Conference vicki::boats

    I'd like to invite you all to participate in the initiation of a
    long-term struggle to restore and protect the Concord River in
    Massachusetts.
    
    Basically, we'd like the powerboaters to cruise up and down the 9 miles
    of the river we're working on. When you come across a canoe that is
    full, we'd like you to offload the canoe so the folks in it can
    continue pulling stuff out of the water. When you've got all you can
    carry, we'd like you to bring it downstream to the drop-off point, then
    turn around and head back upstream to offload more canoes.
    
    I will happily pay your fuel costs. Just stop by the drop-off point at
    the end of the morning and tell me how much you spent for fuel. Or, if
    you prefer, you can keep track of your costs and write them off at tax
    time as a donation to the DES. (Yes, the DES is now an official
    tax-exempt corporation.)
    
    We'll welcome every powerboat out there. If you've got a 12-foot v-hull
    with a 5hp motor on the back, you can be just as helpful as the guy
    in the Nautique with the 1000hp inboard. (How big are the monsters
    inside those things, anyway? <g>)
    
    As you near the drop-off site, please slow down and keep an open eye.
    There will be flagless divers in the water. If we know how many boaters
    to expect, and if there are enough, we will mark off a diver-free path
    through the water.
    
    Thanks.
    
    

    On Saturday, May 8, people from all over Middlesex County will come 
together to begin the cleaning the Concord River. 

The focal point of this first cleanup is the Old Middlesex Turnpike 
Bridge abutments in Billerica. That is where the dumpsters donated by 
BFI will be. That is where the divers will be in the water extracting 
trash from the bottom. That is where the shoreline cleanup will take 
place. We'll start at 8:00. We'll be done by 1:00.

We're asking everybody in the Concord River Basin who owns or has 
access to a canoe to get out on the water and paddle downstream to 
Billerica. On the way, we'd like you to pick up every tire, can, 
bottle, plastic bag, and shred of styrofoam that you come across.

Think of how many times you have paddled the Concord River and been 
saddened, angered, frustrated, or otherwise disenchanted by the trash 
in the water. Think of how much more beautiful and serene the Concord 
River would be without that debris. 

How many times have you wanted to get that stuff out of the water but 
couldn't because you didn't know what you would do with it when you 
took your boat out? 

With the generous help of BFI, we now have a solution to that problem.

When you get to Billerica, you will find plenty of people just below 
the Route 3 bridge waiting to help you unload your boat. There we will 
have two dumpsters, one for regular trash and one for recyclables. We 
will have two separate piles, one for major appliances and one for 
tires. BFI will pick up everything we pull from the river on Monday, 
May 10.

This cleanup will be the first of six such efforts held on the Concord 
River this year. It has been organized by the Divers' Environmental 
Survey, Inc., a non-profit corporation dedicated to the restoration 
and preservation of aquatic habitats. The organized monthly cleanups 
on the Concord River are part of what is known as "the Concord River 
Project" within the Divers' Environmental Survey. Water-quality 
monitoring and river basin mapping are two other aspects of the 
Concord River Project. If you would like to participate in the Concord 
River Project, or if you would like more information about the May 8 
cleanup, please call the Divers' Environmental Survey at 
(800) 645-1470.




John H-C

    Hi John,
    
    What kinds of 'stuff' would be offloaded into these powerboats? Would
    my slick 3 color, carpeted interior be carrying slimy, filthy, algae
    encrusted, waterlogged debris ? 
    
    I would be more likely to lend a hand if you had a barge of sorts I can
    tow down river, exchange for an empty barge, and then haul it back up
    river. Pulling is my forte', get that barge up to 36 mph in under 7
    seconds  if you needed it. :^) The thought of loading my interior up
    with river debris is unthinkable.
    
    ~jeff

    Hey, Jeff, the DES does indeed have one "garbage barge." Otherwise we
    can figure out a way to protect your interior. I pulled a big blue
    plastic tarp off the river not two weeks ago, and it would serve as an
    excellent liner.
    
