At 11:45 AM 4/22/98 -0600, Philip Wylie wrote: (snip) > >Now with respect to sensitivity toward ducks and other water foul >while paddling and a sense of self guilt for being intrusive lets remember >we have a right to be here! It is how we choose to move among >the wildlife that makes the difference (In my opinion). > >We can paddle with stealth and care or with mindlessness. (more snip) We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here --regardless of what you see on the Jeep SUV ads on television. Let's remember that it's impossible to paddle ANYWHERE without making an ecological impact. Waterfowl flee from kayaks when we're half a mile away. Sunday Dave and I were standing behind a grassy bank, fairly well concealed and perhaps three-quarters of a mile away from two eagles and other wildlife. A wide channel of water separated us. The animals all became aware of us and fled the area. Wildlife flee the area just like war refugees flee an invading army. Like refugees, they give up their homes and neighborhoods. The invading armies destroy the area and make it uninhabitable. We CANNOT move through an area without having an impact. We DO NOT have some intrinsic right to invade habitat. One may think one's paddling is stealthy and careful, but that attitude is demonstrative of the arrogant mindlessness of those "caring" types who don't think they're having an impact on the ecology. NO. . . it's not an oil spill, strip mining, hydro-electric dams, or whaling. But kayaking is hardly habitat friendly or ecologically nurturing. Getting past this denial is a first step toward recovery. Excuse me if this sounds like a flame. It's meant to sound like a nuclear warhead. "Ecotourism" is a god-damned oxymoron. ------------------------------------------------------- George Bergeron, Secretary OSWEGO HERITAGE COUNCIL P.O. Box 1041, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 Web Site: http://www.europa.com/~heritage/welcome.html Email: heritage_at_europa.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
(snip-complete message from George, follows) > We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here --regardless of what you > see on the Jeep SUV ads on television. George, It would seem that since we are also creatures native to this planet (no flames from those who think we descended from space aliens :-) we have as much right to be anywhere on the earth as any other creature. Because we have a "big" brain just gives us the added responsibility of making sure we don't infringe on the rights of the other creatures. If we don't have this right, who is responsible for parceling out the favor of visiting a certain place? I sure hope it's not your organization. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Dave Baughman San Francisco Bay area -------------------George's complete message------------------------- We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here --regardless of what you see on the Jeep SUV ads on television. Let's remember that it's impossible to paddle ANYWHERE without making an ecological impact. Waterfowl flee from kayaks when we're half a mile away. Sunday Dave and I were standing behind a grassy bank, fairly well concealed and perhaps three-quarters of a mile away from two eagles and other wildlife. A wide channel of water separated us. The animals all became aware of us and fled the area. Wildlife flee the area just like war refugees flee an invading army. Like refugees, they give up their homes and neighborhoods. The invading armies destroy the area and make it uninhabitable. We CANNOT move through an area without having an impact. We DO NOT have some intrinsic right to invade habitat. One may think one's paddling is stealthy and careful, but that attitude is demonstrative of the arrogant mindlessness of those "caring" types who don't think they're having an impact on the ecology. NO. . . it's not an oil spill, strip mining, hydro-electric dams, or whaling. But kayaking is hardly habitat friendly or ecologically nurturing. Getting past this denial is a first step toward recovery. Excuse me if this sounds like a flame. It's meant to sound like a nuclear warhead. "Ecotourism" is a god-damned oxymoron. -------------------George's complete message------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 02:19:34PM -0700, George wrote: > NO. . . it's not an oil spill, strip mining, hydro-electric dams, or > whaling. Fine. Granted. Good. Then once we have dealt with the drillers, the miners, the dammers, the clear-cutters, the whalers, the dumpers, and all the other people who have more negative impact on the environment in a day then I'll have in a lifetime of paddling/hiking, I'll move to the front of the line (by default) and take my lumps, which may include not visiting some of my favorite places. But until then, your ire is misplaced. You are pointing the finger at a small segment of the population whose activities have minimal impact, who are generally quite environmentally aware, *and* who are often responsible for calling attention to problems (e.g. pollution in the Cheat River Canyon) and dealing with them (e.g. the Ridley Creek cleanup here last Saturday). You *should* be pointing the finger at the Exxons and Weyerhausers of the world -- but they're not so small and easy to pick on, are they? ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
