with the paddles to match
(they could be more visible than the kayak itself), and out of nowhere
came this boat that passed us right in front, so much so that my
partner stopped paddling. The ocean was absolutely flat and it was a
nice sunny day, so the driver must have chosen to make it a close
call...

It wasn't a surprise for me though. The cigarette boats routinely roar
close to the beach to signal who the seas belong to. Hey, it belongs
to the big fish!

NOTE: The attendants of this West Marine store I went to to get a flag
for the kayak told me of the motorboats, "Hey be careful. They don't
care."

WELCOME TO BE JUNGLE
(beware of the big fish)
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?
(the sardine revolution)
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution

ComandanteBanana wrote

> Well, I'm not going to speak in defense of the sardine in their
> eternal quest to survive the big fish...

Glad to hear it since you do not appear to be competent to defend your 
position on the issues you did address.

> The issue here is, WHY A KAYAK OR CANOE MUST GIVE THE RIGHT OF
> WAY TO THE MOTORBOATS?

Here is is in a nutshell.  It's called "The Rule of Tonage."  I outweigh you 
by . . . well, by a lot of times.  In an encounter between my boat and 
yours, yours, and you, will be crushed.  If you aren't, you'll be turned 
into hamburger, or fish chum if you prefer, by the propellers on the back, 
that are turned, slow or fast, by more than 300 horsepower each.  It's call 
survival.  Ignoring it is commonly referred to as testing Darwin's theory. 
They have awards, issued poshumously, for thost that do.

Other than that, here's another anwer.  You don't have to give right of way. 
Generally speaking, non powered vessels, operated with a bit of common 
sense, have the right of way over powered ones.

> Every weekend the intracostal waterway of Miami becomes a parade of
> motorboats of all sorts, from the very big (the owners of this town)
> to the very small (the noisy jet skis), often driven by intoxicated
> drivers (I guess you call them "drivers," though seldom they are
> accountable to the standards as vehicle drivers, like DUI), and almost
> always running (or should I say "flying"?) up and down (again, with no
> speed limit restrictions like regular drivers). So the task of
> crossing these sea highways by paddle becomes something like a duck
> crossing the hunting grounds, and you are the sitting duck...

They're called Captains or pilots, not drivers.  If they intoxicated, report 
them.  There are, in fact, laws controlling that very much like those for 
automobile driers.  There are speed limits posted all over the place and 
quite a few that apply even when not posted.  On top of it all, there are 
maximum wake and other requirements you've not bothered to notice.

Crossing the channel, whether by paddle or by motorboat, is a lot like 
crossing any other highway.  You would be ill advised to pull out right in 
front of a boat operated by a captain with more knowledge and experience 
than your appear to have, operating at a legal speed, not intoxicated, just 
like you would be ill advised to push your skateboard out in front of 
traffic traveling at the speed limit on I-95.  You're the one entering the 
channel.  You're the one responsible for doing it safely.  Imagine that.

> But the ocean is also hunting ground. The other day (it was weekday,
> hardly any boats out there), I went to out in my tandem kayak, which I
> chose as bright as it could be (sunrise) with the paddles to match
> (they could be more visible than the kayak itself), and out of nowhere
> came this boat that passed us right in front, so much so that my
> partner stopped paddling. The ocean was absolutely flat and it was a
> nice sunny day, so the driver must have chosen to make it a close
> call...

You don't know that at all.  There are rules for who has the right of way on 
the ocean as well.  Have you bothered to research them?

While it is possible that the boater chose to make it a close call, that's 
not certain at all, particularly if he did not change course.  For all you 
know, he would have been on autopilot or, possibly, following a GPS course 
from one point to the next.  Your assumption that he chose to bother you is 
a bit off the mark.

I will grant you that it would have been nice for him to give you a bit more 
room.  I make a habit of doing that for vessels small enough that going 
behind them, through their wake, is not a problem while forcing them to go 
through mine might be.  On the other hand, if you were paddling into his 
path, you also had the option to give yourself more room.

Mostly, I think you think you should have equal rights and  you're not happy 
that you weren't able to impose your will on those bigger than you are.  I 
have the same problems with cops.  You'll get over it.  I did.

Lee

On Aug 14, 1:09 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> ComandanteBanana wrote
>
> > Well, I'm not going to speak in defense of the sardine in their
> > eternal quest to survive the big fish...
>
> Glad to hear it since you do not appear to be competent to defend your
> position on the issues you did address.

Perhaps gaining ground for the little boats out there is ambitious
enough not to take upon my shoulders the defense of the whole sardine
population.

>
> > The issue here is, WHY A KAYAK OR CANOE MUST GIVE THE RIGHT OF
> > WAY TO THE MOTORBOATS?
>
> Here is is in a nutshell.  It's called "The Rule of Tonage."  I outweigh you
> by . . . well, by a lot of times.  In an encounter between my boat and
> yours, yours, and you, will be crushed.  If you aren't, you'll be turned
> into hamburger, or fish chum if you prefer, by the propellers on the back> that are turned, slow or fast, by more than 300 horsepower each.  It's call
> survival.  Ignoring it is commonly referred to as testing Darwin's theory.
> They have awards, issued poshumously, for thost that do.

Good to know. Just by choosing to be a kayaker you'll be a strong
contender for the Darwin's awards.

But since I consider myself a SITTING DUCK, I'm actually doing little
to deserve that award. The motorboat driver is better qualified. He's
playing the SHARK here.

>
> Other than that, here's another anwer.  You don't have to give right of way.
> Generally speaking, non powered vessels, operated with a bit of common
> sense, have the right of way over powered ones.
>
> > Every weekend the intracostal waterway of Miami becomes a parade of
> > motorboats of all sorts, from the very big (the owners of this town)
> > to the very small (the noisy jet skis), often driven by intoxicated
> > drivers (I guess you call them "drivers," though seldom they are
> > accountable to the standards as vehicle drivers, like DUI), and almost
> > always running (or should I say "flying"?) up and down (again, with no
> > speed limit restrictions like regular drivers). So the task of
> > crossing these sea highways by paddle becomes something like a duck
> > crossing the hunting grounds, and you are the sitting duck...
>
> They're called Captains or pilots, not drivers.  If they intoxicated, report
> them.  There are, in fact, laws controlling that very much like those for
> automobile driers.  There are speed limits posted all over the place and
> quite a few that apply even when not posted.  On top of it all, there are
> maximum wake and other requirements you've not bothered to notice.

If the drivers of those motorboats are captains, then I'm the captain
of my kayak.

Hey, I better leave that honor for the sailboat captains.

>
> Crossing the channel, whether by paddle or by motorboat, is a lot like
> crossing any other highway.  You would be ill advised to pull out right in
> front of a boat operated by a captain with more knowledge and experience
> than your appear to have, operating at a legal speed, not intoxicated, just
> like you would be ill advised to push your skateboard out in front of
> traffic traveling at the speed limit on I-95.  You're the one entering the
> channel.  You're the one responsible for doing it safely.  Imagine that.

Ha, ha, ha. The sitting duck is responsible for sitting there...

http://www.whimsical-art.com/ProdImages/SittingDuck1.jpg

Now you explain to me how a 4mph kayak dodges a 40mph motorboats. A
lot of praying, right? ;)

>
> > But the ocean is also hunting ground. The other day (it was weekday,
> > hardly any boats out there), I went to out in my tandem kayak, which I
> > chose as bright as it could be (sunrise) with the paddles to match
> > (they could be more visible than the kayak itself), and out of nowhere
> > came this boat that passed us right in front, so much so that my
> > partner stopped paddling. The ocean was absolutely flat and it was a
> > nice sunny day, so the driver must have chosen to make it a close
> > call...
>
> You don't know that at all.  There are rules for who has the right of way on
> the ocean as well.  Have you bothered to research them?

Why research them if they are not practiced? The only de facto law is
law of the jungle, as I said before. And if it is in the books so the
books must be changed because the lawyers (who work for the motorboat
industry) are NOT considering kayaks when writing them.

>
> While it is possible that the boater chose to make it a close call, that's
> not certain at all, particularly if he did not change course.  For all you
> know, he would have been on autopilot or, possibly, following a GPS course
> from one point to the next.  Your assumption that he chose to bother you is
> a bit off the mark.

It was plain intimidation at worst, or simply ignoring the kayak the
way you would ignore, say, an ant. Do you change your course over an
ant?

>
> I will grant you that it would have been nice for him to give you a bit more
> room.  I make a habit of doing that for vessels small enough that going
> behind them, through their wake, is not a problem while forcing them to go
> through mine might be.  On the other hand, if you were paddling into his
> path, you also had the option to give yourself more room.

Which means, I should stop paddling and become a sitting duck, not a
slow duck.

You know my strategy? Just ignore him, and go on living like this is
my last day. ;)

>
> Mostly, I think you think you should have equal rights and  you're not happy
> that you weren't able to impose your will on those bigger than you are.  I
> have the same problems with cops.  You'll get over it.  I did.
>
> Lee

Hey, don't generalize. Some cops are good just as some boaters are
good, and even deserve to be called captains.

It is a jungle.  From the law of gross tonnage that Lee mentions to
the fact that there are oodles of natural things out there that can
kill you.  Powerboats aren't the only thing.   (As a matter of fact,
I've had a powerboat with a bunch of teenagers almost sink their own
boat trying to play "sink the kayak" when they caught me on a lake in
Virginia.  They gave up in frustration, I barely even got wet.  Unless
it runs you over or something, a powerboat is no match for a kayak. It
can seem a little scary, however.)  It is much safer to sit inside and
watch TV.

On Aug 14, 2:53 pm, Galen Hekhuis  wrote:
> It is a jungle.  From the law of gross tonnage that Lee mentions to
> the fact that there are oodles of natural things out there that can
> kill you.  Powerboats aren't the only thing.   (As a matter of fact,
> I've had a powerboat with a bunch of teenagers almost sink their own
> boat trying to play "sink the kayak" when they caught me on a lake in
> Virginia.  They gave up in frustration, I barely even got wet.  Unless
> it runs you over or something, a powerboat is no match for a kayak. It
> can seem a little scary, however.)  It is much safer to sit inside and
> watch TV.

You can always watch kayaking videos, right? ;)

But this kid makes the wrong assumption first (it's NOT a jungle) and
then realized the hard truth...

'Looks like I’m wrong.  According to this coast guard captain, one
should always assume that “might makes right” on the water.  If you
see a vehicle larger than you....avoid it!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prDueT4iHj8&feature=related

Yeah man, you are in worse situation that a bike. Here you are fair
game for every single predator out there. And the least of your
worries are sharks and alligators.

On Aug 14, 1:09 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:

> They're called Captains or pilots, not drivers.  If they intoxicated, report
> them.  There are, in fact, laws controlling that very much like those for
> automobile driers.  There are speed limits posted all over the place and
> quite a few that apply even when not posted.  On top of it all, there are
> maximum wake and other requirements you've not bothered to notice.

I'll like you to elaborate more on this. Is enforcement as harsh and
frequent as on the roads? Are there open container laws? Are there
speed limits? And are there wake requirements?

Not that I care about the last issue. ;)

>> Here is is in a nutshell. It's called "The Rule of Tonage." I outweigh 
>> you
>> by . . . well, by a lot of times. In an encounter between my boat and
>> yours, yours, and you, will be crushed. If you aren't, you'll be turned
>> into hamburger, or fish chum if you prefer, by the propellers on the 
>> back,
>> that are turned, slow or fast, by more than 300 horsepower each. It's 
>> call
>> survival. Ignoring it is commonly referred to as testing Darwin's theory.
>> They have awards, issued poshumously, for thost that do.

>Good to know. Just by choosing to be a kayaker you'll be a strong
>contender for the Darwin's awards.

Not at all.  Your question was why you have to give way.  The answer is 
because you don't stand a chance if you don't.  Just like motorcyclists, the 
one most likely to die in an accident is the one that had better make sure 
one doesn't happen.

> But since I consider myself a SITTING DUCK, I'm actually doing little
> to deserve that award. The motorboat driver is better qualified. He's
> playing the SHARK here.

Only if you assume that he's trying to get you.  If he was, you'd be the 
first to know.  I suppose if a rock were falling, you'd step under it and 
blame the rock for hitting you.

If the drivers of those motorboats are captains, then I'm the captain
of my kayak.

OK with me.

>> Crossing the channel, whether by paddle or by motorboat, is a lot like
>> crossing any other highway. You would be ill advised to pull out right in
>> front of a boat operated by a captain with more knowledge and experience
>> than your appear to have, operating at a legal speed, not intoxicated, 
>> just
>> like you would be ill advised to push your skateboard out in front of
>> traffic traveling at the speed limit on I-95. You're the one entering the
>> channel. You're the one responsible for doing it safely. Imagine that.

> Ha, ha, ha. The sitting duck is responsible for sitting there...

Were you sitting there or crossing the channel?  Make up your mind.

> Now you explain to me how a 4mph kayak dodges a 40mph motorboats. A
> lot of praying, right? ;)

You don't.  You give way.  It appears you had the answer to your question 
all along.  You just don't like it.

>> You don't know that at all. There are rules for who has the right of way 
>> on
>> the ocean as well. Have you bothered to research them?

>Why research them if they are not practiced?

So you know what they are and can act accordingly?
So you can report those that fail to abide by them?

Did you learn the rules of driving even though they are routinely violated?

> The only de facto law is law of the jungle, as I said before.

If you believe that, then quit your complaining.  You chose to be low on the 
food chain.  They chose not to be.  They benefit and suffer for their 
choices.  You benefit and suffer for yours.  If you don't like it, change 
your choice.

> And if it is in the books so the books must be changed because the lawyers 
> (who work
> for the motorboat industry) are NOT considering kayaks when writing them.

You don't know what the laws are, but you know what those that wrote them 
were thinking?

The lawyers that wrote the laws were not, in fact, working for the motorboat 
industry.  If they were, there would be no give way rules for sailboats and 
their damned sure would be no manatee zones where there are not, normally, 
any manatees.

