Paddlers: This past weekend, at dinner with some environmental group friends, I was shocked to learn that the ACA (American Canoe Association) has dismantled its conservation programs and basically abandoned its conservation work altogether. One prominent person who was present recounted a conversation with the ACA Executive Director and described her perspective on natural resource protection as "truly scary." I had my doubts if this could really be true, so I had these characterizations confirmed by someone in the organization that wishes to remain nameless. As I understand it, ACA has phased out its water pollution enforcement program and its work reducing paper mill pollution, it has abandoned its efforts to protect paddling areas from jet ski use, forced out its Conservation Director of 10 years, dropped out of a coalition effort to counter the Blue Ribbon Coalition (an effort it had initiated and lead), has ceased its active support of wilderness protection, wild and scenic rivers, and its defense of access rights for self-guided paddlers. I heard that the ED and President are phasing out conservation advocacy to curry favor with the motor boating community and commercial outfitters who support motorized use. They want ACA to be primarily a boating education organization. My family joined ACA because of its good conservation and advocacy work. We wanted to support an organization that truly fights for our needs as paddlers. I am very disappointed with ACA's new direction and will not renew our membership. I hope others will similarly register their dissatisfaction. With enough pressure, maybe we can eventually convince the organization to reverse course. Sean *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I recently heard a similar story about the Sierra Club. Which makes me wonder if this is a reverse smear campaign in which causing the target organizations to lose members is the goal, or if all those conspiracy theorists you hear from really are right, and there's a right-wing conspiracy to take over any organization that is at odds with their agenda. Until I hear this change in direction from either organization's leadership, I'll have to remain a skeptic. If it is true that both organizations are being taken over by interests that run counter to their stated goals, the answer is easy --- vote the current leadership out of office, and replace them with people who will return the club to it's stated purpose. Just leaving isn't the answer. Both organizations are far more democratic than the US government is.............................take advantage of that fact & make a difference instead of picking up your toys and going home. One side note, though: Being the president of a paddling club myself, and having in recent years twice fought off legislative attempts to force registration and licensing on paddlers, I have a problem with this crusade against PWC's. When it first started, I was a board member of another club, and I warned the board that supporting such a cause would eventually come back to land on us. Once PWC's were registered, and their operators licensed here in CT, paddlers then became the bad guys, just as I had predicted several years before. You can't try to restrict others' freedoms, and not expect the same to be done to you someday as well. PWC's have a lot of design issues that can be addressed with the right pressure (Ambulance chasers, not paddlers), but taking freedoms away from their owners isn't the way, IMO. My attitude has become "Be a responsible boater & let Darwin sort the rest out". Off my soapbox now. Wayne Smith Wayne Smith wsmith16_at_charter.net Check out my website! http://webpages.charter.net/wsmith16/home.html *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Since an important ACA motto is something like "educate, don't regulate" I doubt advocacy will be dropped. My view is that conservation is only tangential to paddling so dropping that may put my membership dues to better use. I hope it happens. Steve Brown -----Original Message----- Paddlers: This past weekend, at dinner with some environmental group friends, I was shocked to learn that the ACA (American Canoe Association) has dismantled its conservation programs and basically abandoned its conservation work altogether......... and its defense of access rights for self-guided paddlers......They want ACA to be primarily a boating education organization. ........... Sean *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Hi Steve, I'd have to beg to differ with you. If we don't conserve what we are paddling in, well, how well do you role in an oil slick? Resource protection and strong conservation are what being a responsible citizen and outdoor recreator are all about. This is indeed a tragic turn for ACA to take. yours, tom Tom Martin Co-Director, Arizona Field Office River Runners For Wilderness PO Box 30821 Flagstaff, AZ 86003-0821 www.rrfw.org tomhazel_at_grand-canyon.az.us 928-638-4053 Grand Canyon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brown" <steve_at_brown-web.net> > Since an important ACA motto is something like "educate, don't regulate" I > doubt advocacy will be dropped. > My view is that conservation is only tangential to paddling so dropping that > may put my membership dues to better use. I hope it happens. > > Steve Brown *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