GO RICH GO......... Cheers, Philip Wylie Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 02:19:34PM -0700, George wrote: > > NO. . . it's not an oil spill, strip mining, hydro-electric dams, or > > whaling. > > Fine. Granted. Good. Then once we have dealt with the drillers, > the miners, the dammers, the clear-cutters, the whalers, the dumpers, > and all the other people who have more negative impact on the environment > in a day then I'll have in a lifetime of paddling/hiking, I'll move to > the front of the line (by default) and take my lumps, which may include > not visiting some of my favorite places. > > But until then, your ire is misplaced. You are pointing the finger > at a small segment of the population whose activities have minimal > impact, who are generally quite environmentally aware, *and* who are > often responsible for calling attention to problems (e.g. pollution > in the Cheat River Canyon) and dealing with them (e.g. the Ridley Creek > cleanup here last Saturday). You *should* be pointing the finger at > the Exxons and Weyerhausers of the world -- but they're not so small > and easy to pick on, are they? > > ---Rsk > Rich Kulawiec > rsk_at_gsp.org > *************************************************************************** > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Coyotes and three year old bears go wandering...shouldn't we be entitled to be creatures interested in exploring our environment, or discovering new ones? I agree with Dave's idea that we should have as much right to wander as other creatures. We do have a responsibility to have as little impact as possible. If we practice "treading lightly", we can have less impact as self-containded non-consumers than the coyote, bear, or eagle that George mentioned. They can disturb the waterfowl or field mice or whatever more than we by their own (predatory) presence. I've sat for hours watching waterfowl from 50 feet away to have them burst into flight because a raccoon came down to the edge of the marsh to look for food (including an injured duck). <No this is not an anti-predator/hunting/meat-eater statement> Here's the question: what techniques (camping/paddling) can we use to minimize the impact we have? Should we use subdued colors, carry out our wastes (I don't mean trash!), what? How far can/should we go to ensure we take only pictures and leave only ripples from our paddles? At 02:19 PM 4/22/98 -0700, you wrote: >George, > >It would seem that since we are also creatures native to this planet (no >flames from those who think we descended from space aliens :-) we have >as much right to be anywhere on the earth as any other creature. >Because we have a "big" brain just gives us the added responsibility of >making sure we don't infringe on the rights of the other creatures. > >If we don't have this right, who is responsible for parceling out the >favor of visiting a certain place? I sure hope it's not your organization. >You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. > >Dave Baughman >San Francisco Bay area Wynne Americus, GA USA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here --regardless of what you > see on the Jeep SUV ads on television. Let's remember that it's impossible > to paddle ANYWHERE without making an ecological impact. Waterfowl flee from > kayaks when we're half a mile away. Sunday Dave and I were standing behind a > grassy bank, fairly well concealed and perhaps three-quarters of a mile away > from two eagles and other wildlife. A wide channel of water separated us. > The animals all became aware of us and fled the area. Rights are legal constructs. People have a right to kayak / travel on navigable waterways [legal definition]. Thats just the way it is. I also wonder what kind of waterfowl you have that flee at a range of close to 1000 yards. Waterfowl of all sorts down here on the gulf coast routinely ignore boaters and people up till you get within 50 yards or so. This isn't just kayakers, its jet skies, bass boats, pontoon boats, etc. In a kayak I can often get within 10 yards before they even bother to react, and even then its a "jee, I guess I'll swim a few feet" as opposed to "alert! alert! flee!!!" I have to wonder what the heck yall did to make those animals react at that distance. Maybe pink or orange boats with neon green paddling jackets??? Try wearing brown and grey. > NO. . . it's not an oil spill, strip mining, hydro-electric dams, or > whaling. But kayaking is hardly habitat friendly or ecologically nurturing. > Getting past this denial is a first step toward recovery. > > Excuse me if this sounds like a flame. It's meant to sound like a > nuclear warhead. "Ecotourism" is a god-damned oxymoron. Lets put it this way, you can have ecotourism in kayaks, or you can have ecotourism in cruise ships and helicopters. Choose your poison. Cause you aren't going to be able to eliminate ecotourism. And you certainly aren't going to be able to ban boats on navigable waterways, whether kayak or 400 hp inboard/outboard driven go-fasts. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