    Basically, you will be handed tires and bottles and cans and whatnot.
    Bring some plastic garbage bags, and hand them over to the canoers
    before they offload the boat. The really disgusting encrusted stuff
    comes off the bottom from the divers, but they will be handing their
    stuff up to canoers at the Billerica site.
    
    You can carry or tow, or both.
    
    Do you know where to put in? The Carlisle ramp at the intersection of
    the river and 225 is the best site for launching larger boats.
    
    John H-C

re .1:

Without intending to offend anyone, it would be nice if the noise
pollution of the Concord River could also be cleaned up. I live roughly
half a mile from the Rt225 Concord River launching ramp, and I can 
occasionally hear boat engines on the river while working in my yard. If
I can hear them through half a mile of woods, the noise on the river
must be staggering.

Alan

    Gee, Alan, might we see you on the river on the 8th?
    
    The noise/wake/speed problems on various parts of the river will have
    to wait to be dealt with. They are real problems, but they take a
    backseat to the pollution and littering problems in our scheme of
    things.
    
    John H-C

    C'mon, folks! The Concord River needs at least two environmentally
    concerned powerboaters for May 8.
    
    Please?
    
    John H-C

    Where are all those old fiberglass boats that nobody knows what to do
    with when you need them?  Rick W., how many you got in your front yard now
    being used as flower planters?  Can John borrow a couple so that they
    can be used as "garbage scows" for a day?
    
    John, seriously now, you don't really think someone is going to load
    this stuff into their boat, do you?  The solution would be to locate a
    couple of aluminum row boats that could be easily turned over and
    washed out after that could be towed behind someone's power boat.
    Wayne   

    I would help John but I am committed (months ago) to a wedding that
    weekend.
    
    I do wonder if you are losing powerboaters because of concerns of
    damage to the boats (dirt and crud mostly) getting into the nooks and
    crannies of the interiors.  Much of the debris is going to be dripping
    mud and water, right?  I think your barge idea is the best solution.
    
    If your going to need powerboaters for similiar cleanups in the future
    let me know.
    
    Jeff
    

	OK, here's my take on it - personal bias, opinion, etc. included.

	I haul out most managable sized stuff whenever I'm out, 
"wherever" I am out.  I don't/won't take on refrigerators or dead 
deer and ESPECIALLY not dead MOOSE (unless its a case of Moosehead).
Tires - generally NO, though I might tow one to the shore once in a 
while.

	I doubt the value of scouring the bottom (I don't "disagree 
with it", I just doubt the value of it).  What's down there is down 
there and probably won't do much more damage if it rots there than  
"somewhere official".   Stuff that doesn't rot - just doesn't rot, so 
most of it is probably more or less harmless (more or less...).

	re  "Mucking up the upholstery", etc.   Mud and muck I don't 
mind "TOO" much, it washes off (mostly).  Sharp edged and pointy bits 
of junk rip up the seats and rugs pretty bad - cuts don't wash out.

SUMARY:	I might show up next week-end, though it IS my son's birthday.
In any case I'll continue to carry the diver's catch bag and a few 
plastic garbage bags and just keep picking up as I go - all season, 
all places.

	Reg

RE: Note 1052.7
>> Rick W., how many you got in your front yard now being used as 
>> flower planters?

Hey, I'm getting a bum rap here!  Drive by my house, all you'll 
see from the street is one boat in the driveway and an empty boat 
trailer next to the tent camper out back.  I keep 'em spread out 
all over the place!  8^)

Seriously, most powerboaters probably will be reluctant to haul
river trash, tires, shopping carts, etc. into their shiney new boat
with upholstered and carpeted interior.  Ideally, John will find 
volunteers that have 12-16' aluminum utility boats that can be flipped
over and washed out afterward.  I'd try to help out, but instead I
"get" to be an usher in a wedding that day!   8^(

Sanford and Son

    
    Exactly! Anyone that has been on my boat would know that river
    trash would never be allowed *in* C.A. "Get that skeg off the seat!"
    "Don't step on the blue!" "I'll take you kids for a ride, but you 
    all must leave your shoes on the dock, ok?".
    