"educate, don't regulate" Yup, need lots of education on where there were rapids prior to dams, or where water was clean prior to discharge, or where portages were legal prior to ownership . . . *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Thanks for your definition of what being a responsible citizen is. Personally, I think being a responsible citizen has more to do with protecting and/or allocating resources for the greater good of society, rather than just doing so for paddlers. Paddlers are a part of "society", thus the tangential relationship. One the other hand, we share that tangential relationship with divers, board surfers, waterfowl hunters, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, water skiers, swimmers, wind surfers, sailors, etc. I don't want to paddle in an oil slick, but I don't think the ACA is the organization that has kept that from happening and I certainly don't think that is a burden the ACA has to carry. On the other hand, none of those other groups I mentioned is the least bit interested in ensuring that I can paddle when and where I want without government oversight. That's what I need the ACA to focus on because if they don't, no one else will. Steve Brown -----Original Message----- Hi Steve, I'd have to beg to differ with you. If we don't conserve what we are paddling in, well, how well do you role in an oil slick? Resource protection and strong conservation are what being a responsible citizen and outdoor recreator are all about. This is indeed a tragic turn for ACA to take. yours, tom Tom Martin *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Steve Brown wrote: "I think being a responsible citizen has more to do with protecting and/or allocating resources for the greater good of society, rather than just doing so for paddlers." Every type of population and business is represented by an interest group that advocates specifically for them. We paddlers deserve no less. Recreationists (if that is a word) probably have a better chance at advancing resource conservation than environmental groups because we spend money and politicos can't figure out whether we are Democrat or Republican. I believe that saving rivers and lakes for paddling, wildlife habitat is for the greater good of society. These places provide spiritual renewal, enjoyment and exercise opportunities. It also means safer drinking water. I live in the west to be near beautiful, unspoiled and wild places, if you don't care about those things...well I can't relate. Sean *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Sean, We agree on several things but not all. Specifically, I'm willing to bet we agree on most issues that are truly paddle related. I never said I don't care about the environment. Of course I do - I need it to live! What I said was that I don't need the ACA to be worried about that particular subject because a lot of other groups already are, and it is not paddle centric. The problem is the same as it was the last time it came up on this list. As paddlers we have different views and priorities when it comes to conservation. Aside from not wanting to paddle in oil slicks, we all have very different views of how natural resources should be managed and used. For example, I am not at all concerned with keeping people off of beaches in Central CA to protect the nesting sites of the Snowy Plover, but I am very concerned about protecting wetlands from development. I need wetlands to attract and hunt ducks. I'm not saying my view is the "right" or only one, but it is mine, its is a valid view, and I'm a paddler. (To avoid future email banter please notice I did not say that I wanted people to molest nesting Snowy Plovers, only that I did not want to keep people off the beaches) If the ACA sticks to paddling, they can really represent paddlers in the areas of education, access and (non) regulation. I'm guessing they can do a good job of that for most all of us. On the subject of conservation the results of previous email wars on this list indicate they cannot possibly represent all of us because views vary so widely. Let's stick to paddling. There are enough good arguments on that subject alone to last a lifetime! Steve Brown -----Original Message----- Every type of population and business is represented by an interest group that advocates specifically for them. We paddlers deserve no less. Recreationists (if that is a word) probably have a better chance at advancing resource conservation than environmental groups because we spend money and politicos can't figure out whether we are Democrat or Republican. I believe that saving rivers and lakes for paddling, wildlife habitat is for the greater good of society. These places provide spiritual renewal, enjoyment and exercise opportunities. It also means safer drinking water. I live in the west to be near beautiful, unspoiled and wild places, if you don't care about those things...well I can't relate. Sean *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