R. Walker wrote: > > > We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here [George said this; snip] > Rights are legal constructs. People have a right to kayak / travel > on navigable waterways [legal definition]. Thats just the way it > is. Good, thoughtful answer, Robert (?). I don't have an answer to the dilemma either. George tends to get pretty worked up sometimes, but he's basically a good guy. I think he's a much nicer and more reasonable person face-to-face thAn he is via this medium. > I also wonder what kind of waterfowl you have that flee at a range > of close to 1000 yards. Waterfowl of all sorts down here on the > gulf coast routinely ignore boaters and people up till you get within > 50 yards or so. This isn't just kayakers, its jet skies, bass boats, > pontoon boats, etc. In a kayak I can often get within 10 yards > before they even bother to react, and even then its a "jee, I guess > I'll swim a few feet" as opposed to "alert! alert! flee!!!" > > I have to wonder what the heck yall did to make those animals > react at that distance. Maybe pink or orange boats with neon > green paddling jackets??? Try wearing brown and grey. [snip] Well, George is terrible at anything quantitative. In particular, we were more like 100 - 200 yards away, not 1000. And, yes, birds down here do spook much sooner than birds where you are. Probably a lot of reasons. We had our silhouettes partially obscured by tall weeds, but they probably picked up on that. Sometimes we can get pretty close without spooking them. > Lets put it this way, you can have ecotourism in kayaks, or you > can have ecotourism in cruise ships and helicopters. Choose your > poison. Cause you aren't going to be able to eliminate ecotourism. > And you certainly aren't going to be able to ban boats on navigable > waterways, whether kayak or 400 hp inboard/outboard driven go-fasts. I agree with you 100%. Practically any engine-powered craft is much more intrusive than any paddlecraft. And the "navigable waterway" designation is one which probably needs to be looked at. A good bit of the water we crossed is navigable by 3 inch draft craft only much of the day. It's the channels that powerboats run. Functionally, they can't go where we do. The problem is that the animals are getting squeezed into ever smaller areas, and now sea kayaks are reducing that area further. I would not eliminate ecotourism. I'd try to manage it so that its impact is not out of proportion to the number of people involved. Any thoughts in that direction? Let's keep in contact. I liked your ideas. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Dave Kruger wrote: I would not eliminate eco tourism. I'd try to manage it so that its impact is not out of proportion to the number of people involved. Any thoughts in that direction? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For one thing Dave, I personally advocate seasons appropriate for Eco Tourism, the same as there are seasons for hunting. Spring time, when water foul are nesting (laying eggs, hatching and nurturing) would be a time for wisdom not to intrude upon their domain. For certain, by way of example here among our Rocky Mountains of Jasper Alberta, the rivers would serve the outfitters and wildlife management concerns if they curtailed river trips until after nesting seasons around mid July (I think). This could help. I have hunted deer by canoe along rivers and have not had water foul freak out and alert my prey. Where as I have been exposed by many a angry squirrel. I have paddled hundreds of miles of rivers and lakes, have always enjoyed the wildlife and have not experienced the kind of panic mentioned. Yet I have witnessed as you have the mindlessness havoc of jet skis and jet boats. Ironic that Japan has liscenced only some 300 jet skis for the entire country. Excessive machines driven to the extreme. Appropriate seasons might be worthy of consideration. Best Regards, Philip *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Philip Wylie wrote: > For one thing Dave, I personally advocate seasons appropriate for > Eco Tourism, the same as there are seasons for hunting. > Spring time, when water foul are nesting (laying eggs, hatching > and nurturing) would be a time for wisdom not to intrude upon > their domain. Good suggestion. In my area, there are hundreds of Canada geese which nest in/on the islands mentioned in my original posting. They are in no way endangered (at least that seems to be true for the subspecies nesting here), and it appears that the USFWS has adopted a "hands-off" attitude re: travel/day visits to Refuge lands during nesting season. (Some areas are posted off limits at all times of the year, but this is typically not enforced.) Worth noting is that the restrictions apply to LAND, not water, which is all "navigable" here. Someone (stuck in a hotel on the Gulf, if I recall correctly) detailed the behavior of great blue herons, which "flush" a hundred yards or so along a shore as a paddler parallels it, repeating the behavior until the end of the heron's "territory." This is the sort of conflict -- low-level and really pretty darn benign in the grand scheme -- which could have subtle (to us, but maybe not the heron!) negative effects on wildlife, particularly if there is a parade of gentle paddling intruders, and not just one or two. That's the sort of thing a Water Trail can make much worse. What do others see as the trade-offs? I'm ambivalent about Water Trails. Mostly, I feel they tend to bring in more folks, albeit nice folks, and conscientious ones who don't throw beer cans about. But, they remain, *more folks.* On the other hand, without the support of the general public (particularly duck hunters), there would not be any USFWS National Wildlife Refuges. And, the "exposure" to the character and value of protected areas engendered by use of Water Trails probably helps build political pressure to keep what wildlife refuges we have. So, I do not see the promulgation of Water Trails as a black-and-white issue. It's for darn sure my own behavior is not consistent on this. I'm perfectly happy to travel to other places and snap up (greedily!) literature detailing access to cool places to paddle, and lots of those places have wildlife-harassment problems similar to the ones here. I'd like to hear more from folks who have wrestled with this. Thanks to all (my flame shield is eroding a little, but still intact). -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