> It was plain intimidation at worst, or simply ignoring the kayak the
> way you would ignore, say, an ant. Do you change your course over an
>ant?

Sometimes.

>> I will grant you that it would have been nice for him to give you a bit 
>> more
>> room. I make a habit of doing that for vessels small enough that going
>> behind them, through their wake, is not a problem while forcing them to 
>> go
>> through mine might be. On the other hand, if you were paddling into his
>> path, you also had the option to give yourself more room.

>Which means, I should stop paddling and become a sitting duck, not a
>slow duck.

Which means that paddling into the path of an oncoming speeding boat is kind 
of stupid.  Refer back to the Darwin discussion.

> You know my strategy? Just ignore him, and go on living like this is
>my last day. ;)

Works for me, but it makes me wonder why you're complaining here.

Lee

>
> Mostly, I think you think you should have equal rights and you're not 
> happy
> that you weren't able to impose your will on those bigger than you are. I
> have the same problems with cops. You'll get over it. I did.
>
> Lee

Hey, don't generalize. Some cops are good just as some boaters are
good, and even deserve to be called captains.

> 'Looks like I’m wrong.  According to this coast guard captain, one
> should always assume that “might makes right” on the water.  If you
> see a vehicle larger than you....avoid it!'

Anything else may be right, but there's a reason for the words "dead right."

Lee

> They're called Captains or pilots, not drivers. If they intoxicated, 
> report
> them. There are, in fact, laws controlling that very much like those for
> automobile driers. There are speed limits posted all over the place and
> quite a few that apply even when not posted. On top of it all, there are
> maximum wake and other requirements you've not bothered to notice.

I'll like you to elaborate more on this. Is enforcement as harsh and
frequent as on the roads?

More so in the intracoastal.   Every city in S. Florida, plus the Coast 
Guard, Marine Patol the Fish and Game Commission has boats on the 
intracoastal enforcing the laws.

> Are there open container laws?

Probably not, if for no other reason, because a lot of the boats, mine, for 
example, have bars aboard.  Having opened containers does not translate into 
being impaired.  There are laws against operating a boat under the 
influence.  They're quite similar to the ones for drivers if you're a 
civilian.  They're must more stringent if you're a licensed captain.

> Are there speed limits?

Yes.  How does it happen you have not observed the signs?  They're all over 
the intracoastal.

> And are there wake requirements?

Yes.  They're posted in various places along the intracoastal too.

> Not that I care about the last issue. ;)

You might.  While my wake probably would not sink you, it would probably 
make you uncomfortable.

Lee

On Aug 15, 3:20 am, Two meter troll  wrote:
> the rules of the road inland or at sea say the  un powered less
> maneuverable vessel has the right of way and the real watch out is on
> the overtaking vessel.
>
> "The Nav Rules are written with the understanding that not all boats
> can maneuver with the same ease. Therefore, Rule 18 states that
> certain vessels must keep out of the way of other vessels due to their
> ability to maneuver.
>
> A power driven vessel underway must keep out of the way of the
> following:
>
>           o A sailing vessel, under sail only, and vessels propelled
> by oars or paddles. (Note: when a sailboat has its motor running, it
> is considered a power driven vessel).
>           o A vessel engaged in fishing, whose fishing equipment
> restricts its maneuverability. This does not include a sport fisher or
> party boat and generally means a commercial fishing vessel.
>           o A vessel with restricted maneuverability such as a dredge
> or tow boat, a boat engaged in work that restricts it to a certain
> area, or a vessel transferring supplies to another vessel.
>           o A vessel not under command – broken down.
>
> Each of these vessels must keep out of the way of the next vessel in
> the hierarchy. For example, a sailboat must keep out of the way of a
> vessel engaged in fishing, which in turn must keep out of the way of a
> vessel with restricted maneuverability. And everyone must keep out of
> the way of a vessel not under command.
> "
>
> that being said unofficially tonnage rules.
> or you can decide to get mad and do something about the drunken
> assholes. this can range from getting a citizen group together or
> direct action.
>
>  a granade or a can of white gas with a blasting cap floated in front
> of a cig boat.  sure makes the scum of the water into so much scrap. A
> nice chain just under the water does a good job as well.
>  I do love the sound of bubbas beer can breaking his tooth.
>
> mainly my advice is to get out of the cancer coast and move to a place
> with humans.
>
> here is a link to the inland rules of the road.http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm
> read it carefully and don't try to go head to head with a jet ski.
> however they have side numbers and you can report them and bring
> charges.
>
> PS. in case you didn't notice Lee is a Plexiotomy recipient.

In South Florida is a bad idea to be a manatee. So much so that it may
become a verb...

Suzy wrote:
>> ...so you won’t get manateed, I mean run over.

Gus wrote:
> LOL at that.

Oh, I missed that. Maybe it will become and entry in the next
Webster’s Dictionary…

Manatee (v): to live in South Florida and get run over by motorboats
while kayaking, just like manatees.

Shark (v): to live in South Florida and own a big superfast motorboat
while intimidating others.

***

Hey, where's the real place with humans, Alaska, Scandinavia?

On Aug 15, 7:21 am, ComandanteBanana 
wrote:
> On Aug 15, 3:20 am, Two meter troll  wrote:
>
>
>
> > the rules of the road inland or at sea say the  un powered less
> > maneuverable vessel has the right of way and the real watch out is on
> > the overtaking vessel.
>
> > "The Nav Rules are written with the understanding that not all boats
> > can maneuver with the same ease. Therefore, Rule 18 states that
> > certain vessels must keep out of the way of other vessels due to their
> > ability to maneuver.
>
> > A power driven vessel underway must keep out of the way of the
> > following:
>
> >           o A sailing vessel, under sail only, and vessels propelled
> > by oars or paddles. (Note: when a sailboat has its motor running, it
> > is considered a power driven vessel).
> >           o A vessel engaged in fishing, whose fishing equipment
> > restricts its maneuverability. This does not include a sport fisher or
> > party boat and generally means a commercial fishing vessel.
> >           o A vessel with restricted maneuverability such as a dredge
> > or tow boat, a boat engaged in work that restricts it to a certain
> > area, or a vessel transferring supplies to another vessel.
> >           o A vessel not under command – broken down.
>
> > Each of these vessels must keep out of the way of the next vessel in
> > the hierarchy. For example, a sailboat must keep out of the way of a
> > vessel engaged in fishing, which in turn must keep out of the way of a
> > vessel with restricted maneuverability. And everyone must keep out of
> > the way of a vessel not under command.
> > "
>
> > that being said unofficially tonnage rules.
> > or you can decide to get mad and do something about the drunken
> > assholes. this can range from getting a citizen group together or
> > direct action.
>
> >  a granade or a can of white gas with a blasting cap floated in front
> > of a cig boat.  sure makes the scum of the water into so much scrap. A
> > nice chain just under the water does a good job as well.
> >  I do love the sound of bubbas beer can breaking his tooth.
>
> > mainly my advice is to get out of the cancer coast and move to a place
> > with humans.
>
> > here is a link to the inland rules of the road.http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm
> > read it carefully and don't try to go head to head with a jet ski.
> > however they have side numbers and you can report them and bring
> > charges.
>
> > PS. in case you didn't notice Lee is a Plexiotomy recipient.
>
> In South Florida is a bad idea to be a manatee. So much so that it may
> become a verb...
>
> Suzy wrote:
> >> ...so you won’t get manateed, I mean run over.
> Gus wrote:
> > LOL at that.
>
> Oh, I missed that. Maybe it will become and entry in the next
> Webster’s Dictionary…
>
> Manatee (v): to live in South Florida and get run over by motorboats
> while kayaking, just like manatees.
>
> Shark (v): to live in South Florida and own a big superfast motorboat
> while intimidating others.
>
> ***
>
> Hey, where's the real place with humans, Alaska, Scandinavia?

any place where you get actual sailors.
I worked the gulf for a while and was on the whole unimpressed. what i
observed was a total lack of licensing, no familiarity with either
inland or international rules of the road, skill levels in boat
handling and navigations somewhere around those of a brain damaged
squid, drunkenness at the helm, no enforcement at all, trash all over
the place, a disregard for every one else on or in the water, and an
over whelming attitude that folks don't actually have to follow any
rules.   In short; Bubbas (I cant actually think of anything that acts
as slovenly and boorish as the majority of southern boaters).

Take your pick go north or south east or west from the cancer coast
and you soon get a higher proportion of humans to Bubbas.

On Aug 14, 8:39 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:

> > The only de facto law is law of the jungle, as I said before.
>
> If you believe that, then quit your complaining.  You chose to be low on the
> food chain.  They chose not to be.  They benefit and suffer for their
> choices.  You benefit and suffer for yours.  If you don't like it, change
> your choice.

Pretty lousy defense of the law of the jungle you make. "If you don't
like it, grow up!"

Now, suppose I don't want a motorboat because I find it stupid,
suppose that I don't want to pollute, that I like to have fun...

Imagine a world where nations invade nations, your sister is raped and
your kids get bullied at school.

Well, much of it is already happening, and it comes right from the
top...

(just from today's news)

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=222358

Not even bikes are as insignificant as kayaks to be ignored by the
law. And not that it makes a big difference, but, oh well, that's
another subject. ;)

"ComandanteBanana"  wrote in message 
news:7c91f377-9e01-440b-9764-abe506c55e59@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 14, 8:39 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:

>>> The only de facto law is law of the jungle, as I said before.

>> If you believe that, then quit your complaining. You chose to be low on 
>> the
>> food chain. They chose not to be. They benefit and suffer for their
>> choices. You benefit and suffer for yours. If you don't like it, change
>> your choice.

> Pretty lousy defense of the law of the jungle you make. "If you don't
> like it, grow up!"

Not defending it.  Just recognizing it.

> Now, suppose I don't want a motorboat because I find it stupid,
> suppose that I don't want to pollute, that I like to have fun...

Your choice.  Take the good with the bad.

For what it's worth, I have a Kayak too and, for that matter, rode my 
bicycle about 10 miles today.

Lee

On Aug 15, 6:36 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> "ComandanteBanana"  wrote in message
>
> news:7c91f377-9e01-440b-9764-abe506c55e59@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 8:39 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
>
> >>> The only de facto law is law of the jungle, as I said before.
> >> If you believe that, then quit your complaining. You chose to be low on
> >> the
> >> food chain. They chose not to be. They benefit and suffer for their
> >> choices. You benefit and suffer for yours. If you don't like it, change
> >> your choice.
> > Pretty lousy defense of the law of the jungle you make. "If you don't
> > like it, grow up!"
>
> Not defending it.  Just recognizing it.
>
> > Now, suppose I don't want a motorboat because I find it stupid,
> > suppose that I don't want to pollute, that I like to have fun...
>
> Your choice.  Take the good with the bad.
>
> For what it's worth, I have a Kayak too and, for that matter, rode my
> bicycle about 10 miles today.
>
> Lee

TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A PROBLEM IS HALF THE PROBLEM.

DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT IS THE OTHER HALF.

Hey, we all trying to survive in the jungle, but DOES IT HAVE TO BE
THAT WAY?

Are the predators going to laugh their way into extinction?

In article ,
Two meter troll   wrote:
>On Aug 15, 7:21 am, ComandanteBanana 
>wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 3:20 am, Two meter troll  wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>> Hey, where's the real place with humans, Alaska, Scandinavia?
>
>any place where you get actual sailors.
>I worked the gulf for a while and was on the whole unimpressed. what i
>observed was a total lack of licensing, no familiarity with either
>inland or international rules of the road, skill levels in boat
>handling and navigations somewhere around those of a brain damaged
>squid, drunkenness at the helm, no enforcement at all, trash all over
>the place, a disregard for every one else on or in the water, and an
>over whelming attitude that folks don't actually have to follow any
>rules.   In short; Bubbas (I cant actually think of anything that acts
>as slovenly and boorish as the majority of southern boaters).

In Scandinavia the greater Oslo Fjord area is like this. Sheltered
waters, lots of yuppies with daddys gofast-boat; as you call them ;
"bubbas" with cabin cruisers, and rich drunkards with cigar
boats. The first day of main holiday you can barely get through on the
VHF ch 16 because of all the disaster messages. Fortunatly, the vast
majority of damage is self-inflicted. [1]

This territory is sharply defined as the coastal waters from 
Mandal (just west of Kristiansand) to just south of Smogen. These
are a sheltered morass of crisscrossing small fjords, and except
for finding the shallows and rocks (with the boaters are very good at),
there is no real challenge in navigating.

West and north of this area there is a whole different culture.
Same for Denmark. There is far between ports, you need to handle
the weather. The larger fjords make excellent wind and wave
tunnels; you can have a storm at the center, and total calm on
land. You have to handle stretches where navigation can be an 
issue; e.g. finding the little ports in between all the rocks.

I put the good seamanship in most of Sweden up to the fact that it
is the most well organised place on the planet.

>Take your pick go north or south east or west from the cancer coast
>and you soon get a higher proportion of humans to Bubbas.

-- mrr

[1] But the story of the motor torpedo boat that ran aground
    and killed a cow is true. It actually happened twice, in 
    1954 and again in the 1970s. The first cow was almost cut in
    half, the second one died of a heart attack.
    The Navy has "improved the charts" a lot by finding shallows
    and rocks noone has know about. They are very good at finding
    them at 40 knots as well.

In article <wDZok.10205$kh2.9381@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Lee Bell  wrote:
>ComandanteBanana wrote
>
>> Well, I'm not going to speak in defense of the sardine in their
>> eternal quest to survive the big fish...
>
>Glad to hear it since you do not appear to be competent to defend your 
>position on the issues you did address.
>
>> The issue here is, WHY A KAYAK OR CANOE MUST GIVE THE RIGHT OF
>> WAY TO THE MOTORBOATS?
>
>Here is is in a nutshell.  It's called "The Rule of Tonage."  I outweigh you 
>by . . . well, by a lot of times.  In an encounter between my boat and 
>yours, yours, and you, will be crushed.  If you aren't, you'll be turned 
>into hamburger, or fish chum if you prefer, by the propellers on the back, 
>that are turned, slow or fast, by more than 300 horsepower each.  It's call 
>survival.  Ignoring it is commonly referred to as testing Darwin's theory. 
>They have awards, issued poshumously, for thost that do.
>
>Other than that, here's another anwer.  You don't have to give right of way. 
>Generally speaking, non powered vessels, operated with a bit of common 
>sense, have the right of way over powered ones.