ACA is getting out, but there are others who keep plugging away. A relatively new player with a particular focus on water is the Waterkeeper Alliance http://www.waterkeeper.org/ Cheers, Richard Culpeper Lake Superior Alliance http://www.superioralliance.org/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Uggghhh! The extremism of some of the environmental members are what turn the rest of us off to their message.... I get so tired of it.... Rolling in an oil slick? Come on! As if they are PURPOSELY trying to lose MILLIONS of $$$ when a tanker runs aground or spills MILLIONS of $$$ in crude oil... Uggghhh.... I hope the ACA does get out of the fringe element.... Robert > From: Tom Martin and Hazel Clark > > Hi Steve, I'd have to beg to differ with you. If we don't > conserve what we are paddling in, well, how well do you role > in an oil slick? Resource protection and strong conservation > are what being a responsible citizen and outdoor recreator > are all about. This is indeed a tragic turn for ACA to take. > yours, tom > > Tom Martin > Co-Director, Arizona Field Office > River Runners For Wilderness *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 03:09:28PM -0500, Robert A. Glantz, Jr. wrote: > Uggghhh! The extremism of some of the environmental members are what > turn the rest of us off to their message.... I get so tired of it.... I hardly think it's "extremist" to do what's possible to see that our shared waterways are preserved -- for us, for the fish, for the ducks, for people who drink from it, for everyone. It's due diligence. It's shared responsbility. It's OUR responsibility as one group of people who wish to use those resources. > Rolling in an oil slick? Come on! As if they are PURPOSELY trying to > lose MILLIONS of $$$ when a tanker runs aground or spills MILLIONS of > $$$ in crude oil... Uggghhh.... Actually, even a cursory study of the history of water pollution indicates that a great deal WAS done on purpose. It was done because it was cheaper to use the public's waterways as a waste disposal facility than to pay the costs of properly treating effluent and wastewater. People only stopped -- IF they stopped -- because laws were enacted and enforced to MAKE them stop. (I will also suggest that failure to build and use superior -- but more expensive -- oil tanker designs was *also* done as a cost-saving measure, with, of course, predictable consequences.) For example, less than an hour's drive from here is the Codorus Creek, a small stream that wanders through York, PA. There is a fine whitewater section, class II-III, and many miles of milder water that meander through some very pretty central Pennsylvania countryside. It's really quite nice. Don't flip, though. Because the tea color of the water is the result of two paper mills upstream, and if it makes contact with your eyes, your nose, your throat, or any small cuts you might have, it BURNS. Those paper mills are still discharging *today* because nobody has made them stop. They're doing it because, of course, it would put a serious crimp in their profits if they were compelled to treat their wastewater properly. And believe me, they know EXACTLY what the impact is. They are choosing to keep polluting the Codorus because they like making money -- no other reason. They'll keep doing it until someone makes them stop. You can repeat this exercise with the Schuylkill in Pennsylvania, or with the beautiful, wild Cheat in West Virginia, or the North Branch of the Potomac in Maryland, or the Kanawha in West Virginia, or the Ocoee in Tennessee, or dozens of other streams. I consider it my responsibility as a paddler who traverses those rivers to preserve them, protect them, and restore them. I also consider it the responsibility of the US's largest paddling organization. And I consider it the responsibility of EVERY paddler to do their part to do the same for the waterways they use -- river, lake and ocean. It's really a small thing to ask of ourselves in return for the beauty and adventure and enjoyment that we are privileged to experience. ---Rsk *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Dirty rivers are certainly a paddling issue, but "conservation" is to broad an issue to be paddling related. Last month the argument was about whether the ACA should associate with Subaru because they were making a vehicle with suboptimum gas mileage. Smog and petroleum usage don't even make the grade as tangential (love that word now) paddling issues. My point is that "conservation" just opens the door for a whole political agenda that some of us don't want to be a part of. Narrow the scope to what are truly paddle related environmental issues and my interest improves considerably. Steve Brown -----Original Message----- ....... Don't flip, though. Because the tea color of the water is the result of two paper mills upstream, and if it makes contact with your eyes, your nose, your throat, or any small cuts you might have, it BURNS. Those paper mills are still discharging *today* because nobody has made them stop. They're doing it because, of course, it would put a serious crimp in their profits if they were compelled to treat their wastewater properly. ---Rsk *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I