    I won't hesitate if a suitable tow barge can be found, though.....
    
    
>Sanford and Son
 	Shouldn't that be Sanford and Daughter? :-)
    
    Rick

    Well, actually, why don't we just put my 9.5 hp on the back of the DES
    Garbage Barge? It'll make the 12-foot Garbage Barge fly (over, if you
    go full throttle with the boat empty, as a matter of fact).
    
    Anybody out there willing to pilot the DES garbage barge up and down
    the Concord River for a morning?
    
    Since I'm not having any luck getting folks to volunteer their own
    boats for serious work, maybe I can get somebody to volunteer to pilot
    one of my boats.
    
    Any takers?
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

    
    John,
    
    	Does this mean that only one "barge" exists? If I'm selected?
    to move the beast, I'd really prefer to tow it from the comfort of
    my 1000 hp Nautique. :-0
    
    	ok? 
    
    	Jeff, are you planning on going?
    
    Rick

    Yeah, I only own one barge. Someday we'll have other folks with barges
    show up, but we're just getting started on this.
    
    Jeff's son's birthday is that Saturday, so I don't think he can make
    it.
    
    John H-C

    re: .13
    Hey Rick,  If you do drive John's DES barge, be careful to keep 
    it right side up!  The 9.5hp motor that he uses on it, is the 
    *very same* one that was on my "Flipper" boat when you flipped 
    it a couple summers ago.  I sold it to John last year.
    
    John, I'd be careful if I were you.  This guy's dangerous!  8*)
    
    Rick
    
    P.S. You ain't touchin' my *real* hydro when I get it running
         this spring...  8^)

    My son is only 6 months old, can't be his birthday !!  Maybe Reg,
    another of the skiing types, can find a son to celebrate a birthday
    with. :^)
    
    I would like to 'give something back' to the rivers & lakes, so I have
    no problem doing the work, but my wife has me scheduled for some
    terribly important event that evening that I haven' found a way out of 
    yet. I may be able to do a half day, too soon to tell, gotta play it 
    by ear.
    
    Lift that barge, tote that bail,...swing it!
    
    ~jeff
    
    Rick, your boat is a little sluggish for 1000hp, wouldn'y ya say?

    Ooooops! Yeah, sorry about that Jeff. It *was* Reg. Sorry about that,
    Reg. I'm horrible with names. 8^\
    
    What, Rick W? Don't want to put your hydroplane to the ruggedness test?
    Listen, next time I come across a hydroplane on the bottom, I'll
    salvage it for you. (We find more of them than you would imagine,
    actually.)
    
    I normally run the garbage barge on a 3hp, but I'm anticipating a
    heavier load this time.
    
    BTW, we only go half days on these things. Don't want to burn anybody
    out, you know?
    
    John H-C

    John, 
    
    A half day would work out well for me. Pull debris and sticks out in
    the morning, then maybe throw a particular 'stick' out later in the
    day :^), the head home.  Will let you know as the weekend approaches.
    
    Oh Mr. Suter, temps near 70 today ! I'm in early thanks to my little
    alarm clock so.....the Flighty or the CC, 4:00ish. How 'bout it Reg ?
    
    ~jeff

re    <<< Note 1052.18 by CSLALL::JEGREEN "Living beyond my emotional means" >>>

>    Oh Mr. Suter, temps near 70 today ! I'm in early thanks to my little
>    alarm clock so.....the Flighty or the CC, 4:00ish. How 'bout it Reg ?

	I seem to have not hooked up a trailer this morning, 
however....