With modifications. 

If you are in a defined VTC area the vessels in the "motorway" have
right of way to anything crossing. These are clearly marked on any
chart. Dates from the Copenhagen protocol of 1859, with later extensions.
Flag states have authority over the VTC, even in international waters.
(Was never ratified by the confederate states, though).

The VTC operator is king. Listen to VHF on the VTC channels to get
updates. 

Ferries and other officially scheduled traffic comes next. 

Then there are three conflicting sets of rules.

1) The  "seamanship" rules.

   * Everyone yield for special signs, like dive flag, trawler, etc.
   * Planes under landing and takeoff have next right of way.
   * Overtaking boat yields for the overtaken.
   * Propelled (including rowboats) yield for sailboats and planes.
   * Planes yield for sail (until Jun 1st 2006 this was the other way around)
   * Engine yield for non-engine
   * Sailboats with the wind from port yield for other sailboats with the
     wind from Starboard.
   * Sailboats yield for other sailboats with a higher angle into the wind.

2) The "useful" rules.
  
   * Boats carrying payload have first rights.
   * More payload => more right of way
   * You shall not disturb a vessel that cannot manouver as well as you can.

3) Biggest carries the day.

   * I am bigger than you are.

Interesting point is that you must yield for planes, even if they
are overtaking. With sea planes it can be hard to distinguish the
transition from plane to vessel some times.

As of June 1st 2006, military or SAR vessels with blinking blue
lights have first priority over all.

>> Every weekend the intracostal waterway of Miami becomes a parade of
>> motorboats of all sorts, from the very big (the owners of this town)
>> to the very small (the noisy jet skis), often driven by intoxicated
>> drivers (I guess you call them "drivers," though seldom they are
>> accountable to the standards as vehicle drivers, like DUI), and almost
>> always running (or should I say "flying"?) up and down (again, with no
>> speed limit restrictions like regular drivers). So the task of
>> crossing these sea highways by paddle becomes something like a duck
>> crossing the hunting grounds, and you are the sitting duck...

But, if convicted of wrongdoing they can have the book thrown at them.
DUI, reckless driving, endangering ship traffic, violations of a score
of SOLAS regulations etc. We have a couple of cases each year where
skippers end up with a year or more of hard time.

>They're called Captains or pilots, not drivers.  If they intoxicated, report 
>them.  There are, in fact, laws controlling that very much like those for 
>automobile driers.  There are speed limits posted all over the place and 
>quite a few that apply even when not posted.  On top of it all, there are 
>maximum wake and other requirements you've not bothered to notice.
>
>Crossing the channel, whether by paddle or by motorboat, is a lot like 
>crossing any other highway.  You would be ill advised to pull out right in 
>front of a boat operated by a captain with more knowledge and experience 
>than your appear to have, operating at a legal speed, not intoxicated, just 
>like you would be ill advised to push your skateboard out in front of 
>traffic traveling at the speed limit on I-95.  You're the one entering the 
>channel.  You're the one responsible for doing it safely.  Imagine that.

Big difference between VTC and non-VTC areas. VTC is more like a
runway for planes. You really _should_ listen to the traffic controller, 
even in a canoe. Especially in a canoe.

We have done many dives in VTC areas; they are usually very cooperative, 
and we have to follow a given timeslot, and report in as all other VTC
parties do. 

>> But the ocean is also hunting ground. The other day (it was weekday,
>> hardly any boats out there), I went to out in my tandem kayak, which I
>> chose as bright as it could be (sunrise) with the paddles to match
>> (they could be more visible than the kayak itself), and out of nowhere
>> came this boat that passed us right in front, so much so that my
>> partner stopped paddling. The ocean was absolutely flat and it was a
>> nice sunny day, so the driver must have chosen to make it a close
>> call...
>
>You don't know that at all.  There are rules for who has the right of way on 
>the ocean as well.  Have you bothered to research them?
>
>While it is possible that the boater chose to make it a close call, that's 
>not certain at all, particularly if he did not change course.  For all you 
>know, he would have been on autopilot or, possibly, following a GPS course 
>from one point to the next.  Your assumption that he chose to bother you is 
>a bit off the mark.

I can confirm than going off autopilot is a definate hassle. If he
was following a marked sea lane he would probably think of you as a
nuisance; and have the law on his side.

>I will grant you that it would have been nice for him to give you a bit more 
>room.  I make a habit of doing that for vessels small enough that going 
>behind them, through their wake, is not a problem while forcing them to go 
>through mine might be.  On the other hand, if you were paddling into his 
>path, you also had the option to give yourself more room.

Also, signal your intensions by making course adjustments if you have to,
and do it early. BTW, the really large vessels run anti-collision systems, 
and have to log collision alarms. If they behave like a**h*les you can 
buzz them a little by triggering those alarms. You can do so at a safe 
distance, you just need to set a colliding course, and stay there for
a minute or two. The radar and anti-collision systems will pick you up.

-- mrr

On Aug 19, 3:25 pm, Morten Reistad  wrote:

> 1) The  "seamanship" rules.
>
>    * Everyone yield for special signs, like dive flag, trawler, etc.

I do have a dive flag that use when snorkeling, but just got a
"protest" red flag, which I learned later was for sailboat races...

Anyway I intend to fly it for two purposes: 1. to be seen, and 2. to
protest against the Law of the Jungle, currently in practice
everywhere in the seas.

The question is, WHO'S LIABLE IF I DO GET HIT?

I'm afraid the laws are made to fit the big ones, of course...

HOW THE LAW WORKS... FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LION
One day the King of the Jungle, tired of being called AUTHORITARIAN,
gathered the most cunning animals in the kingdom, chief among them the
Foxes, and told them: "It's mighty unjust that I am not recognized for
what I am. You know full well that the best of my SCRAPS, after you,
go to the Little Animals... Well, I want you to write LAWS, so from
now on it'll be them, and not me, who would rule over this God chosen
kingdom..."

After a few months of hard deliberations (and a few "private parties"
and "business trips") the Foxes (now turned politicians) returned with
a long, long book of laws written in a language so hard to understand
to the Little Animals that they thought it was old Greek. After
translation, it started like this: "The animals with a mane will be
treated like kings; the animals with paws and teeth will be above the
Laws; and the animals who will represent the interests of the Little
Animals, us, will be granted a raise in benefits and status... Of
course, ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION will be considered ILLEGAL, and
will result in the Lion eating the Little Animal..." (Moral: The trick
is in the law.)

On Aug 20, 1:36 pm, KingOfTheApes  wrote:

> The question is, WHO'S LIABLE IF I DO GET HIT?

Don't know, but we're all going to chip in and buy him a beer.

Steve

On Aug 21, 11:18 am, "cramer...@gmail.com" 
wrote:
> On Aug 20, 1:36 pm, KingOfTheApes  wrote:
>
> > The question is, WHO'S LIABLE IF I DO GET HIT?
>
> Don't know, but we're all going to chip in and buy him a beer.
>
> Steve

You must one of those who celebrate the Law of the Jungle.

I bet you got one of those bumper stickers that say, "We support our
troops."

On Aug 19, 3:43 pm, Morten Reistad  wrote:
> In article ,
> Two meter troll   wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 15, 7:21 am, ComandanteBanana 
> >wrote:
> >> On Aug 15, 3:20 am, Two meter troll  wrote:
>
> >> Hey, where's the real place with humans, Alaska, Scandinavia?
>
> >any place where you get actual sailors.
> >I worked the gulf for a while and was on the whole unimpressed. what i
> >observed was a total lack of licensing, no familiarity with either
> >inland or international rules of the road, skill levels in boat
> >handling and navigations somewhere around those of a brain damaged
> >squid, drunkenness at the helm, no enforcement at all, trash all over
> >the place, a disregard for every one else on or in the water, and an
> >over whelming attitude that folks don't actually have to follow any
> >rules.   In short; Bubbas (I cant actually think of anything that acts
> >as slovenly and boorish as the majority of southern boaters).
>
> In Scandinavia the greater Oslo Fjord area is like this. Sheltered
> waters, lots of yuppies with daddys gofast-boat; as you call them ;
> "bubbas" with cabin cruisers, and rich drunkards with cigar
> boats. The first day of main holiday you can barely get through on the
> VHF ch 16 because of all the disaster messages. Fortunatly, the vast
> majority of damage is self-inflicted. [1]


When I was in Norway in 2000 everything looked good and unpolluted,
but I noticed you were being fed too many American TV shows.

I guess what happened is that some people bought into the "American
dream" (those who could afford it anyway), and started doing like in
the series "Miami Vice." But I assure you, that those cigarette boats
do pollute, and leave a trail of garbage while terrorizing kayakers
and other civilized people.

In article 
,
 KingOfTheApes  wrote:

> On Aug 21, 11:18 am, "cramer...@gmail.com" 
> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 1:36 pm, KingOfTheApes  wrote:
> >
> > > The question is, WHO'S LIABLE IF I DO GET HIT?
> >
> > Don't know, but we're all going to chip in and buy him a beer.
> >
> > Steve
> 
> You must one of those who celebrate the Law of the Jungle.
> 
> I bet you got one of those bumper stickers that say, "We support our
> troops."

At least they don't whine at extended, exhaustive length, looking for 
someone else to blame.

On Aug 21, 2:10 pm, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID>
wrote:
> In article
> ,
>
>  KingOfTheApes  wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 11:18 am, "cramer...@gmail.com" 
> > wrote:
> > > On Aug 20, 1:36 pm, KingOfTheApes  wrote> > > > The question is, WHO'S LIABLE IF I DO GET HIT?
>
> > > Don't know, but we're all going to chip in and buy him a beer.
>
> > > Steve
>
> > You must one of those who celebrate the Law of the Jungle.
>
> > I bet you got one of those bumper stickers that say, "We support our
> > troops."
>
> At least they don't whine at extended, exhaustive length, looking for
> someone else to blame.

They do blame somebody else: Hussein, WMDs, terrorists...

But I'm talking about the safety of those very activities (green,
healthy) that should be promoted, not be left to the Law of the
Jungle.

Hey, fast motorboats sound to me like WMDs. ;)

(This is a contribution by the very same person who sold me the last
kayak. Reporting from the watery jungle)

Flex 029 wrote:
hi folks, first time here .. met Sr. Commandate Banana at my shop ..

one way of dealing with this problem is to NOT paddle in these areas
on weekends.
when i go on any given week-DAY, there’s usually nobody around -
EXCEPT for all that damn trash~


Howdy Flex, good to see you here so we can discuss how best to survive
out there. I totally agree with you, and in fact I stay away from the
waterways on weekends. The weekends belong to the predators, so to
speak.

I also canoe at night (which you told me you do too), which not makes
for far fewer motorboats, but also hides the mountains of trash (yes,
including batteries and mattresses) left behind by the said
motorboats. (I have a bright kayak for daylight, and camouflage canoe
with proper lights for night time.)

As you know, the beautiful kayak I’ve got from you is as bright as
sunrise (that’s the color), as well as the lights and flag I’m getting
from you. So if the superfast, superbig boats don’t see me is because
their drivers (I deny them “captain” status) are superdrunk and
superhigh.

Hey, we’ve developed the same strategy for survival! Actually it was
developed by the early mammals at the time the dinosaurs ruled the
earth.

That’s kind of metaphorical, isn’t it?

wpns4l wrote:
"this thread is crazy lol. stories of lions and the jungle.

do yourself a favor and carry a hand held uhf radio or something and
if you see people, motorboat or not, acting like asses call the police/
coast guard."

Hey, you seem to be ready for “the jungle” in that picture. Either you
have big guns… or have a banana to go in there (I have to tell the
metaphorical meaning of it).

Anyway, I do carry a cell phone, and I assume they don’t see me. But
I’m not sure that’s good or bad because then I get all stressed out
over the damn boats, and it defeats the purpose of the kayak, which is
to relax. In other words, I ignore them.

So, I go back to one of the favorite slogans of the revolution,

“Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

> I also canoe at night (which you told me you do too), which not makes
> for far fewer motorboats, but also hides the mountains of trash (yes,
> including batteries and mattresses) left behind by the said
>motorboats. (I have a bright kayak for daylight, and camouflage canoe
>with proper lights for night time.)

In all my years of boating and kayaking, I've never, ever seen a battery 
floating by.  As far as I know, boaters aren't really well known for dumping 
their mattresses in the water either.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you crossposted your complaints about 
boaters in the Intracoastal to rec.scuba and a UK group, all of whom are 
extremely unlikely to even know what the Intracoastal is, let alone care 
about boats in it.

Lee

In rec.boats.paddle Lee Bell  wrote:
>> I also canoe at night (which you told me you do too), which not makes
>> for far fewer motorboats, but also hides the mountains of trash (yes,
>> including batteries and mattresses) left behind by the said
>>motorboats. (I have a bright kayak for daylight, and camouflage canoe
>>with proper lights for night time.)

>In all my years of boating and kayaking, I've never, ever seen a battery 
>floating by.  As far as I know, boaters aren't really well known for dumping 
>their mattresses in the water either.

>Perhaps you'd like to explain why you crossposted your complaints about 
>boaters in the Intracoastal to rec.scuba and a UK group, all of whom are 
>extremely unlikely to even know what the Intracoastal is, let alone care 
>about boats in it.

We have a canal here called the I&M canal. Around 1996 a dam rupture caused
the canal to drain exposing all sorts of stuff. We were on the bike trail
the following weekend and were looking at all the recliners, washing machines
and stuff in the canal. The canal is only open to canoes and kayaks and I
don't think many canoeists or kayakers were taking washing machines or
recliners in their boats... course, I could be wrong...

Most of the larger garbage was concentrated near bridges...