agree with Steve Brown. In addition, I would like us to get back to paddling and away from political agendas. I get enough of that. Raphael --- Steve Brown <steve_at_brown-web.net> wrote: > Since an important ACA motto is something like > "educate, don't regulate" I > doubt advocacy will be dropped. > My view is that conservation is only tangential to > paddling so dropping that > may put my membership dues to better use. I hope it > happens. > > Steve Brown *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:06:42AM -0800, Steve Brown wrote: > My view is that conservation is only tangential to paddling so dropping that > may put my membership dues to better use. I hope it happens. I disagree: without conservation, all we will have left to paddle are heavily-polluted streams and lakes obstructed by dams and overrun with abusive/destructive users (e.g. PWC). Preserving the quality of waterways is an absolute imperative and must remain part of the ACA's primary mission. ( And no, "education" alone is not enough, unfortunately: we ilve in a society with a fair number of people whose only motivation is greed, and no amount of education will stop them from trashing our waterways or obstructing the public's right of access to them. ONLY regulation will do that, and thus no matter how one feels about it, it's necessary. ) ---Rsk *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brown" <steve_at_brown-web.net> To: "'Sean Peterson'" <northwoodspaddler_at_msn.com>; "'Paddlewise List'" <paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:06 PM Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] ACA abandons conservation & advocacy!!! > Since an important ACA motto is something like "educate, don't regulate" I > doubt advocacy will be dropped. > My view is that conservation is only tangential to paddling so dropping that > may put my membership dues to better use. I hope it happens. > > Steve Brown I have no idea whether there is even a kernel of truth to the initial email to the list making the charge. But I have no doubt that conservation is certainly vital for paddlers. Every paddling group I have been part of from the ACA to modest local canoe/kayak clubs and every paddling business I know as well have strongly avowed conservation. The environment is part and parcel of the paddling community's needs. For example, water trail groups like the one I am a part of, The Hudson River Watertrail Association states "The HRWA was formed in 1992 as an all-volunteer, non-profit environmental and recreational action group." PaddleWise itself on its website says "PaddleWise is dedicated to safe and environmentally responsible sea kayaking and other paddle sports." i.e. putting conservation on par with safety. I think you would be hard pressed to name even one paddling entity that feels conservation is tangential, i.e. out of the way of paddling needs. ralph diaz *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
For the record: Tangential- 1-Of, relating to, or moving along or in the direction of a tangent. 2-Merely touching or slightly connected. 3-Only superficially relevant; divergent: a tangential remark. I'm sticking with definition #2 on this subject. I had to look it up to be sure I really knew what it meant before using it in my first post. I was hoping that using an unusual word would somehow enhance my stature on this email list and thus allow my personal views to carry the day without debate. While those first goals have failed miserably, now that I have used the word, I've grown fond of it and will use it frequently for a while :-) FYI: My paddling friends (typical paddlers) run the full gambit of environmental concern. I am probably on the extreme end in terms of rhetoric and philosophy, but in terms of actions on and off the water I'm probably closer to middle of the road. I don't think paddlers can be packaged up as neatly as you suggest. Steve Brown -----Original Message----- ......... I think you would be hard pressed to name even one paddling entity that feels conservation is tangential, i.e. out of the way of paddling needs. ralph diaz *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I think all too often being associated with a conservation group somehow makes one "feel" good but it ends there. Case in point: I just participated in a Sierra Club river paddle. I was the only one stopping along the way picking up trash, cans, fishing floats, shoes, styrofoam, etc. At the takeout, I had filled a plastic trash bag full. No one else had picked up anything. Then I had to hear a lecture about preserving the streams and how our president must be voted out, etc. Everyone else was along for the food, company, or exercise, but not preservation. I bet they would all identify themselves as conservationalists and claim to be horrified about the new direction of the Sierra Club. All talk. Gary *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I have to say that I've found this discussion interesting. For the better part of the last decade, I've worked in the Clean Water Act regulatory arena, both as a member of the regulated community and the regulatory community. And I have to say that it has jaded