Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (23681)	7/16/1998 1:29:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, for someone who professes to be a libertarian it boggles my mind how you can so callously outlaw my freedom to ride a personal watercraft. So now you're saying we should completely ban them huh? I knew that was what you really wanted in your original post when you said they should be limited to certain area's. And that is exactly what the leaders of the ban in the San Juan Islands are after too. At least you're an honest Greenpeace activist. This is exactly how the far left Greenpeace activists go about banning freedoms everywhere. They say "oh we just want to ban it from this little area", but what they really mean is outlaw the activity entirely. What a hideous direction to lead our country toward. Banning every activity unless it meets some ridiculous rules of environmental awareness and safety. The statistics you cite which (you believe) are so horrendous regarding personal watercraft are seriously flawed. Most injuries are caused by people renting, so it seems to me a little training is all they need. But I guess we can't do that huh? The increase in injuries is largely because the percentage of people using personal watercraft has dramatically risen vs boat usage. But of course we never actually saw any real numbers in those articles huh? Just that it is up over some percentage. Well if one person was killed last year, and two people died this year then you have a 100% rate of increase in deaths. Does that mean anything though?? Heck no! You call that emperical evidence?? I have not done the test myself, but I can guarantee you without even looking at the data that my personal watercraft, does not put out the equivelant of a car running 130,000 miles in two hours of usage. Perhaps they are ONLY talking about the ones you stand up on, as compared to a 1960 Chevrolet, I don't know. And neither do you. Yet, you are more than willing to read a couple of articles over the web and conclude that the information is completely valid, and because of it we should totally ban an activity. That's what is real dangerous about information today, far to many people (like yourself) do not try and put any kind of "double loop" learning analysis into it. They just take whatever they have read and place their "social reality" into it, then cite is as FACT! You have used the word "fact" so many times frivolously, I believe you have forgotten what that word means. Have you completely forgotten to ask questions first, before taking a leap of religious (Greenpeace) faith that it is true? Michael _____________________________________________________________________ Article.... Personal-watercraft critics ignore benefits Background and Related Stories by Walt Spady Special to The Seattle Times In Ocean Shores, a stranded boater is rescued by local lifeguards using a personal watercraft (PWC). A windsurfer being swept down the Columbia is saved by a PWC rider who pulls him to safety. During recent floods, a driver stranded atop his near-submerged pickup is plucked to safety by a PWC rider. There are many other situations like these that demonstrate how highly maneuverable and efficient personal watercraft are being used to save lives and enforce laws. The recent Seattle Times editorial on local control charged that personal watercraft were used purely for "fun." It suggested that legislation under consideration in Olympia would "withhold millions of dollars worth of marine gas tax revenue from local governments that prohibit (personal watercraft)." In fact, personal watercraft are being used by more than 100 public safety agencies in Washington state for enforcement and search-and-rescue operations. Much maligned by PWC opponents who misinform to justify their viewpoint, Senate Bill 5388 calls for fairness for all boaters. It would apply to all motor boats and it would prevent local governments from being bullied by zealots who force them into unconstitutional actions. SB 5388 establishes that all motorized watercraft owners have the right to responsibly use public-access facilities that are exclusively paid for by all boat owners who pay registration fees and fuel taxes. As the personal watercraft industry matures and owners become more aware of their machines' capabilities, personal watercraft are now being used for visits to water-destination resorts and for camping trips, for fishing and hunting, wake boarding and water skiing, and - yes - for fun like all other recreational boats. With more than 18,000 PWC owners paying registration fees and fuel taxes in Washington, the popularity of these efficient boats is growing. There is a lot of talk about boating-safety education, but little or no follow-through from handouts at fuel docks to posting speed and proximity signs. To ensure that PWC owners are made aware of mainstream boating regulations and courtesies, dealers and manufacturers have launched an all out effort to cooperate with local governments by helping to draft reasonable PWC regulations (San Juan County has refused our repeated requests to help them), promote safe and responsible PWC use in every dealership, and to provide comprehensive information in the "crate" with each new PWC delivered. Personal watercraft dealers in Washington, Oregon and Idaho have established the Northwest Personal Watercraft Safety Project to work in tandem with local officials, the U.S. Power Squadron, trade associations and the news media on boating-safety promotion. Since the project was established in 1995, it has produced and distributed boating-safety information, conducted "water wise weekend" events, supported local governments with model regulations (including the state's PWC ordinance), and is developing a home page on waterways conflict-resolution programs like how to establish a Lake Watch, model boat-launch signage and so forth. Your last reference about legislators having more important things to do than using "state money to punish local elected officials" was a real reach. San Juan County's investment of tax dollars for legal costs (and fund-raising efforts) to defend an unconstitutional ban towers over the cost of SB 5388. San Juan County's refusal to provide boating-safety information, create reasonable regulations for all boats and post signs is a real disservice - never mind wasting tax dollars on legal expenses. SB 5388 would provide needed relief to local officials who are forced to yield to loud minority voices that ignore the constitution and ignore effective boating-education programs. The bill is supported by the entire recreational boating industry, not just PWC manufacturers, and it only advances fairness for all motorized watercraft. Walt Spady is a founding member of the Northwest Personal Watercraft Safety Project and co-owner of Doug's Boats in Woodinville.

To: Grainne who wrote (23681)	7/16/1998 6:59:00 PM
From: Kid Rock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, EXHAUST FROM TWO HOURS OF JET SKIING IS EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF A 1998 CAR DRIVEN 130,000 MILES. think about it Let's say a jet-ski uses 10 gallons of gas in 2 hours. A car that gets 20/mpg would use up 6500 gallons of gas in its lifetime(excluding oil changes and other petroleum products). So please explain how 10 gallons of gasoline can create as much pollution as 6500 gallons of gasoline. I think you should stick to discussing witchcraft instead of watercraft!! Tom