-- 
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
       http://www.chicagopaddling.org   http://www.chicagofishing.org
 (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

On Aug 22, 12:37 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> > I also canoe at night (which you told me you do too), which not makes
> > for far fewer motorboats, but also hides the mountains of trash (yes,
> > including batteries and mattresses) left behind by the said
> >motorboats. (I have a bright kayak for daylight, and camouflage canoe
> >with proper lights for night time.)
>
> In all my years of boating and kayaking, I've never, ever seen a battery
> floating by.  As far as I know, boaters aren't really well known for dumping
> their mattresses in the water either.

Well, there are islands on the water and the batteries are left behind
on the islands.

It would be mighty difficult to leave piles of garbage on the water,
even if they tried.

>
> Perhaps you'd like to explain why you crossposted your complaints about
> boaters in the Intracoastal to rec.scuba and a UK group, all of whom are
> extremely unlikely to even know what the Intracoastal is, let alone care
> about boats in it.
>
> Lee

Well, maybe they heard of the coral reefs in the tropical waters of
the Caribbean dying because of all the pollution and motorboats that
anchor in the wrong places.

By the way, do you have many coral reefs in the UK?

On Aug 22, 4:08 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> KingOfTheApes wrote
>
> > Well, there are islands on the water and the batteries are left behind
> > on the islands.
>
> I suppose it's happened, but it darned sure doesn't happen often.  Boats big
> enough to carry batteries, don't work without them.  They have to have them
> to start the motors.  It's really unlikely that anybody would go to all the
> trouble to drive their boat out to an island with a spare battery on board,
> change the battery while on the island and go to all the touble to take the
> battery off the boat just so they can leave it someplace where it will later
> have to be collected by another power boater.  It could happne, but I don't
> know why.

Batteries may get damaged by sea water or just get depleted. I have
one on my canoe to power my trolling motor. I changed to AGM though
because they are water and leakproof.

>
> It's much more likely that any batteries you round were taken to the island
> for use by somebody camping there.  They may or may not have gotten to the
> island by power boat, but the batteries you see almost certainly weren't
> lift there because they are power boaters.

Many people that are into motorboating are poorly educated and
couldn't care less about the consequences of their actions. I think
MOTORBOATING IS LARGELY FOR COUCH POTATOES THAT WANT TO HAVE A DEGREE
OF ADVENTURE IN THE GREAT OUTDOORS. I, personally, would prefer that
they stay home watching baseball and drinking beer.

>
> > Well, maybe they heard of the coral reefs in the tropical waters of
> > the Caribbean dying because of all the pollution and motorboats that
> > anchor in the wrong places.
>
> In more than 45 years of diving, and boating in the Caribbean, no, I've
> never heard of it.  I have heard of them dying because of fertilizer,
> sewerage and other chemicals washed our from those on land who have less
> consideration than either you or I do.  I have heard of reefs destroyed by
> sewage outfalls operated by Miami Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties.  I
> have heard of reefs destroyed by "accidental" leaks of millions of gallons
> of raw sewage from Miami Dade about twice a year.  I have heard of reefs
> destroyed by those that dispose of thousands of tires as "artificial reefs"
> that nothing ever lives on.
>
> Here's a clue.  Gas floats.  Reefs don't.  Anchors don't do much damage and
> their use is not limited to motor boats.  Sailboats and even kayaks carry
> them too.
>
> Lee

My anchor weighs 1 1/2 lbs... Terrible threat to the reefs. ;)

How much you need for a motorboat?

But motorboat pollution contributes to "the soup" out there too. You
can even smell the gas, and I doubt it that it would be safe to swim
in the intracostal anymore.

Their main threat though is to life and property...

"Here are some startling statistics regarding boating accidents from
the United States Coast Guard:

In 2005, states and jurisdictions reported a total of 12,942,414
registered recreational boats compared with 12,781,476 in 2004.
The 4,969 boating accidents reported in 2005 resulted in 697
fatalities, 3,451 injuries, and $38,721,088 in property damage.
Florida had 973,859 registered motorboats and 603 boating accidents in
2005.
Approximately 70% of all fatal boating accident victims drowned.
The most reported type of accident was a collision with another
vessel.
Overall, carelessness/reckless operation, operator inattention,
excessive speed, and operator inexperience are the leading
contributing factors of all reported accidents.
The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were
open motorboats (45%), personal watercraft (PWC) (26%), and cabin
motorboats (14%). Increases were observed in the number of reported
fatalities involving PWC, cabin motorboats, inflatables, sailboats,
and houseboats from 2004. A decrease was observed in the number of
fatalities involving canoes/kayaks and rowboats from the number of
fatalities reported in 2004."

http://www.rueziffra.com/practiceAreas.php?id=14

On Aug 22, 3:58 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> > do yourself a favor and carry a hand held uhf radio or something and
> > if you see people, motorboat or not, acting like asses call the police/
> > coast guard."
>
> That's a really good idea.  You'll make so many friends and gain so much
> respect that way.  Be sure to curse and make obscene gestures as they go by
> too.  You wouldn't want to miss out on any opportunity to make an
> impression.

No, you have to nice to people, even the ones that threaten your life.
It's the Christian thing to do. That's why I tell them, "Hey, don't
eat me, you can eat my banana!" ;)

>
> This is all a great way to ensure that, when others don't have a legal
> obligation to consider your needs. they are considerate anyway and even to
> be really sure that, should you ever actually need somebody with a powered
> boat to assist you that they'll do so without hesitation.

Some of them are real nice, real captains. Once one in Key Largo
helped us recover a sunken kayak.

It's like there's decent people driving SUVs, just that many of them
are reckless and they have made the wrong vehicle choice.

>
> Here are a couple of clues.  Power boaters have been picked on, harassed,
> limited, and taxed almost out of their activities.  It takes hours for them
> to get where their fishing, diving, or other activities take place because
> they have to travel at idle speed to keep manatees never seen in the area,
> safe just in case they every happen to be there.  They pay substantially
> more for the fuel that the use simply because they use it on the water.
> They bought their very expensive boats either because that's what they
> enjoy, because that's what it takes to do what they bought a boat for, or
> because they don't have the time to use slower, more economical vessels.  No
> matter what the reason, they have a right and a right to expect to be able
> to use them to their maximum potential when and where the law allows.

Sometimes that law doesn't exist or is not enforced and they just
follow the Law of the Jungle. If you talk about the channels their
speeds are not terribly willd, but still you are a sitting duck.

In certain spots of the intracostal and the beach, though, they just
fly over the water with their cigarette boats. It's common sight there
that they just fly by past the buoys, a few hundred feet from the
beach. If you go there to relax, their roaring motors will remind you
there's no place to hide. Well, try ear plugs perhaps. ;)

C'mon, there's no control to this? Can't we have them stay at least 1
mile from shore?

>
> You guys, and I, for that matter, have chosen a slower, more sedate and less
> expensive mode of transportation for very different reasons.  We don't us
> kayaks to do the things others do in power, or sail boats. We can get closer
> to nature, into places that power boats can and should not go, and generally
> relax in ways unique to us.  Why not do that in places best suited to what
> we enjoy?  Why encroach on the few places left that power boaters can use
> their transportation the way the want and bitch about them doing it?

I've said the weekends belong to the predators. I even grant them the
daylight because I don't want to see their garbage. But going past the
buoys at the beach is reasonable, since staying within them would make
me a danger to the swimmers, and I don't want to become the predator.

>
> One more thing to keep in mind.  It costs you nothing to wait a minute for a
> power boat to pass.  It probably costs a boat 25 feet or more in length, and
> certainly the high speed monohulls you guys were complaining about, anywhere
> from $10 to $20 extra to slow down and return to a plane.  Perhaps that will
> give you at least a little understanding of why they are so reluctant to do
> so.

The thing with a motorboat is that you don't know if stopping puts you
at lesser or greater danger. You just have to predictable, and
hopefully they'll steer around you.

>
> You want to cross the channel, no problem.  Find someplace where speed is
> limited and go for it.  God knows such places are all over the Intracoastal
> You want to share areas where boats go faster, great, do it out of the
> channels, in shallower water  where your vessel is designed to go and power
> boats aren't.

There's no safe intersections in those channels, much less a signal
light. ;)

You just go for it and pray to come out alive.

>
> You want consideration, so do the power boaters.  You want consideration
> from them, try giving it to them.

I do. The problem is NOT them actually. But the whole set up where we
--kayakers and canoeists-- are exposed to uncessary dangers, and where
they can speed, drink, get high, be reckless, and get away with it.

>
> Now, before you guys get all excited and tell everybody about the
> occasionally jerk, ask yourself this.  For every time a power boater
> inconvenienced you, how many times do you suppose the power boater was
> inconvenienced by you.
>
> Lee

Some steering from them to avoid you is NOT an inconvenience. The
ocean is full of different species, and we all must get along, or
declare that the only law out there is the Law of the Jungle.

Hey, people who got "money to burn" can try sailing, that is more
rewarding and totally environmentally friendly. Motorboats which are
needed for fishing are OK too since they serve a purpose. And then you
can always choose the smaller motorboats out there.

KingOfTheApes  wrote:
>
> Many people that are into motorboating are poorly educated and
> couldn't care less about the consequences of their actions.

Kind of an interesting self-contradiction you're making, by first
talking about how these boats are huge and expensive, yet now they're
owned by uneducated high school dropouts, which is a demographic with
very low incomes.  With just a McDonald's job, how can they afford the
gas to be constantly running their boats?


> But motorboat pollution contributes to "the soup" out there too. You
> can even smell the gas, and I doubt it that it would be safe to swim
> in the intracostal anymore.

You sure that you're not smelling naturally occurring organics?
Afterall, the ICW runs through a lot of muddy marshes and estuaries.


> Their main threat though is to life and property...
>
> "Here are some startling statistics regarding boating accidents from
> the United States Coast Guard:
>
> In 2005, states and jurisdictions reported a total of 12,942,414
> registered recreational boats compared with 12,781,476 in 2004.
> The 4,969 boating accidents ...

0.04% incidence.  Yes, very 'startling'.  You would have to boat for
over 25 years just to get up to a 1% risk.


> The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were
> open motorboats (45%), personal watercraft (PWC) (26%), and cabin
> motorboats (14%).

And 15% missing.  FYI, this data is statistically meaningless without
the context of the relevant contributing base population also being
provided.

> Increases were observed in the number of reported
> fatalities involving PWC, cabin motorboats, inflatables, sailboats,
> and houseboats from 2004.

With 160,938 more registered watercraft, is this really surprising
that the observed total also increased?

> A decrease was observed in the number of fatalities
> involving canoes/kayaks and rowboats...

Was this because they as a group became safer, or because they as a
group became fewer?  You don't know because that can only be answered
if the relevant contributing base population context was included ...
which here it is not.  As such, you have  "true statements" being made
that are functionally meaningless because they fail to determine
causality.


-hh

In article ,
KingOfTheApes   wrote:
>On Aug 19, 3:43 pm, Morten Reistad  wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Two meter troll   wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 15, 7:21 am, ComandanteBanana 
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Aug 15, 3:20 am, Two meter troll  wrote:
>>
>> >> Hey, where's the real place with humans, Alaska, Scandinavia?
>>
>> >any place where you get actual sailors.
>> >I worked the gulf for a while and was on the whole unimpressed. what i
>> >observed was a total lack of licensing, no familiarity with either
>> >inland or international rules of the road, skill levels in boat
>> >handling and navigations somewhere around those of a brain damaged
>> >squid, drunkenness at the helm, no enforcement at all, trash all over
>> >the place, a disregard for every one else on or in the water, and an
>> >over whelming attitude that folks don't actually have to follow any
>> >rules.   In short; Bubbas (I cant actually think of anything that acts
>> >as slovenly and boorish as the majority of southern boaters).
>>
>> In Scandinavia the greater Oslo Fjord area is like this. Sheltered
>> waters, lots of yuppies with daddys gofast-boat; as you call them ;
>> "bubbas" with cabin cruisers, and rich drunkards with cigar
>> boats. The first day of main holiday you can barely get through on the
>> VHF ch 16 because of all the disaster messages. Fortunatly, the vast
>> majority of damage is self-inflicted. [1]
>
>
>When I was in Norway in 2000 everything looked good and unpolluted,
>but I noticed you were being fed too many American TV shows.

Garbage TV is the same everywhere.

>I guess what happened is that some people bought into the "American
>dream" (those who could afford it anyway), and started doing like in

No, we don't have much of the industrial pollution. Rules for the
oil industry are strict; and the plants tend to have localised
pollution, and are put in some desolate place between steep
mountains. The cruise ships don't go to those fjords.

They even put back some water in the waterfalls for the tourists
to watch. Normally any waterfall of any size would have been put
in pipes to make hydropower.


>the series "Miami Vice." But I assure you, that those cigarette boats
>do pollute, and leave a trail of garbage while terrorizing kayakers
>and other civilized people.

Nowadays, we MAKE a lot of those boats. And the Swedes make a lot
of the engines. Also sold in America. 

The entrepreneurs among us saw Miami Vice, and thought "I can make
those cheaper and better".

-- mrr

In article ,
KingOfTheApes   wrote:
>On Aug 22, 12:37 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
>
>Well, maybe they heard of the coral reefs in the tropical waters of
>the Caribbean dying because of all the pollution and motorboats that
>anchor in the wrong places.
>
>By the way, do you have many coral reefs in the UK?

We are only discovering the northern reefs this decade.

They are deep, 50-400 m; and have not been known except
as good fishing places. The shallowest is in the 
Trondheim fjord right by the gusing currents at
40 meters plus.

Now the offshore waters are being properly charted, and 
there are weekly discoveries of new reefs offshore.

Fishing regulations will have to be radically rewritten.
Lots of the reefs have substrantial trawler damage.

Putting in an oil platform makes minuscule damage in
comparison. After all, the only have a 100x100m footprint, 
and want that on solid rock or deep shellsand.

We expect new, detailed charts over all the continental
shelf to be issued sometime in 2010.