	The current plan is to work << 0.5 day  and go home for a 
push-me vehicle some time mid/late morning.  From there to TAY for a 
14:15 - 15:xy  meeting,  (where xy << 60  (-: ).   Then to the 
North Chelmsford digital annex woods meeting to unload a pull-me 
vehicle from the push-me vehicle.  Course, if this means we will have 
too many pull-me vehicles and not enough pull'ees - I s'pose I could 
leave mine home and help save this little planet from some of my share
of galaxy wide polution  ??? 

	Reg

    Not my sons birthday, its my sister-in-laws wedding.  Actually I would
    prefer to pick up trash on the river than go to the wedding... really,
    I would.  Its one of those family things I can't gracefully get out of.

    I was wondering if bringing my triple screw, jet engine powered 4500
    HP Cigarette Boat would be appropriate to pull the barge with? (Eat
    your heart out Rick with your puny 1000 Hp Nautique)  If the banks
    are too high we could sort of fly out of the river with the barge.
    No, actually the canoeists would have a rough time with the 30 MPH
    idling speed.
    
    Look me up for the next one though John, I am willing to give a hand
    when I can.

    Jeff

    Ok, Jeff. The next cleanup on the Concord River is June 19. I hope you
    can be there for it.
    
    John H-C

    June 19 huh, ok, I will see what I can do.  If I don't have any pre-
    commitments (will check my calendar) I will see if I can make it.
    I assume that the barge will be available?  I am not interested 
    in taking a bunch of muck laden debris into my boat.  I have enough
    trouble keeping it reasonably clean as it is.
    
    Jeff

    John,
    
    	Sorry I haven't responded sooner.
    	I have moved from BXC to WMO and my workstation is still no up :-(
    
    	I can't provide the FishTeaser for either 8-May or 19-JUN :-(
    
    	8-May I have a morning career day at our middle school in Oxford.
    	19-Jun & 20-Jun is my daughter's dance recitals.
    
    	But I'll talk to the wife tonight to see if going only Sunday
    	the 19th would be acceptable to our daughter?
    
    	I also would have difficulty allowing the "yuckies" onboard
    	the FishTeaser but will gladly provide tow service.
        Does anyone know if the lauch ramp is slightly pitched and paved?
    	I tow with a front wheel drive Grand Prix SE  8^o
                                
    	Best of luck
    	Dick aka -< Tuna Tail >- 

    It's 4:30 in the afternoon, and I am exhausted. I'm wishing there was a
    way to teach a pig to sing, and I'd really like to try, even knowing
    how it frustrates the teacher and annoys the pig.
    
    We're racking our brains trying to figure out a way to put a stop to
    this problem. The amount of trash we collected was mind numbing. By the
    time we gave up at 3:00, we had a pile of "large appliance-like debris"
    stretching 20 yards from the edge of the dumpster. The pile was about 8
    feet wide and included pieces of just about every modern convenience
    you can imagine. The number of tires collected was something around
    120.
    
    About 2:00, while directing people where to put which pieces, I looked
    up at the pile and said, "Where'd those barrels come from?" (I didn't
    remember grabbing any myself, and I hadn't seen any barrels like them
    anywhere in the area, as far as I could remember.)
    
    "That guy with the ski boat brought them in on a little skiff."
    
    Ah, yes. I remembered, and that's why I'm entering this reply.
    
    
    Thank you, Rick Suter. You made a difference today, and it's much
    appreciated.
    
    
    
    John H-C
            

Appears that a lot of people pitched in for a fine job. I am also 
concerned about the environment and most certainly don't 
throw my waste on other people's property nor in rivers, ponds or 
estuaries. But something needs to be done to make disposal easier 
or the situation may not get better. I'll give some examples of 
why I feel this way.