There's yet another angle to ecotourism: political.. Increasing ecotourism produces increased eco-awareness, which produces a growing political constituency that will favor preservation over increased economic production. As Dave mentions, regulation becomes more appropriate as ecotourism increases, but it's not all bad. Also, different species have different needs in terms of nesting and hunting habitats. The evolution of the Great Blue Heron, var. highwaytwentysixus has been a case in point. This variety nests in extremely inaccessible creek canyons bordering a developed, flat, valley, but feeds almost exclusively on frogs in the median swale of Highway 26, an extremely heavily travelled freeway in the heart of "Silicon Forest". Thus these birds have two territories: one for nesting, in which the main competition is from other herons and the bald eagles (who hunt on Sauvies Island), and another for feeding, in the center of the freeway, where they have learned to not tangle with vehicles (two fatalities in five years in a population of the 18 pairs that I know as individuals). This is one of the good questions, with no clear answers. My own behaviour is to be aware of what's going on and not intrude or approach intentionally. I see plenty up-close and personal without making any intentional moves. Roger Dave Kruger wrote: > Philip Wylie wrote: > > > For one thing Dave, I personally advocate seasons appropriate for > > Eco Tourism, the same as there are seasons for hunting. > > Spring time, when water foul are nesting (laying eggs, hatching > > and nurturing) would be a time for wisdom not to intrude upon > > their domain. > > Good suggestion. In my area, there are hundreds of Canada geese which > nest in/on the islands mentioned in my original posting. They are in no > way endangered (at least that seems to be true for the subspecies > nesting here), and it appears that the USFWS has adopted a "hands-off" > attitude re: travel/day visits to Refuge lands during nesting season. > (Some areas are posted off limits at all times of the year, but this is > typically not enforced.) Worth noting is that the restrictions apply to > LAND, not water, which is all "navigable" here. > > Someone (stuck in a hotel on the Gulf, if I recall correctly) detailed > the behavior of great blue herons, which "flush" a hundred yards or so > along a shore as a paddler parallels it, repeating the behavior until > the end of the heron's "territory." This is the sort of conflict -- > low-level and really pretty darn benign in the grand scheme -- which > could have subtle (to us, but maybe not the heron!) negative effects on > wildlife, particularly if there is a parade of gentle paddling > intruders, and not just one or two. > > That's the sort of thing a Water Trail can make much worse. What do > others see as the trade-offs? > > I'm ambivalent about Water Trails. Mostly, I feel they tend to bring in > more folks, albeit nice folks, and conscientious ones who don't throw > beer cans about. But, they remain, *more folks.* On the other hand, > without the support of the general public (particularly duck hunters), > there would not be any USFWS National Wildlife Refuges. And, the > "exposure" to the character and value of protected areas engendered by > use of Water Trails probably helps build political pressure to keep what > wildlife refuges we have. So, I do not see the promulgation of Water > Trails as a black-and-white issue. > > It's for darn sure my own behavior is not consistent on this. I'm > perfectly happy to travel to other places and snap up (greedily!) > literature detailing access to cool places to paddle, and lots of those > places have wildlife-harassment problems similar to the ones here. > > I'd like to hear more from folks who have wrestled with this. Thanks to > all (my flame shield is eroding a little, but still intact). > > -- > Dave Kruger > Astoria, OR > *************************************************************************** > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Dave Kruger wrote: > I'm ambivalent about Water Trails. Mostly, I feel they tend to bring in > more folks, albeit nice folks, and conscientious ones who don't throw > beer cans about. > I'd like to hear more from folks who have wrestled with this. Thanks to > all (my flame shield is eroding a little, but still intact). > > -- > Dave Kruger > Astoria, OR > I may be way too close to this to say ANYTHING civil about my fellow man but here it goes. I worked several years for the BLM in Alaska fighting forest fires. One of the duties my crew did when not on fires was cut new hiking trails, maintain and repair old ones and lastly, clean up TONS of trash left from "nice consciencious folks"!! There was one place that was the "jewel" of the area.