-- mrr

In article ,
-hh   wrote:
>KingOfTheApes  wrote:
>>
>> Many people that are into motorboating are poorly educated and
>> couldn't care less about the consequences of their actions.
>
>Kind of an interesting self-contradiction you're making, by first
>talking about how these boats are huge and expensive, yet now they're
>owned by uneducated high school dropouts, which is a demographic with
>very low incomes.  With just a McDonald's job, how can they afford the
>gas to be constantly running their boats?

The "salarimen" have taken to motorboating, with cabin cruisers. 
They have the cash, but less time to learn to operate the craft.

Most marinas are built for boats up to 39'/12m length, 11'6"/3.5m
wide. The new cigar boats and cabin cruisers are too big for them, 
so they are often forced to anchoring.


>> But motorboat pollution contributes to "the soup" out there too. You
>> can even smell the gas, and I doubt it that it would be safe to swim
>> in the intracostal anymore.
>
>You sure that you're not smelling naturally occurring organics?
>Afterall, the ICW runs through a lot of muddy marshes and estuaries.

There is remarkably little pollution from watercraft of any type
around here.

>> Their main threat though is to life and property...
>>
>> "Here are some startling statistics regarding boating accidents from
>> the United States Coast Guard:
>>
>> In 2005, states and jurisdictions reported a total of 12,942,414
>> registered recreational boats compared with 12,781,476 in 2004.
>> The 4,969 boating accidents ...
>
>0.04% incidence.  Yes, very 'startling'.  You would have to boat for
>over 25 years just to get up to a 1% risk.

There are some "peak" risk groups. The insurance for a cigar boat
without a proper skipper exam and practice is now about $100 per
horsepower per year. With proper traning documented you can almost
cut a digit from those prices. Some insurance agencies refuse to
insure > 100 hp, 12 tons or 13 m/42' without skipper certifications.

>> The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were
>> open motorboats (45%), personal watercraft (PWC) (26%), and cabin
>> motorboats (14%).
>
>And 15% missing.  FYI, this data is statistically meaningless without
>the context of the relevant contributing base population also being
>provided.
>
>> Increases were observed in the number of reported
>> fatalities involving PWC, cabin motorboats, inflatables, sailboats,
>> and houseboats from 2004.
>
>With 160,938 more registered watercraft, is this really surprising
>that the observed total also increased?
>
>> A decrease was observed in the number of fatalities
>> involving canoes/kayaks and rowboats...
>
>Was this because they as a group became safer, or because they as a
>group became fewer?  You don't know because that can only be answered
>if the relevant contributing base population context was included ...
>which here it is not.  As such, you have  "true statements" being made
>that are functionally meaningless because they fail to determine
>causality.

Indeed.

Authorities here are reviewing ideas of zone separation for different
craft. 5kn speed limits proposed for motorboats outside zones, and
licensing for larger crafts with a point system for revoking the
licence.

-- mrr

In article ,
KingOfTheApes   wrote:
>On Aug 22, 3:58 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
>> > do yourself a favor and carry a hand held uhf radio or something and
>> > if you see people, motorboat or not, acting like asses call the police/
>> > coast guard."

Why not have a VHF? You can listen in to the VTC, and be told about the
big boats arriving in good time. I have a lot of use for that when
sailing inside VTC zones.

>Some of them are real nice, real captains. Once one in Key Largo
>helped us recover a sunken kayak.
>
>It's like there's decent people driving SUVs, just that many of them
>are reckless and they have made the wrong vehicle choice.
>
>>
>> Here are a couple of clues.  Power boaters have been picked on, harassed,
>> limited, and taxed almost out of their activities.  It takes hours for them
>> to get where their fishing, diving, or other activities take place because
>> they have to travel at idle speed to keep manatees never seen in the area,
>> safe just in case they every happen to be there.  They pay substantially
>> more for the fuel that the use simply because they use it on the water.
>> They bought their very expensive boats either because that's what they
>> enjoy, because that's what it takes to do what they bought a boat for, or
>> because they don't have the time to use slower, more economical vessels.  No
>> matter what the reason, they have a right and a right to expect to be able
>> to use them to their maximum potential when and where the law allows.

The law abiding skippers sometimes have a pretty hard time with all the
other craft. Just listen to the commercial fishing skippers.

>Sometimes that law doesn't exist or is not enforced and they just
>follow the Law of the Jungle. If you talk about the channels their
>speeds are not terribly willd, but still you are a sitting duck.
>
>In certain spots of the intracostal and the beach, though, they just
>fly over the water with their cigarette boats. It's common sight there
>that they just fly by past the buoys, a few hundred feet from the
>beach. If you go there to relax, their roaring motors will remind you
>there's no place to hide. Well, try ear plugs perhaps. ;)
>
>C'mon, there's no control to this? Can't we have them stay at least 1
>mile from shore?

Zoning?

>> You guys, and I, for that matter, have chosen a slower, more sedate and less
>> expensive mode of transportation for very different reasons.  We don't us
>> kayaks to do the things others do in power, or sail boats. We can get closer
>> to nature, into places that power boats can and should not go, and generally
>> relax in ways unique to us.  Why not do that in places best suited to what
>> we enjoy?  Why encroach on the few places left that power boaters can use
>> their transportation the way the want and bitch about them doing it?
>
>I've said the weekends belong to the predators. I even grant them the
>daylight because I don't want to see their garbage. But going past the
>buoys at the beach is reasonable, since staying within them would make
>me a danger to the swimmers, and I don't want to become the predator.

With sailboats, we can escape to the ocean. Very few bubbas and incompetent
motorboat skippers there.

>> One more thing to keep in mind.  It costs you nothing to wait a minute for a
>> power boat to pass.  It probably costs a boat 25 feet or more in length, and
>> certainly the high speed monohulls you guys were complaining about, anywhere
>> from $10 to $20 extra to slow down and return to a plane.  Perhaps that will
>> give you at least a little understanding of why they are so reluctant to do
>> so.
>
>The thing with a motorboat is that you don't know if stopping puts you
>at lesser or greater danger. You just have to predictable, and
>hopefully they'll steer around you.

A word from some commercial captains I know.

Pleasure boaters are normally not aware of the traffic control and zone
separation in place; and even some quite experiencd amateur skippers are
clueless about how a large, commercial vessel stops. Hint: You don't want
to be in front of them.

They try to manouver as well as they can; but they really need the zone
space they are given in and out of ports. If you cross the separation zones
please do so at a fixed course and speed at as sharp an angle to the lanes
as you can. The large ships have automatic anti-collision trackers that
are _extremely_ useful in such waters, but they tend to give lots of
false alarms on small craft that zigzag in and out of lanes.

I just cheched the Miami area on commercial charts. It is chock full
of separation sones and report requirements almost halfway to Bahamas.
If you are unaware of these zones you will make a lot of commercial ships
hate you intensely when you are there, even in a Kayak. Especially
in a kayak.

>> You want to cross the channel, no problem.  Find someplace where speed is
>> limited and go for it.  God knows such places are all over the Intracoastal
>> You want to share areas where boats go faster, great, do it out of the
>> channels, in shallower water  where your vessel is designed to go and power
>> boats aren't.
>
>There's no safe intersections in those channels, much less a signal
>light. ;)

Nope. But when you cross, do so in a way predictable to the large vessels.

They also need 5-7 knots of speed to be able to manouver properly. With
less than 3 knots they are dead in the water and need thrusters and/or
tugs to operate. You really DON'T want them to have to press the brake for
you.

>You just go for it and pray to come out alive.

>> You want consideration, so do the power boaters.  You want consideration
>> from them, try giving it to them.
>
>I do. The problem is NOT them actually. But the whole set up where we
>--kayakers and canoeists-- are exposed to uncessary dangers, and where
>they can speed, drink, get high, be reckless, and get away with it.

A few inquests has done away with that here. Suddenly the promising
salarymen were cons with drug&alcohol and violence crimes on their
records. Not what you would like on your CV.

Several of these inquests had other, experienced boaters who kept
their calm as witnesses. 

>> Now, before you guys get all excited and tell everybody about the
>> occasionally jerk, ask yourself this.  For every time a power boater
>> inconvenienced you, how many times do you suppose the power boater was
>> inconvenienced by you.
>>
>> Lee
>
>Some steering from them to avoid you is NOT an inconvenience. The
>ocean is full of different species, and we all must get along, or
>declare that the only law out there is the Law of the Jungle.
>
>Hey, people who got "money to burn" can try sailing, that is more
>rewarding and totally environmentally friendly. Motorboats which are
>needed for fishing are OK too since they serve a purpose. And then you
>can always choose the smaller motorboats out there.

Money to burn, indeed. I could buy a complete set of diving gear
for what a new Genua costs. And I have a 22 year old 36' boat.

-- mrr

Morten Reistad  wrote:
>
> Money to burn, indeed. I could buy a complete
> set of diving gear for what a new Genua costs.
> And I have a 22 year old 36' boat.

That might depend on what calls a 'complete' set.

As in everything else, there's the bare-bones basics and then there's
the more serious stuff, particularly when it comes to specialized
ares.  For example, the Ikelite SS-200 strobe heads I have for my old
35mm underwater camera cost me $1K each...and they aren't compatible
with going digital.  Another high ticket item is a quality drysuit for
use in colder climates.  Figure spending $2K for that with one basic
set of underwear.  Its all too easy to have the same stereotype of
'bubba diver' recreationalist as it is for power boating in a 17ft
fiberglass runabout with too much horsepower & beer.


-hh

On Aug 24, 6:28 am, Morten Reistad  wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
>
>
> KingOfTheApes   wrote:
> >On Aug 19, 3:43 pm, Morten Reistad  wrote:
> >> In article ,
> >> Two meter troll   wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 15, 7:21 am, ComandanteBanana 
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 15, 3:20 am, Two meter troll  wrote:
>
> >> >> Hey, where's the real place with humans, Alaska, Scandinavia?
>
> >> >any place where you get actual sailors.
> >> >I worked the gulf for a while and was on the whole unimpressed. what i
> >> >observed was a total lack of licensing, no familiarity with either
> >> >inland or international rules of the road, skill levels in boat
> >> >handling and navigations somewhere around those of a brain damaged
> >> >squid, drunkenness at the helm, no enforcement at all, trash all over
> >> >the place, a disregard for every one else on or in the water, and an
> >> >over whelming attitude that folks don't actually have to follow any
> >> >rules.   In short; Bubbas (I cant actually think of anything that acts
> >> >as slovenly and boorish as the majority of southern boaters).
>
> >> In Scandinavia the greater Oslo Fjord area is like this. Sheltered
> >> waters, lots of yuppies with daddys gofast-boat; as you call them ;
> >> "bubbas" with cabin cruisers, and rich drunkards with cigar
> >> boats. The first day of main holiday you can barely get through on the
> >> VHF ch 16 because of all the disaster messages. Fortunatly, the vast
> >> majority of damage is self-inflicted. [1]
>
> >When I was in Norway in 2000 everything looked good and unpolluted,
> >but I noticed you were being fed too many American TV shows.
>
> Garbage TV is the same everywhere.

Yep, but it always comes from the same place. ;)

>
> >I guess what happened is that some people bought into the "American
> >dream" (those who could afford it anyway), and started doing like in
>
> No, we don't have much of the industrial pollution. Rules for the
> oil industry are strict; and the plants tend to have localised
> pollution, and are put in some desolate place between steep
> mountains. The cruise ships don't go to those fjords.
>
> They even put back some water in the waterfalls for the tourists
> to watch. Normally any waterfall of any size would have been put
> in pipes to make hydropower.

Wherever you go in Norway, you don't see piles of garbage, not even a
piece of paper on the ground. I wonder if our politicians could ever
go there and bring back some ideas.

>
> >the series "Miami Vice." But I assure you, that those cigarette boats
> >do pollute, and leave a trail of garbage while terrorizing kayakers
> >and other civilized people.
>
> Nowadays, we MAKE a lot of those boats. And the Swedes make a lot
> of the engines. Also sold in America.
>
> The entrepreneurs among us saw Miami Vice, and thought "I can make
> those cheaper and better".
>
> -- mrr- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, it's like Volvo. They also got into the SUV craze... Not as
stupid as our Stupid Unnecessary Vehicles but still unnecessary. Good
old fashioned station wagons are still the best.

On Aug 23, 4:39 pm, -hh  wrote:
> KingOfTheApes  wrote:
>
> > Many people that are into motorboating are poorly educated and
> > couldn't care less about the consequences of their actions.
>
> Kind of an interesting self-contradiction you're making, by first
> talking about how these boats are huge and expensive, yet now they're
> owned by uneducated high school dropouts, which is a demographic with
> very low incomes.  With just a McDonald's job, how can they afford the
> gas to be constantly running their boats?

First of all, there are "lions" out there and "wannabes." Meaning
there are many big yachts and cigarette boats owned by the filthy
rich, and then crappy motorboats of all kinds owned by the ones that
want to imitate the others. The former you see either cruising slowly
on their yachts or racing by on their fast boats. The latter are the
ones that bring their extended family to the islands out there and
leave all the garbage behind.

In other words, motorboating has become democratic and even the dog
participates in the affair. Actually, there are ads on TV that promote
motorboating as a fun thing for the whole family --and the dog.

It's a matter of STATUS. Just like cars. "Money to burn"=Big Yacht &
SUV. "Survivor"=old car and boat.

>
> > But motorboat pollution contributes to "the soup" out there too. You
> > can even smell the gas, and I doubt it that it would be safe to swim
> > in the intracostal anymore.
>
> You sure that you're not smelling naturally occurring organics?
> Afterall, the ICW runs through a lot of muddy marshes and estuaries.

I can tell the smell of gas. And you can see it floating all over the
place.

And when a motorboats goes by, you can get some serious second hand
smoke.

>
> > Their main threat though is to life and property...
>
> > "Here are some startling statistics regarding boating accidents from
> > the United States Coast Guard:
>
> > In 2005, states and jurisdictions reported a total of 12,942,414
> > registered recreational boats compared with 12,781,476 in 2004.
> > The 4,969 boating accidents ...
>
> 0.04% incidence.  Yes, very 'startling'.  You would have to boat for
> over 25 years just to get up to a 1% risk.

