On Tue, Jul 14, 1998 at 09:36:31PM -0400, Scott Ives wrote: > However, taken to extreme the anti-environment argument just doesn't > fly. That's why no one has proposed taking it to an extreme: because it doesn't fly. (There is also no reason to do so.) I would suggest instead of taking it to an extreme that you consider it on its merits as it stands: jet skis emit ferocious quantities of sound, air, and water pollution -- in quantities far in excess of that generated by, say, automobiles. (Did you see the stats on this quoted by another author in an article here yesterday?) And if that wasn't bad enough, because they can reach almost anywhere in an aquatic environment, they are capable of emitting this pollution into extremely sensitive areas, where it can have a disproportionate impact. Jet ski manufacturers are well aware of this, and have been for some time; yet they have steadfastly refused to address the issue (other than with rhetoric). Jet ski users have not, as a group, demanded that it be addressed; simultaneously, they have continued to operate their PWC and to often do so in sensitive areas (e.g. the group which was turned backed by the National Park Service while trying to run a wilderness river canyon earlier this spring). In fact, I see no evidence to date to indicate that either group will deal with this issue (or, for that matter, the related safety issues) unless they are forced to. Which is what will now happen. ---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/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Jul 15 1998 - 04:54:30 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:29:58 PDT