(location withheld) An 18 mile hike back in to one of the most beautiful spots on earth! Clear lake with a nice class 1 and 11 river back to the car. Massive galcier on the far side. We had to sling load trash out of there every year on a copter there was so much! Every single piece was carried in on someones back(some came in float planes no doubt) by people that "loved" the place. I will never get over the sight of some of the places I've cleaned up! George was pretty blunt, and as someone else mentioned its not all black and white. It should be in some areas!!! If we have to draw a line in the sand, I know which side I'll stand on. Lets set aside some areas that are for the "earth". We all need a place to "do our thing", well so does the earth! I hope all our great grandchildren will get a "chance" to have this discusion. Happy birthday George and many more! James *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
hi dave and nature lovers, >I'd like to hear more from folks who have wrestled with this. Thanks to all (my flame shield is eroding a little, but still intact). i like solitude alot and seen population/construction destroy lots of remote land. it happens. my solution: swamps... the last frontier. snakes and bugs and poor land for development will help ensure many more hours of solitude for me... seakayak or canoe long distances, hopefully through shallow water... and the wildlife will be extradorinary... it helps if the swamp is *freshwater tidal*.... watch out for rednecks... support The Nature Conservancy, they buy land for conservation. bye bye bliven *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 4/22/98 4:31:43 PM, heritage_at_europa.com wrote: >We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here Exxcuuuse me? We don't have a right to be here? Well, hell, I guess I'll go drink my Kool Aid and wait for the damn spaceship to come by. Want a glass? >Let's remember that it's impossible to paddle ANYWHERE without making an >ecological impact. Give me a break. Anything you or I do somehow affects something or somebody. >From a fart to a nuclear bomb, we affect our habitat with our every action. So what, your suggesting we sit at home, in the dark, not eating cause we create waste, breathing because we create carbon dioxide, or what? Well, I am not willing to just sit around and wait to die here. I want to paddle round, chase the sea lions (manatees here), catch a few lobster for dinner (OOPS, season closed, gotta wait) and maybe even burn a few gallons of refined dinosaur guts in the glorious pursuit of happiness. Yes, I try to do this in a responsible, low impact manner, but do it I must, and I will, for I have the right to do so in a responsible manner..... well, it had to be said.... Scott Scientists are wonderfull people, they created Nomex.... *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
At 10:43 PM 4/22/98 EDT, Mad Poodle wrote: > >In a message dated 4/22/98 4:31:43 PM, heritage_at_europa.com wrote: > >>We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here > > Exxcuuuse me? We don't have a right to be here? Well, hell, I guess I'll go >drink my Kool Aid and wait for the damn spaceship to come by. Want a glass? > >>Let's remember that it's impossible to paddle ANYWHERE without making an >>ecological impact. > > Give me a break. Anything you or I do somehow affects something or somebody. >>From a fart to a nuclear bomb, we affect our habitat with our every action. So >what, your suggesting we sit at home, in the dark, not eating cause we create >waste, breathing because we create carbon dioxide, or what? > Well, I am not willing to just sit around and wait to die here. I want to >paddle round, chase the sea lions (manatees here), catch a few lobster for >dinner (OOPS, season closed, gotta wait) and maybe even burn a few gallons of >refined dinosaur guts in the glorious pursuit of happiness. Yes, I try to do >this in a responsible, low impact manner, but do it I must, and I will, for I >have the right to do so in a responsible manner..... > > well, it had to be said.... > >Scott > >Scientists are wonderfull people, they created Nomex.... You done opened a can of worms now!!!! and put them lobster back they are to small anyhow. and what color coolaid???? Did I miss the Heavens Gate spaceship again????? Durn!!!! Dana *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Geo. Bergeron wrote: > We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here --regardless of what you > see on the Jeep SUV ads on television. > We CANNOT move through an area without having an impact. We DO NOT > have some intrinsic right to invade habitat. One may think one's paddling is > stealthy and careful, but that attitude is demonstrative of the arrogant > mindlessness of those "caring" types who don't think they're having an > impact on the ecology. > > NO. . . it's not an oil spill, strip mining, hydro-electric dams, or > whaling. But kayaking is hardly habitat friendly or ecologically > nurturing. Getting past this denial is a > first step toward recovery. > Excuse me if this sounds like a flame. It's meant to sound like a > nuclear warhead. "Ecotourism" is a god-damned oxymoron. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Well now you've done it. > > Actually George, if you are really consistent with your position > and really believe we have no right to be here, then best > consider living under a > rock at the bottom of the ocean > somewhere, because that > is the only place you won't disturb habitat (and even then...) > In all seriousness, I think you are misusing the concept of > rights (a touchy subject for me!). Of COURSE we have a right > to be here! Unfortunately, government intrusion severs cause > and effect because it opens up the "closed loop" of paying > the consequences for our actions. > > Yes, we disturb animals when we paddle amongst them. But > that does not remove our right to be on this planet! > If it does, bring on the gas chambers and fire up the ovens - > you have got 5 billion customers. > > Those who are the direct owners of something use it the most > wisely, hence laissez-faire capitalism is the best solution > to the ecological problems we face (just as it is the best > solution to all other problems!). Those who argue against > laissez-faire cannot present examples of pure capitalist > abuses of the environment since laissez-faire has never been > practiced - gov't has always interfered in some way. > Conversely though, there are loads of examples of how > resources are destroyed and squandered when they are owned > by governments! (Forests, rivers and lakes, oceans, > rangelands in the last century etc.) > > If governments didn't own oceans but individuals and > corporations did, don't you think there would be more > concern for their wise use? The same "greed" that would > otherwise want to destroy these resources (and which does > destroy them when the "consequences loop" is > unclosed due to gov't > intervention) would also want to PRESERVE them > for *future* profit because the > same "greedy" ones are left > with the losses > when the resource is squandered. Simple, > obvious, easy. > Governments allow one group to abuse a > resource because a different > group will pay the consequences. > It would simply be a matter of economics, as it should be, > not politics or "morality" or some pagan spiritualistic > animism (gaia), (although they too would be allowed to buy up > chunks of land and lakes and preserve them for their > particular uses if they wanted). I submit that this is the > only sane answer to the problems of overcrowding etc. > > Even then, many ecosystems may be "doomed" as mankind > continues to spread. I don't like it either, but that still > doesn't give me the right or you the right to prevent > others from using > their property as they see fit. > For example, I think there are enough people interested in > conservation to buy the entire West Coast Trail in order to > preserve it in a wild state. And while we're at it, we could > buy extra land that could be logged (tree-farmed wisely) in > order to allow preservation of the old growth etc. etc. > Remember, gov't owns 75% of BC and 86% of Nevada > etc. No wonder stuff is > being squandered! It is the B.C. Government that is in collusion with the logging companies.Otherwise the will of the people would be evoked and large tracts of prime untouched forest would be protected (especially off the Queen Charlotte Islands where the white bear lives). Goverments are owned by corporations and vested money interests, and serve them first and pay the people but lip service. And by the way there is government sanctioned logging going on within the West Coast Trail again! I saw it last year with my own eyes. Mining and blasting going on near Adrenaline creek also. This stuff is having more impact than some gentle kayaker or even a fifteen kayakers who seeks the solace of quiet beauty. You want to screw tourism, tell the world what they are doing to the WCT and the Europeans will stop coming. Oh what will government do then. Spend more money? Nesting habitat has been resricted on Alberta mountain rivers near Jasper Alberta because it has been determined that white water rafting is having an impact on the breeding of certain wood duck species. If things are out of control then events will and should occur to correct the harm. > I better quit now. I'm starting to sound like you George. I > respect your feelings but > not your logic my friend. > Anyway, FREEDOM IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER. > > Best Regards, Wylie Coyote Edmonton, Alberta > *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
At 01:03 PM 4/22/98 -0700, George Bergeron wrote: > > We *DO NOT* have some "right" to be here --regardless of what you >see on the Jeep SUV ads on television. Let's remember that it's impossible >to paddle ANYWHERE without making an ecological impact. Waterfowl flee from >kayaks when we're half a mile away... George, If you truly believe this, I don't see how you can rationalize paddling at all. Bill Ridlon Southern Maine Sea Kayaking Network *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
At 12:02 AM 4/23/98 -0400, Wynne Eden wrote: > >Here's the question: what techniques (camping/paddling) can we use to >minimize the impact we have? Should we use subdued colors, carry out our >wastes (I don't mean trash!), what? How far can/should we go to ensure we >take only pictures and leave only ripples from our paddles? > The Maine Island Trail Association advocates carrying out human waste when camping on islands. It took me several years to get to where I was comfortable with this and had the right equipment but I was finally able to do it and find that it works and is easier than digging holes in the ground. It's also a lot more environment-friendly on Maine islands with very shallow soil. Bill Ridlon Southern Maine Sea Kayaking Network *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:49 PDT