I bet many of those registered boats don't even make it to the water
(they look good parked on the driveway). And the kayaks stay away from
those motorboat highways, so the statistics may be misleading.

But your common sense tells you they are a real threat. More than
terrorists, say. ;)

On Aug 23, 5:57 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> > Batteries may get damaged by sea water or just get depleted. I have
> > one on my canoe to power my trolling motor. I changed to AGM though
> > because they are water and leakproof.
>
> Batteries in boats are generally protected against sea water or of a type
> that is not easily damaged, like the AGM battery you use.  As it happens I
> use them too.  As for getting depleted, that's what chargers are for.  By
> the way, your battery is much more likely to become depeleted than mine.
> Perhaps it Kayakers that are leaving them.
>
> You do know that, by putting a trolling motor on your kayak, you're
> classified as a power boat, right?

Oh, give me a break. At worst I'd be a hybrid. Small, slow, noiseless
and backed up by paddles.

And still I've got the kayak that goes on banana power alone (meaning
I eat the bananas that power the boat). ;)

>
> > Many people that are into motorboating are poorly educated and
> > couldn't care less about the consequences of their actions. I think
> > MOTORBOATING IS LARGELY FOR COUCH POTATOES THAT WANT TO
> > HAVE A DEGREE OF ADVENTURE IN THE GREAT OUTDOORS.
>
> Yet, in the same post, you identified yourself as a power boater.

But not a threat to anything. Certainly not a couch potato looking for
adventure.

>
> > My anchor weighs 1 1/2 lbs... Terrible threat to the reefs. ;)
>
> It's almost exactly the same threat as mine.  An anchor that sets and stays
> in place, does very little damage to anything and there's already a law
> requiring people to anchor in adjacent sand areas rather than on coral.
> Chain and line, on the other hand, can do quite a bit of damage, whether
> attached to a kayak or different kind of power boat.

I'd look before I anchor to a reef, don't you?

>
> > How much you need for a motorboat?
>
> Which power boat?  I have three and, as I've already mentioned, a kayak.
> Anchors for each boat is designed for the boat I use it with.  My smallest
> power boat uses an anchor just like the one I use for the kayak.

OK, why don't you get rid of the big ones?
>
> > But motorboat pollution contributes to "the soup" out there too. You
> > can even smell the gas, and I doubt it that it would be safe to swim
> > in the intracostal anymore.
>
> What you can smell is not harming the reefs.  As for what you doubt, I
> suggest you learn a bit more before getting it wrong again.  If you're
> talking about human waste by those on boats, I'm afraid you'll have to
> include kayakers in  your list.  It's legal for either of us to use the
> ocean as a bathroom.  It is not legal for me to discharge my head directly
> overboard or to discharge my holding tank within coastal waters.  The sewage
> outfalls in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, on the other hand, pump
> millions of gallons of partially treated sewage and chemicals onto the reefs
> every day.

Can the government ever be that bad? They claim they treat everything
at Virginia Key...

>
> > The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were
> > open motorboats (45%) . . .
>
> You know that includes your kayak, right?
>
> I've been boating in south Florida for 54 years.  I've never had an
> accident.  Imagine that.
>
> Lee

Do you do kayaking by any chance, or you just represent the
motorboating association?

On Aug 24, 7:07 am, Morten Reistad  wrote:

> >The thing with a motorboat is that you don't know if stopping puts you
> >at lesser or greater danger. You just have to predictable, and
> >hopefully they'll steer around you.
>
> A word from some commercial captains I know.
>
> Pleasure boaters are normally not aware of the traffic control and zone
> separation in place; and even some quite experiencd amateur skippers are
> clueless about how a large, commercial vessel stops. Hint: You don't want
> to be in front of them.
>
> They try to manouver as well as they can; but they really need the zone
> space they are given in and out of ports. If you cross the separation zones
> please do so at a fixed course and speed at as sharp an angle to the lanes
> as you can. The large ships have automatic anti-collision trackers that
> are _extremely_ useful in such waters, but they tend to give lots of
> false alarms on small craft that zigzag in and out of lanes.
>
> I just cheched the Miami area on commercial charts. It is chock full
> of separation sones and report requirements almost halfway to Bahamas.
> If you are unaware of these zones you will make a lot of commercial ships
> hate you intensely when you are there, even in a Kayak. Especially
> in a kayak.

Basically there are two kinds of zones here: "THE HAVES" & "THE HAVES
NOT."

And the kayakers must stay in the area of the haves not, because if
not they are fair game.

Otherwise, go out when the haves are working or sleeping. ;)

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
 wrote:

>On Aug 24, 7:07=A0am, Morten Reistad  wrote:
>
>> >The thing with a motorboat is that you don't know if stopping puts you
>> >at lesser or greater danger. You just have to predictable, and
>> >hopefully they'll steer around you.
>>
>> A word from some commercial captains I know.
>>
>> Pleasure boaters are normally not aware of the traffic control and zone
>> separation in place; and even some quite experiencd amateur skippers are
>> clueless about how a large, commercial vessel stops. Hint: You don't want
>> to be in front of them.
>>
>> They try to manouver as well as they can; but they really need the zone
>> space they are given in and out of ports. If you cross the separation zon=
>es
>> please do so at a fixed course and speed at as sharp an angle to the lane=
>s
>> as you can. The large ships have automatic anti-collision trackers that
>> are _extremely_ useful in such waters, but they tend to give lots of
>> false alarms on small craft that zigzag in and out of lanes.
>>
>> I just cheched the Miami area on commercial charts. It is chock full
>> of separation sones and report requirements almost halfway to Bahamas.
>> If you are unaware of these zones you will make a lot of commercial ships
>> hate you intensely when you are there, even in a Kayak. Especially
>> in a kayak.
>
>Basically there are two kinds of zones here: "THE HAVES" & "THE HAVES
>NOT."
>
>And the kayakers must stay in the area of the haves not, because if
>not they are fair game.
>
>Otherwise, go out when the haves are working or sleeping. ;)
Damn, what an ass, you must be French

KingOfTheApes wrote:
> "cramer...@gmail.com"  wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 1:36 pm, KingOfTheApes  wrote:
>>
>>> The question is, WHO'S LIABLE IF I DO GET HIT?
>> Don't know, but we're all going to chip in and buy him a beer.
> 
> You must one of those who celebrate the Law of the Jungle.
> I bet you got one of those bumper stickers that say, "We support our
> troops."

You lose. I was trying to insult you, but you're too dense to recognize it.

Oh, yeah, PLONK

Steve

On Aug 24, 4:42 pm, log_...@verizonnet.addthedot (Rod) wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Aug 24, 7:07=A0am, Morten Reistad  wrote:
>
> >> >The thing with a motorboat is that you don't know if stopping puts you
> >> >at lesser or greater danger. You just have to predictable, and
> >> >hopefully they'll steer around you.
>
> >> A word from some commercial captains I know.
>
> >> Pleasure boaters are normally not aware of the traffic control and zone
> >> separation in place; and even some quite experiencd amateur skippers are
> >> clueless about how a large, commercial vessel stops. Hint: You don't want
> >> to be in front of them.
>
> >> They try to manouver as well as they can; but they really need the zone
> >> space they are given in and out of ports. If you cross the separation zon=
> >es
> >> please do so at a fixed course and speed at as sharp an angle to the lane=
> >s
> >> as you can. The large ships have automatic anti-collision trackers that
> >> are _extremely_ useful in such waters, but they tend to give lots of
> >> false alarms on small craft that zigzag in and out of lanes.
>
> >> I just cheched the Miami area on commercial charts. It is chock full
> >> of separation sones and report requirements almost halfway to Bahamas.
> >> If you are unaware of these zones you will make a lot of commercial ships
> >> hate you intensely when you are there, even in a Kayak. Especially
> >> in a kayak.
>
> >Basically there are two kinds of zones here: "THE HAVES" & "THE HAVES
> >NOT."
>
> >And the kayakers must stay in the area of the haves not, because if
> >not they are fair game.
>
> >Otherwise, go out when the haves are working or sleeping. ;)
>
> Damn, what an ass, you must be French- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How clever. If I was French, I'd signing something like
LeComandanteBanana. ;)

On Aug 24, 6:11 pm, Steve Cramer  wrote:
> KingOfTheApes wrote:
> > "cramer...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> >> On Aug 20, 1:36 pm, KingOfTheApes  wrote:
>
> >>> The question is, WHO'S LIABLE IF I DO GET HIT?
> >> Don't know, but we're all going to chip in and buy him a beer.
>
> > You must one of those who celebrate the Law of the Jungle.
> > I bet you got one of those bumper stickers that say, "We support our
> > troops."
>
> You lose. I was trying to insult you, but you're too dense to recognize it.
>
> Oh, yeah, PLONK
>
> Steve

And you are an insult... to my intelligence.

ComandanteBanana  wrote:
> -hh  wrote:
> > KingOfTheApes  wrote:
>
> > > Many people that are into motorboating
> > > are poorly educated and...
>
> > Kind of an interesting self-contradiction
> > you're making, by first talking about how
> > these boats are huge and expensive, yet now
> > they're owned by uneducated high school
> > dropouts, which is a demographic with
> > very low incomes...
>
> First of all, there are "lions" out there
> and "wannabes." Meaning there are many big
> yachts and cigarette boats owned by the filthy
> rich, and then crappy motorboats of all kinds
> ...
> It's a matter of STATUS. Just like cars.
> "Money to burn"=Big Yacht & SUV.
> "Survivor"=old car and boat.

Agreed, but this is hardly new news.  Mahogany hulled Chris-Craft
powerboats have been around since the 1920s, as well as efforts over
the years to broaden the market base to the middle class; one can
suggest that Boston Whaler contributed to this trend too, staring in
the mid-1950s.


> > > But motorboat pollution contributes to
> > > "the soup" out there too...
> >
> > You sure that you're not smelling naturally
> > occurring organics?  Afterall, the ICW runs
> > through a lot of muddy marshes and estuaries.
>
> I can tell the smell of gas. And you can see
> it floating all over the place.

Maybe in a marina.  Gas is a light aeromatic and disappears quite
rapidly.  If its not natural marsh stuff, its more likely to be
diesel, which tends to be more of what larger working boats tend to
use, not your generic commercial pleasure boat <30ft.

> And when a motorboats goes by, you can get
> some serious second hand smoke.

While there's always going to be the occasional gross polluter, they
generally are quite uncommon.  Turbo-diesels will smoke when under
heavy load, such as a 40 footer trying to get home on one engine.


> > 0.04% incidence.  Yes, very 'startling'.  
> > You would have to boat for over 25 years just
> > to get up to a 1% risk.
>
> I bet many of those registered boats don't
> even make it to the water (they look good parked
> on the driveway).

Catch-22 alert:  if these are your high risk "unskilled" boaters, if
they're parked at home, they can't be a risk at sea.

> And the kayaks stay away from those motorboat
> highways, so the statistics may be misleading.

Kayaks aren't a class of boat requiring registration, so the actual
total numbers are higher, which means that the actual statistical risk
is even lower.


> But your common sense tells you they are a real
> threat. More than terrorists, say. ;)

Common sense says that all parties should take responsibility for
their decisions, which includes wandering out into harm's way when you
suspect that there are operators of less than stellar skill levels
present.  Yes, it is "unfair", but life is unfair: you either deal
with it and roll with the punches, or die from being too inflexible.


-hh

In article ,
-hh   wrote:
>Morten Reistad  wrote:
>>
>> Money to burn, indeed. I could buy a complete
>> set of diving gear for what a new Genua costs.
>> And I have a 22 year old 36' boat.
>
>That might depend on what calls a 'complete' set.
>
>As in everything else, there's the bare-bones basics and then there's
>the more serious stuff, particularly when it comes to specialized
>ares.  For example, the Ikelite SS-200 strobe heads I have for my old
>35mm underwater camera cost me $1K each...and they aren't compatible
>with going digital.  Another high ticket item is a quality drysuit for
>use in colder climates.  Figure spending $2K for that with one basic
>set of underwear.  Its all too easy to have the same stereotype of
>'bubba diver' recreationalist as it is for power boating in a 17ft
>fiberglass runabout with too much horsepower & beer.

Basic, cheap dacron 140% Genua for 14.65 meter mast : $3500
150% dacron with some fibres for stiffening         : $4500
Mylar 150% deck-swiper with woven fibres            : $6000
..
Kevlar/Carbon racing genua, 150%                    : $14000

I guess you could just squeeze in ABC/wetsuit/tank/bcd/reg+bottom timer for $3500.

$14k should buy you a decent computer, doubles, drysuit&undergarments and a camera too.

-- mrr

On Aug 23, 6:06 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> > Sometimes that law doesn't exist or is not enforced and they just
> > follow the Law of the Jungle. If you talk about the channels their
> > speeds are not terribly willd, but still you are a sitting duck.
>
> It exists everywhere you're ever likely to be in your kayak.  There's more
> enforcement on the intracoastal, per boater, than in any city or state
> anywhere near here.
>
> Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
> you can't be safe.  I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
> would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?

Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
sidewalks...

Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner. I
had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
rights --if any.

Then you realize you live in the jungle.

Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.

WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION? ;)
http://webspwner.com/users/bananarevolution

On Aug 25, 4:52 pm, -hh  wrote:

> > But your common sense tells you they are a real
> > threat. More than terrorists, say. ;)
>
> Common sense says that all parties should take responsibility for
> their decisions, which includes wandering out into harm's way when you
> suspect that there are operators of less than stellar skill levels
> present.  Yes, it is "unfair", but life is unfair: you either deal
> with it and roll with the punches, or die from being too inflexible.
>
> -hh- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Life was very unfair when the Vikings went around pillaging and
killing left and right. But they are today very civilized people, even
showing respect for nature as well as for the little guy on the bike
or kayak.

So I hope other "less-than-civilized" people can evolve too.