me quite a bit. I've encountered activist regulators who deliberately sandbag on issuing permits for completely legal projects simply because they're anti-development; I've seen members of pro-environment organizations make assertions that are just not supported by scientific research. What does all this have to do with ACA and conservation/advocacy? Probably not much, except that I've become _extremely_ leery of individuals and groups with an environmental agenda. Which is not to say that I don't think environmental protection isn't important- it's what I've been working on all my life. But I also think that people need to be aware that the image of environmental conservation and advocacy organizations doesn't always fit well with what's happening on the ground. I _do_ think it's possible for an organization such as ACA to go too far in environmental advocacy. It's also possible to not go far enough, as we're currently seeing from ACA. It's difficult to do, but I believe ACA needs to invest some time in finding a middle-ground position; a position that represents the conservation-oriented interests of paddlers without turning ACA into a Sierra Club clone. I won't be dropping my ACA membership just yet... tm ~~~~~~~~~~~ "There Is No Regulon In The Semiosphere" *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:09:38AM -0600, Todd Miller wrote: > I've encountered activist regulators who deliberately sandbag on issuing permits > for completely legal projects simply because they're anti-development. Please allow me to correct what I perceive as a mis-wording: they're not "anti-developemnt". They're "anti-destruction", because that's what SOME [1] so-called "developers" do. In fact, one group of them is doing it RIGHT NOW: as I'm typing this on a Saturday afternoon, I can hear the chainsaws roaring on the hillside across the way. They're clear-cutting a beautiful wooded ridge that slopes down to the Gunpowder River, less than a mile from where it flows into Loch Raven Reservoir. Soon the tiny little brook that flows off the north slope it will carry all kinds of runoff into the river. I know this because I paddle by a similar location 1.5 miles north all the time, and what used to be clear, sweet water in that micro-stream is now stinky -- and carries the unmistakable smell of the lawn chemicals which are constantly sprayed up on the lawns up on *that* hillside -- already clear-cut/built on/paved/landscaped/etc. Why is this happening? Because Toll Brothers has decided to destroy this beautiful place, in an sensitive watershed (which oh-by-the-way supplies half the drinking water for Baltimore city and county) and put up 40 $750K houses. Never mind that we have plenty of actually-affordable housing here, and that low-cost housing is desperately needed a mere 10 miles away in the city. Never mind that our schools are already full. Never mind that our winding little country roads aren't up to carrying more traffic than they already do. Never mind that during the drought of 2002 nearby wells ran dry and they're planning on drilling 40 more right in the same area. Never mind that at the "community input meeting" that the room was packed to overflowing, standing-room-only, with a crowd spilling into the hallway and even outside the building -- a crowd that spoke UNAMINOUSLY against this. Nope, Toll Brothers, the land-rapers, the destroyers, the greedy pigs, and their $300/hour lawyers managed to ram this through. Of *course* they did: they're really quite good at it. Use Google and see. They're not a 2-billion-dollar company because they play nice; they're a $2B company because they steamroller any opposition. (They're also not a $2B company because they build low-cost housing: not nearly enough profit in that, you see. Whereas putting up shoddily-built $750K houses is immmensely lucrative.) See, as one resource of many: http://www.firemountain.net/sparks.html which has links to some interesting material, including an American Rivers/NRDC report documenting the relationship between sprawl and drought -- and we had the worst one in recorded history here the year before last. Note also the fascinating articles from the Boston Globe and Washington Post. And in a final, vicious insult to the community, do you know what they're going to call this abomination? "The Sanctuary" Soon they will be done, and they will be gone, their pockets bulging with their dirty money, off to rape the next community (or maybe ours again). We will be stuck with the loss of a beautiful place, the overcrowded schools, the wells that go dry, the too-busy roads, and, of course, the bill for all this. So I don't really have a problem with "activist regulators": I view them as a necessary line of defense against SOME developers -- the ones who are poster children for unlimited corporate greed and environmental destruction. They are our enemies. They are the enemies of everyone who values the planet and wants to take a stand against its wanton destruction -- doubly so when its ONLY rationale is to satiate raw greed that can, in reality, never be satiated. ---Rsk [1] I said "some" because some developers actually do good things, like revitalizing inner city business and housing areas, and so on. They are to applauded for doing with land and buildings what should be done with everything possible: reuse/recycle. One local developer, in fact, is trying to turn a disused military site into affordable housing combine with basic shops (grocery, etc.) and build a little community that's at least partially self-contained. That's a terrific idea, and again, I applaud them for it. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Todd Miller wrote: "I've encountered activist regulators who deliberately sandbag on issuing permits for completely legal projects simply because they're anti-development." While I don't doubt the validity of the statement above, there are a few facts were missing from the post: 1) For every regulator that goes too far in favor of environmental protection, there are dozens that go too far to appease corporate interests. Regulators are mindful of the political interests (campaign donors) of their bosses, they are extremely deferential to corporate claims of economic burden, and most often their lack of expertise forces them to blindly accept the technical information provided by the corporations they are regulating. 2) What is technically "legal" is most often the result of special interest lobbying and often does not reflect what is good for a particular environment and the people who live there. 3) Regulators can only exercise the discretion they are granted under law. Sean *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Sean and Joe P, Thanks for doing an excellent job of making my point! Your views may or may not be correct (They are valid views in any case), but they extend far beyond paddling related boundaries. You guys are worried about a lot of things that I really don't want my ACA dues funding. Steve Brown -----Original Message----- ..... lobbying and often does not reflect what is good for a particular environment and the people who live there. Sean *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I expect that the ACA assumed that environmental organizations would be better placed to address environmental issues than the ACA itself. I have five concerns with this. First, with regard to energy supply, environmentalists and paddlers do not necessarily support the same solutions. For example, when I became the environmental director for Canoe Ontario and for the Ontario Recreational Canoeing Association, I was shocked to learn that we were involved in a major class environmental assessment as part of a coalition of environmentalists that was supporting the development of small private hydro dams throughout the province as part of the solution to our energy needs. With the developers wanting to build such dams, and the environmentalists wanting to build such dams, there was no organization at the hearing trying to keep the rivers free flowing. A strong environmental arm of a major paddling organization would have been of tremendous help, but there was no such body. Second, numbers count when dealing with regulators, so leaving the fight to one organization, or one type of organization, is not as effective as having several organizations representing several interests at the table. Take for example the Spanish River complex. Paddlers, hunters/fishers, and environmentalists all came to the table, resulting in a significant degree of protection from further logging and from hydro development. Third, the people with the most to lose will often put out the greatest effort, but they need organizational support. Skip forward a few years after the big class EA for power development in Ontario and look at the River Aux Sables, which was being dammed top to bottom. It was a jewel of a river, so the local paddlers took on the developer and eventually had the best section turned into a provincial park. It happened that the local paddling club had quite a few paddlers who were professional environmentalists (e.g. fresh water biologists, toxicologists, hydrogeologists, etc.), so they pulled it off. Few paddling clubs are so fortunate. When faced with similar problems, they usually do not have the local resources, including funds and expertise, to shut down hydro projects and to create protected areas. Thus while there is the occasional success, there are far more projects that go through, for it becomes a matter of death by a thousand cuts. Without a strong environmental arm of a large padding organization, local paddlers can rarely have significant success against hydro developers. Fourth, and from a particularly Canadian perspective, paddlers are often the only persons knowledgeable and interested in an area. I can?t begin to describe how much wilderness we have up here, particularly north of 50. For most of it, there are rarely any people passing through: an occasional mapping fly-by, an occasional geologist, a wilderness canoeist every few seasons, a few fly-in villages scattered over thousands of square miles. The land is indescribably big, and people are few and far between. When mines or logging interests move in, more often than not the only competing interest is that of paddlers. The first nations need to find jobs for their people, so they tend to support resource