On Aug 25, 6:07 pm, Morten Reistad  wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
> -hh   wrote:
> >Morten Reistad  wrote:
>
> >> Money to burn, indeed. I could buy a complete
> >> set of diving gear for what a new Genua costs.
> >> And I have a 22 year old 36' boat.
>
> >That might depend on what calls a 'complete' set.
>
> >As in everything else, there's the bare-bones basics and then there's
> >the more serious stuff, particularly when it comes to specialized
> >ares.  For example, the Ikelite SS-200 strobe heads I have for my old
> >35mm underwater camera cost me $1K each...and they aren't compatible
> >with going digital.  Another high ticket item is a quality drysuit for
> >use in colder climates.  Figure spending $2K for that with one basic
> >set of underwear.  Its all too easy to have the same stereotype of
> >'bubba diver' recreationalist as it is for power boating in a 17ft
> >fiberglass runabout with too much horsepower & beer.
>
> Basic, cheap dacron 140% Genua for 14.65 meter mast : $3500
> 150% dacron with some fibres for stiffening         : $4500
> Mylar 150% deck-swiper with woven fibres            : $6000
> ..
> Kevlar/Carbon racing genua, 150%                    : $14000
>
> I guess you could just squeeze in ABC/wetsuit/tank/bcd/reg溋涢 timer for $3500.
>
> $14k should buy you a decent computer, doubles, drysuit&undergarments and a camera too.

In the old days of 35mm film, a Nikonos V body was $700, the Nikkor
15mm WA lens with viewfinder was $2K, plus the strobe heads that I
currently have were $1K each, plus strobe arms, chargers & other
bits.  I figure that I had spent around $6K for my current setup.

In going digital:

$~3.K - Canon 5D replacement that's rumored to be announced tomorrow
$1.6K - "cheap" (pexiglass) Ikelite housing
$0.6K - 8" port for above, with one modular extension
$0.8K - decent WA lens (17-35mm L)
$1.0K - Ikelite DS-160 strobe head, synch cord & charger
$0.8K - Ikelite DS-160 strobe head & synch cord
$0.2K - two spare strobe battery packs
$~.5K - Ultralite strobe arms (if I'm lucky)
--------
$8.5K and counting.  Still haven't picked up the misc bits or a case
to transport it in.

If you want to take it to a high end system, add another $2-$3K to
move up from a pexiglass housing to metal casting, as well as another
$3K-$5K to go to a Pro camera body (1Ds Mark III)...and bump the
strobes up to the digital replacement model of what I have now
(DS-200)...and add a few more lenses and matching port extensions.
Very easy to crack $14K for just the UW camera.


-hh

On Aug 25, 5:51 pm, -hh  wrote:

> If you want to take it to a high end system, add another $2-$3K to
> move up from a pexiglass housing to metal casting, as well as another
> $3K-$5K to go to a Pro camera body (1Ds Mark III)...and bump the
> strobes up to the digital replacement model of what I have now
> (DS-200)...and add a few more lenses and matching port extensions.
> Very easy to crack $14K for just the UW camera.

Not sure the pro camera bodies are worth it.  Plenty of u/w "pros" are
using "semi-pro".  Speaking of which, I picked up an extra D200 body,
brand new, for under $1,000 from B&H.  That's the problem with digital
camera housings, once your camera becomes obsolete and it floods,
prepare to buy a new housing or find what you can on eBay.  This will
be an insurance policy to extend the life of my expensive housing,
plus serve as a land camera since I can leave the strap on full-time.

So now, packing my camera for Bonaire next week, I'm bringing 2 camera
bodies, 4 lenses, 4 camera batteries, camera battery charger, various
filters and diopters, 3 strobes, 4 strobe battery packs, 3 strobe
battery chargers, 2 sync cords, focus light, assorted arms and clamps,
camera housing, extended viewfinder, two ports, various extension
rings and focus gears, all packed in a nice indestructable case that
comes out to just over 65 lbs full.  Oh, and the laptop, memory cards,
and memory card reader, can't forget those.  The cameras and lenses
and laptop obviously have to go in carry-on, along with the regs and
computers, and now the airlines have cut luggage limits to 50 lbs, one
bag per passenger.

Which reminds me, time to renew my insurance on all that since I dare
not lock any of it for TSA, and Bonaire isn't exactly the most crime-
free destination.

10 Cyclists Struck by a Taxi on the Causeway to Miami Beach

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=457751


"A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak."

And why should we protect the monkey, not the lion? Because then the
lion will eat the monkey, stupid. And that keeps the other monkeys
terrorized, which is not what we want. We want them to come out,
right?

Here's a smart comment on the subject...

"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
do.

That's why places which truly embrace bicycling as a valid (and safe)
mode of transportation have laws that aren't fair: bicycles get more
rights than cars. In many northern European countries, the driver is
always at fault in a bicycle-car crash. Some municipalities even
completely exempt bicycles from many road regulations (like one-way
traffic flow) -- since such regulations are often intended to regulate
cars (in the one-way example, that street might be too narrow for two
cars to pass but plenty wide for two bikes to pass).

A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
weak.

The #1 reason that people cite for not bicycling more often is that
they feel that biking is unsafe. It isn't, really -- in fact, not
bicycling degrades your life expectancy more than bicycling -- but it
can be made much safer through good policies, enforced fairly."

Posted by PCC | June 25, 2008 8:30 PM

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/traffic_hierarchy.php

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:52:22 -0700 (PDT), -hh
 wrote:

>ComandanteBanana  wrote:
>> -hh  wrote:
>> > KingOfTheApes  wrote:
>>
>> > > Many people that are into motorboating
>> > > are poorly educated and...
>>
>> > Kind of an interesting self-contradiction
>> > you're making, by first talking about how
>> > these boats are huge and expensive, yet now
>> > they're owned by uneducated high school
>> > dropouts, which is a demographic with
>> > very low incomes...
>>
>> First of all, there are "lions" out there
>> and "wannabes." Meaning there are many big
>> yachts and cigarette boats owned by the filthy
>> rich, and then crappy motorboats of all kinds
>> ...
>> It's a matter of STATUS. Just like cars.
>> "Money to burn"=3DBig Yacht & SUV.
>> "Survivor"=3Dold car and boat.
>
>Agreed, but this is hardly new news.  Mahogany hulled Chris-Craft
>powerboats have been around since the 1920s, as well as efforts over
>the years to broaden the market base to the middle class; one can
>suggest that Boston Whaler contributed to this trend too, staring in
>the mid-1950s.
>
>
>> > > But motorboat pollution contributes to
>> > > "the soup" out there too...
>> >
>> > You sure that you're not smelling naturally
>> > occurring organics?  Afterall, the ICW runs
>> > through a lot of muddy marshes and estuaries.
>>
>> I can tell the smell of gas. And you can see
>> it floating all over the place.
>
>Maybe in a marina.  Gas is a light aeromatic and disappears quite
>rapidly.  If its not natural marsh stuff, its more likely to be
>diesel, which tends to be more of what larger working boats tend to
>use, not your generic commercial pleasure boat <30ft.
>
>> And when a motorboats goes by, you can get
>> some serious second hand smoke.
>
>While there's always going to be the occasional gross polluter, they
>generally are quite uncommon.  Turbo-diesels will smoke when under
>heavy load, such as a 40 footer trying to get home on one engine.
>
>
>> > 0.04% incidence. =A0Yes, very 'startling'. =A0
>> > You would have to boat for over 25 years just
>> > to get up to a 1% risk.
>>
>> I bet many of those registered boats don't
>> even make it to the water (they look good parked
>> on the driveway).
>
>Catch-22 alert:  if these are your high risk "unskilled" boaters, if
>they're parked at home, they can't be a risk at sea.
>
>> And the kayaks stay away from those motorboat
>> highways, so the statistics may be misleading.
>
>Kayaks aren't a class of boat requiring registration, so the actual
>total numbers are higher, which means that the actual statistical risk
>is even lower.
>
>
>> But your common sense tells you they are a real
>> threat. More than terrorists, say. ;)
>
>Common sense says that all parties should take responsibility for
>their decisions, which includes wandering out into harm's way when you
>suspect that there are operators of less than stellar skill levels
>present.  Yes, it is "unfair", but life is unfair: you either deal
>with it and roll with the punches, or die from being too inflexible.
>
>
>-hh

Totally untrue, if I spill gas while refueling. THe gas doc will
surround the area with absorption material, and clean it up, I have to
file an EPA report on how it happened, and how I will prevent it in
the future

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:19:41 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
 wrote:

>On Aug 23, 6:06 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
>> > Sometimes that law doesn't exist or is not enforced and they just
>> > follow the Law of the Jungle. If you talk about the channels their
>> > speeds are not terribly willd, but still you are a sitting duck.
>>
>> It exists everywhere you're ever likely to be in your kayak.  There's more
>> enforcement on the intracoastal, per boater, than in any city or state
>> anywhere near here.
>>
>> Yes, you are a sitting duck, which is a really good reason not to go where
>> you can't be safe.  I presume you would not ride your bicycle on I-95, which
>> would you ride you kayak in a zone where running on a plane is legal?
>
>Not only I wouldn't ride on a highway, I wouldn't even ride on the
>street right in front of my door. It's so bad that most people stay
>away from riding bikes on the road around here and rather ride the
>sidewalks...
>
>Of course, you ain't safe there either. Just today, as I was coming
>down on the sidewalk to cross this intersection, a car came blasting
>the horn at me because he felt every right to beat me to the corner. I
>had to use my brakes to the limit or else. That was a close call. And
>the guy kept going like nothing. I'm sure he knows we've got few
>rights --if any.
>
>Then you realize you live in the jungle.
>
>Welcome to the Jungle --if you dare.
>
>WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION? ;)
>http://webspwner.com/users/bananarevolution
Sounds like you are suffering from "lack of sack" desease and whinning
about it. Bycyles have as much right on our roadways as cars do, and
have no right on the side walks.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:51:35 -0700 (PDT), ComandanteBanana
 wrote:

>10 Cyclists Struck by a Taxi on the Causeway to Miami Beach
>
>http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=457751
>
>
>"A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
>if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
>weak."
>
>And why should we protect the monkey, not the lion? Because then the
>lion will eat the monkey, stupid. And that keeps the other monkeys
>terrorized, which is not what we want. We want them to come out,
>right?
>
>Here's a smart comment on the subject...
>
>"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
>and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
>greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
>Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
>do.
>
>That's why places which truly embrace bicycling as a valid (and safe)
>mode of transportation have laws that aren't fair: bicycles get more
>rights than cars. In many northern European countries, the driver is
>always at fault in a bicycle-car crash. Some municipalities even
>completely exempt bicycles from many road regulations (like one-way
>traffic flow) -- since such regulations are often intended to regulate
>cars (in the one-way example, that street might be too narrow for two
>cars to pass but plenty wide for two bikes to pass).
>
>A civilized society cannot let the law of the jungle rule its roads;
>if we want to ensure fairness, government must act to protect the
>weak.
>
>The #1 reason that people cite for not bicycling more often is that
>they feel that biking is unsafe. It isn't, really -- in fact, not
>bicycling degrades your life expectancy more than bicycling -- but it
>can be made much safer through good policies, enforced fairly."
>
>Posted by PCC | June 25, 2008 8:30 PM
>
>http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/traffic_hierarchy.php
As are the laws here, hit a bycyclest here and you are in trouble.
What happened to the cab driver ?

>Here's a smart comment on the subject...

>"The purpose of the police power is to protect public health, safety,
>and welfare. When it comes down to cars vs. bicycles, the latter need
>greater protection than the former -- after all, cars kill more
>Americans than guns do, whereas beds kill more Americans than bikes
>do.

Smart except for being completely wrong.  The purpose of the police power is 
to investigate, apprehend and bring criminals to the judicial portion of the 
American system.

> Totally untrue, if I spill gas while refueling. THe gas doc will
> surround the area with absorption material, and clean it up, I have to
> file an EPA report on how it happened, and how I will prevent it in
> the future

The gas doc?  What's a gas doc?

Personally, I sprinkle some Dawn dishwashing detergent around.  Presto, no 
more gas slick.

Lee

> Sounds like you are suffering from "lack of sack" desease and whinning
> about it. Bycyles have as much right on our roadways as cars do, and
> have no right on the side walks.

I believe that varies with location, but it's certainly true in many 
locations.

Lee

"Lee Bell"  wrote:
> > Totally untrue, if I spill gas while refueling. THe gas doc will
> > surround the area with absorption material, and clean it up, I have to
> > file an EPA report on how it happened, and how I will prevent it in
> > the future
>
> The gas doc?  What's a gas doc?

Dock.   It doesn't matter too much anyway, because now the discussion
is shifting.

It started as claims of pollution from normal running conditions that
was observed along protected waters (eg, ICW), but this is talking
about a semi-"point" source of pollution, namely a spill occurring at
refueling stations.


> Personally, I sprinkle some Dawn dishwashing detergent around.
> Presto, no more gas slick.

Of course, another option when refueling, is to not spill so much fuel
(such that the Sheen Rule is invoked, etc).

And from a similar observation of human nature, a chronic spiller may
very well get inconvenienced by the owner of the refueling station to
report every spill no matter how small (ie, well below reporting
threshold).  We can all figure out the real reasons why.


-hh

ComandanteBanana  wrote:
>  "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> >
> > You do know that, by putting a trolling motor on your kayak, you're
> > classified as a power boat, right?
>
> Oh, give me a break. At worst I'd be a hybrid. Small, slow, noiseless
> and backed up by paddles.

Irrelevant, since "The Law is The Law".

At one point, my Canoe was registered as a 'powerboat'.  And I recall
that it was a bit of a nuisance to get it fit with letters of the
required minimum height for its Registration#.


> > > Many people that are into motorboating are poorly educated and
> > > couldn't care less about the consequences of their actions. I think
> > > MOTORBOATING IS LARGELY FOR COUCH POTATOES THAT WANT TO
> > > HAVE A DEGREE OF ADVENTURE IN THE GREAT OUTDOORS.
>
> > Yet, in the same post, you identified yourself as a power boater.
>
> But not a threat to anything.

Except as a threat to navigation, when in the wrong place.




> > > My anchor weighs 1 1/2 lbs... Terrible threat to the reefs. ;)
>
> > It's almost exactly the same threat as mine.  An anchor that sets and stays
> > in place, does very little damage to anything and there's already a law
> > requiring people to anchor in adjacent sand areas rather than on coral.
> > Chain and line, on the other hand, can do quite a bit of damage, whether
> > attached to a kayak or different kind of power boat.
>
> I'd look before I anchor to a reef, don't you?

Oh, to always have the luxury of being able to look through perfectly
clear water.


> > > How much you need for a motorboat?
>
> > Which power boat?  I have three and, as I've already mentioned, a kayak.
> > Anchors for each boat is designed for the boat I use it with.  My smallest
> > power boat uses an anchor just like the one I use for the kayak.
>
> OK, why don't you get rid of the big ones?

The proper sizing of an anchor is predicted on several factors, not
just the size of the craft.



> > > But motorboat pollution contributes to "the soup" out there too. You
> > > can even smell the gas, and I doubt it that it would be safe to swim
> > > in the intracostal anymore.
>
> > What you can smell is not harming the reefs.  As for what you doubt, I
> > suggest you learn a bit more before getting it wrong again.  If you're
> > talking about human waste by those on boats, I'm afraid you'll have to
> > include kayakers in  your list.  It's legal for either of us to use the
> > ocean as a bathroom.  It is not legal for me to discharge my head directly
> > overboard or to discharge my holding tank within coastal waters.  The sewage
> > outfalls in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, on the other hand, pump
> > millions of gallons of partially treated sewage and chemicals onto the reefs
> > every day.
>
> Can the government ever be that bad? They claim they treat everything
> at Virginia Key...

<http://www.reef-rescue.org/research/keywestcitizenpage1.pdf>
<http://www.reef-rescue.org/MiamiHerald/
Oceanisnoplacefortreatedsewage.pdf>

Here's their homepage; note the 'Donate' button:
<http://www.reef-rescue.org/>


> Do you do kayaking by any chance, or you just represent the
> motorboating association?

Apparently, you find it utterly incomprehensible for there to be
people who actually own both powered and unpowered watercraft,
particularly when their perspectives and conclusions are at odds with
yours.



-hh

>>> Totally untrue, if I spill gas while refueling. THe gas doc will
>>> surround the area with absorption material, and clean it up, I have to
>>> file an EPA report on how it happened, and how I will prevent it in
>>> the future

>> The gas doc? What's a gas doc?

>Dock.   It doesn't matter too much anyway, because now the discussion
>is shifting.

I thought of that, but in all my years of boating, I've never seen a dock 
surround anything.  I considered that it might be a local company in the 
business of spill mitigation.

>> Personally, I sprinkle some Dawn dishwashing detergent around.
>> Presto, no more gas slick.

>Of course, another option when refueling, is to not spill so much fuel
>(such that the Sheen Rule is invoked, etc).

Not as much of an option as you'd think.  You generally don't know your tank 
is full until gas comes out of the overflow which, of course, is over the 
water.  Some gas is spilled more often than not.  Gas evaporates pretty 
quickly and such small amounts don't last long enough to be a significant 
problem.

Lee

>> > You do know that, by putting a trolling motor on your kayak, you're
>> > classified as a power boat, right?

>> Oh, give me a break. At worst I'd be a hybrid. Small, slow, noiseless
>> and backed up by paddles.

Still a power boat.  So is a sailboat when under power, which they are most 
of the time while in the Intracoastal.

> At one point, my Canoe was registered as a 'powerboat'.  And I recall
> that it was a bit of a nuisance to get it fit with letters of the
> required minimum height for its Registration#.

No more nuisance than any other boat.  You left off the bother of having to 
renew it every year.  It's a tax, pure and simple.  If you are documented, 
it's worse.  I don't have to display numbers, the name of the boat 
identifies it.  The numbers that match the name have to be permanently 
carved into the boat somewhere.  Mine are in a stringer in the engine room. 
In addition to the Coast Guard document, which has to be renewed every year, 
I have to have a Florida registration as well that alwo has to be renewed 
every year.

>> I'd look before I anchor to a reef, don't you?

What am I going to see when the reef is more than 100 feet below and 
visibility is 40 to 50 feet?  I have an option most kayakers don't.  I have 
a color depth finder that can give me an idea of the nature of the bottom 
below me.  It's not always sure what I'm over, but I generally have at least 
an idea what's there.  A high profile reef is pretty easy to see.  A flat 
one isn't.

>> OK, why don't you get rid of the big ones?

If you're talking about the anchor, because it's what I need to hold my big 
boat.  If you mean the boat itself, because it's what I stay on, fish from 
and dive from.  I'm not sure my wife would agree to sleep on a kayak.

>> Can the government ever be that bad? They claim they treat everything
>> at Virginia Key...

Hugh already gave you the links.

<http://www.reef-rescue.org/research/keywestcitizenpage1.pdf>
<http://www.reef-rescue.org/MiamiHerald/Oceanisnoplacefortreatedsewage.pdf>

> Here's their homepage; note the 'Donate' button:
> <http://www.reef-rescue.org/>

>> Do you do kayaking by any chance, or you just represent the
>> motorboating association?

I have a kayak.  I don't usually take it into the ocean.  I sometimes take 
it into the Gulf when I vacation in the Keys.  I'm taking the boat down to 
Lake Olita this weekend.  Perhaps I'll see if the kayak will fit on the bow. 
I'd kind of like to tour the waterway in the state park and they won't allow 
my powered dinghy in there.

> Apparently, you find it utterly incomprehensible for there to be
> people who actually own both powered and unpowered watercraft,
> particularly when their perspectives and conclusions are at odds with
> yours.

Until recently, I had a rowboat and a sail boat too.  As Hugh knows, I live 
on a lake.

Lee

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:37:15 -0400, "Lee Bell"
 wrote:

>> Totally untrue, if I spill gas while refueling. THe gas doc will
>> surround the area with absorption material, and clean it up, I have to
>> file an EPA report on how it happened, and how I will prevent it in
>> the future
>
>The gas doc?  What's a gas doc?
>
>Personally, I sprinkle some Dawn dishwashing detergent around.  Presto, no 
>more gas slick.
>
>Lee 
>
>
gas Dock attendant, when you are paying 1200 dollars to fill up,
someone hands you the hose

Rod wrote

> gas Dock attendant, when you are paying 1200 dollars to fill up,
> someone hands you the hose

My tanks don't get that empty, but they could.  The weekend fuel bill was a 
modest $341.00.  They handed me the hose too.

On Aug 14, 1:09 pm, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
>
> While it is possible that the boater chose to make it a close call, that's
> not certain at all,

However, given the world in which we live, it's highly probable.

As a new boat owner whose future father in law is a past Power
Squadron District Commander, and usually within visual distance on his
own boat when I'm piloting mine with his daughter on board, I
scrupulously recite the rules of the road and how they apply to every
other boat I see out there - fewer than 10% follow them, and at least
another 10% demonstrate the sort of asinine contempt that can only be
explained by the choice described above.    I never thought I'd find a
higher asshole density than I do on the roads, but the waterways have
exceeded my worst expectations.

"Against stupidiy, the gods themselves contend in vain" - Isaac Asimov

"My dear sir, 95% of EVERYTHING is crap" - Theodore Sturgeon

> While it is possible that the boater chose to make it a close call, that's
> not certain at all,

> However, given the world in which we live, it's highly probable.

> As a new boat owner whose future father in law is a past Power
> Squadron District Commander, and usually within visual distance on his
> own boat when I'm piloting mine with his daughter on board, I
> scrupulously recite the rules of the road and how they apply to every
> other boat I see out there - fewer than 10% follow them, and at least
> another 10% demonstrate the sort of asinine contempt that can only be
> explained by the choice described above.    I never thought I'd find a
> higher asshole density than I do on the roads, but the waterways have
> exceeded my worst expectations.

10% is not highly probable.  The assholes on the water here are not higher
density than those on the roads, but they don't have to be to be a problem.

Lee

Hey, I've thought this thread was dead... Yes, I assumed you
acknowledged that the Law of the Jungle was the law of the sea.

But it turns out someone mention bikes and I've got carried away, and
went to fight the land predators...

http://forums.miamibeach411.com/index.php?/forums/viewthread/3039/P0/

But this philosophy of "big fish vs. little fish," I have learned
recently, carries over to where you can keep you kayak or motorboat.
This lady told me that the selective tenants of her upper scale condo
don't want kayaks there... but welcome yachts.

"NO BLACKS" have been changed to "NO BIKES, NO KAYAKS."

> But this philosophy of "big fish vs. little fish," I have learned
> recently, carries over to where you can keep you kayak or motorboat.
> This lady told me that the selective tenants of her upper scale condo
> don't want kayaks there... but welcome yachts.

Money talks.  The managee protection plan for S. Florida includes limits on 
boat slips, which is driving owners of larger boats to look for places to 
keep them.  This, in turn, is creating an opportunity for those with docks 
to make a lot of money by providing those spaces.  Kayaks don't generate 
income.  Yachts do.  It's a fact of life.

Small kayaks can probably be stored inside a condo or apartment.  Larger 
ones can't.  Anything that is stored in common areas, that does not generate 
income, is going to be less welcome than things that do generate revenue. 
Blame all the Yankees that moved here for the congestion or blame all the 
refugees that came from the south and east.  Just don't blame those of us 
that were born here.

> "NO BLACKS" have been changed to "NO BIKES, NO KAYAKS."

There have long been restrictions on motorcycles.  Back 25 years ago, when I 
lived in Jacksonville, I was required to keep my motorcycle out of sight. 
Then I was required to keep it away from the building due to fire 
regulations.  Lucky for me, I had a ground floor apartment with a storage 
room big enough to hold my bike.  It was illegal, but out of sight was out 
of mind.

By the way, you left trucks, boats on trailers, any kind of trailer, any 
kind of motor home and vehicles with advertising on the side, all of which 
are limited to one degree or another, by local laws and/or deed 
restrictions.  In my neighborhood, for example, which is not gated and is in 
Davie, long considered Cracker territory, it is not legal to leave a trailer 
of any kind where it can be seen from the street, it is not legal to park a 
motor home in your driveway and it is not legal to have any vehicle with 
advertising on it in your driveway on a permanent basis.  Other communities 
in the area go so far as to ban pickup trucks completely.  It's a crazy 
world.

Lee

On Sep 3, 10:52 am, "Lee Bell"  wrote:
> > But this philosophy of "big fish vs. little fish," I have learned
> > recently, carries over to where you can keep you kayak or motorboat.
> > This lady told me that the selective tenants of her upper scale condo
> > don't want kayaks there... but welcome yachts.
>
> Money talks.  The managee protection plan for S. Florida includes limits on
> boat slips, which is driving owners of larger boats to look for places to
> keep them.  This, in turn, is creating an opportunity for those with docks
> to make a lot of money by providing those spaces.  Kayaks don't generate
> income.  Yachts do.  It's a fact of life.

Well, I don't see much of an argument here. The same thing happened to
me with a motorcycle. That reason being that the kickstand could make
a hole on the pavement, serious.

The signs may as well say, "Yachts and SUVs welcome, kayaks and bikes
are not."

I meant bicycles but it applies to both motorized and non motorized.

I go all the time into my girlfriend's hotel with a bicycle and I have
fun seeing the security guards follow me and ask me all kinds of
questions, "Chief, what are you doing here?" Then I tell them the
apartment number and they have to shut up. Today I got even. I went in
the back door, and when the guard thought he finally caught me
slipping in, I produced the key and said, "What's up chief?" ;)

He still followed me but only saw me taking my mail and walking out.
You know, the usual routine.

The moral of this story is that monkeys in bikes or kayaks are not
welcome everywhere.

I am a retired Coast Guard officer who has taught the COLREGS and Inland
Rules.

I suggest that all of you study and learn the Inland Rules of the Road.
These are available at:

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rotr_online.htm

In Part A, click on the "Inland" link and just progress through the rules
using the "Next Rule" link following the text.

If you are doing any open water crossings or are paddling in the area of
Block Island, Dry Tortugas, etc. you will also need to know the
International Rules.

This whole discussion has demonstrated the lack of knowledge the paddling
community has regarding the rules of our own hobby/avocation.

WCP
Oregon


On 8/14/08 8:25 AM, in article
1a810c5e-7a47-425b-af9c-ba86bc2f6e27@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com,
"ComandanteBanana"  wrote:

> Well, I'm not going to speak in defense of the sardine in their
> eternal quest to survive the big fish...
> 
> The issue here is, WHY A KAYAK OR CANOE MUST GIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY TO
> THE MOTORBOATS?
> 
> Every weekend the intracostal waterway of Miami becomes a parade of
> motorboats of all sorts, from the very big (the owners of this town)
> to the very small (the noisy jet skis), often driven by intoxicated
> drivers (I guess you call them "drivers," though seldom they are
> accountable to the standards as vehicle drivers, like DUI), and almost
> always running (or should I say "flying"?) up and down (again, with no
> speed limit restrictions like regular drivers). So the task of
> crossing these sea highways by paddle becomes something like a duck
> crossing the hunting grounds, and you are the sitting duck...
> 
> But the ocean is also hunting ground. The other day (it was weekday,
> hardly any boats out there), I went to out in my tandem kayak, which I
> chose as bright as it could be (sunrise) with the paddles to match
> (they could be more visible than the kayak itself), and out of nowhere
> came this boat that passed us right in front, so much so that my
> partner stopped paddling. The ocean was absolutely flat and it was a
> nice sunny day, so the driver must have chosen to make it a close
> call...
> 
> It wasn't a surprise for me though. The cigarette boats routinely roar
> close to the beach to signal who the seas belong to. Hey, it belongs
> to the big fish!
> 
> NOTE: The attendants of this West Marine store I went to to get a flag
> for the kayak told me of the motorboats, "Hey be careful. They don't
> care."
> 
> WELCOME TO BE JUNGLE
> (beware of the big fish)
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
> 
> WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION?
> (the sardine revolution)
> http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
> 
> 
>