extraction if they can cut deals which provide economic benefits. The hunters/fishers, which in Ontario are the primary intervenors in land management, tend not to squawk too loudly about the incursion of roads, for roads provide greater access. Environmental activism tends to be an urban phenomena simply because that is where most people are, and that is where environmental degradation is most obvious. That leaves the wilderness canoeists, who being so few and far between, require an environmental organization geared to their interests. Fifth, and most simply, paddling without promoting respect for the paddling environment is rather contradictory, and representing paddlers without working toward preserving opportunities for paddling seems rather pointless. In short, I do not need someone to teach me a J stroke. I need places to paddle. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
While this is an admitted generalization: 1) When the forces of 'developmental progress' win, what's lost is lost for a good long (as in geologic) time; 2) When the forces of preservation prevail, their victory is only a holding action (as in months, years, decades). The idea that local people 'own' the local ecosystem is not a universally accepted construct. Nor is local, state, or federal law decided solely upon the basis of 'ownership'. When many developers argue that 'outside environmentalists' are 'over regulating' and 'undercutting progress, local economies, and jobs', they conveniently forget the longer list of regulations that drive their abilities to develop and extract profits from those same local economies and ecosystems. Just ask anyone who lives downstream of a Super Wal-Mart or other large mall with huge parking surfaces...where oil and antifreeze and salt now run off into what watershed remains after the local wetlands have been backfilled and tiled for drainage. Years after the various mining interests extracted the wealth from Butte, Montana, who got stuck with the bill to attempt to clean up an all-star collection of toxic sites (ponds so sulfuric they dissolved the innards of migrating geese...)? In my state, factory farms and packing plants have found us ripe for the picking. They are afforded all manner of forgivable bonds, tax deferments, no interest loans, etc. In neighboring states, like Nebraska, Con-Agra executives re-wrote the State's Tax Code and told the then Gov. to 'pass it or we leave'. It passed. So...who are these 'meddlesome outsiders' doing all of the 'regulating'? And who, indeed, speaks for preservation? -w *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Hi Ralph, couldn't agree with your thoughts on the need for conservation more. As for the "kernel", it's a strainer around the courner that is killing us paddlers one at a time, the word just hasn't gotten upstream yet. as far as I know, ACA has let go their strongest, and should I say, America's stronngest, paddling champion, that being David Jenkins. This will have national ramifications, from the Colorado River in Grand Canyon to jet boat use on the Patomic. yours, tom martin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: ralph diaz > Sent: 3/25/2004 12:50:31 PM > To: paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] ACA abandons conservation & advocacy!!! > > I have no idea whether there is even a kernel of truth to the initial email > to the list making the charge. But I have no doubt that conservation is > certainly vital for paddlers. Every paddling group I have been part of from > the ACA to modest local canoe/kayak clubs and every paddling business I know > as well have strongly avowed conservation. The environment is part and > parcel of the paddling community's needs. For example, water trail groups > like the one I am a part of, The Hudson River Watertrail Association states > "The HRWA was formed in 1992 as an all-volunteer, non-profit environmental > and recreational action group." PaddleWise itself on its website says > "PaddleWise is dedicated to safe and environmentally responsible sea > kayaking and other paddle sports." i.e. putting conservation on par with > safety. > > I think you would be hard pressed to name even one paddling entity that > feels conservation is tangential, i.e. out of the way of paddling needs. > > ralph diaz *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Culpepper <culpeper_at_tbaytel.net> wrote: >>Fifth, and most simply, paddling without promoting respect for the paddling environment is rather contradictory, and representing paddlers without working toward preserving opportunities for paddling seems rather pointless. In short, I do not need someone to teach me a J stroke. I need places to paddle.>> That says it all for me, folks. I joined ACA a year ago as a direct response to their solid effort to educate the public about paddling hazards (the "Critical Judgement" pamphlet), and I note in Paddler mag they list two or three environmental/conservation orgs they support. What will happen now? Will they drop their support? Lose rivers and other waterways to paddle on and where will that put the ACA? This action is miserably short-sighted. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:36 PDT