Recently, MASPERG successfully prevented a trash combustion site 
from being built locally in Massachusetts. I cannot remember the 
name of the town the site for which the site was planned. Last 
week I received a telephone call from MASPERG where a 
representative tried to get me to renew my membership. He went 
on to BRAG that they now have legislation pending that will 
provide the State with confiscatory power for so called 
polluters. After his short speech, I asked "rather than punish 
industry, why not work with industry and help provide a disposal 
policy." He quickly asked, "Joe, are you going to renew?" I said, 
"no, I was not going to renew my membership and I wanted to 
explain why." The caller quickly said, "Well, Joe, have a 
nice day." He didn't want to even listen to my reason! How 
arrogant!

The situation regarding disposal has reached the crisis stage; 
things are not going to get better, they are going to get much 
worse! A couple of weeks ago, I cut several pine trees down and 
had to pay to have them hauled away to a dump site. The hauler 
passed his dumping charges back to me plus his labor fee. 
TODAY, DUMP FEES ARE $90/TON and are expected to go higher!!! 
Several years ago, I replaced my driveway and had to pay to 
dispose of the hazardous waste, my old driveway. Amazing that 
asphalt when used as a road material or a driveway is fine but 
when dug up, it suddenly becomes hazardous material. Thanks 
MASPERG.

Last week the Middlesex News had a page one write up about the 
new State law that controls what can and cannot be hauled to a 
landfill as of 1 May 93. Included in that list are:

	* grass clippings
	* tree branches
	* bottles
	* cans
	* paper & cardboard
	* metal containers
	* old refrigerators & air conditioners

	* and on and on--

I know that one can rationalize that we must recycle but things 
can get carried to far. About a year ago, an article in Soundings 
made note that if one were to take a glass of tap water and pour 
it into San Francisco Bay, the person would be in violation of the 
law because tap water contains more copper than is allow to be put 
into the Bay.

The tougher laws are made, the more we are going to find trash 
dumped along road sides, into rivers and so forth. I find it sad 
that we are boxing ourselves in the way we are. We can't burn it, 
we can't bury it, but we can haul it away, to where ever "away" 
happens to be.

Joe

RE: .-1
I hadn't thought of it that way before, and I think you hit the nail right on the
head.  

"Most" people want to dispose of their trash in a responsible manner, but where
does one put it.  The land fills won't take appliances, tires, etc and if they
do they charge big bucks to do it.  I have paid to have stuff taken  away, but
how many will.  People think that if they just dump it somewhere the town/city
will pick it up and dispose of if.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think we need someplace where this stuff
can be brought.  Recycling down by the cities/towns is a joke.  They only take the


the stuff they can make good money on and the rest goes in the trash.  My town 
only takes 1&2 plastics.  What about 3-?....

Gordon

re  "responsible" disposal of appliances

	Local voc tech schools will take in a limited number of them,
for appliance repair training.  Even broken ones - ESPECIALLY broken
ones.  This isn't a well kept secret, but it isn't well publicised 
either.

	R

    What we're seeing is another manifestation of the true costs of modern
    appliances and conveniences.
    
    When construction companies decrie the high cost of lumber and blame
    the environmentalists for protecting rare forests, what they are
    really clamoring about is the price we're all paying for the carefree
    destruction of the natural world in the last 30 years.
    
    When we complain that it costs too much to dispose of appliances, what
    we're really suffering from is the profligacy of the last 30 years.
    
    It's catching up with us, plain and simple.
    
    Don't dance if you can't pay the fiddler... and all of that stuff.
    
    John H-C

Re: .28

I don't agree that we are now paying the true cost for modern 
appliances. I see the situation as one caused by people who 
lack  scientific backgrounds who become environmental activists. 
They are successful in getting laws passed that are impossible to 
comply with. But regardless of how the laws got passed or their 
value,  the COST of disposing waste has soared. So whether you 
like it or not, look forward to finding more of it in our rivers, 
parks, road side rest areas and other convenient dumping places.

Joe

We either need a way to force manufacturers to make appliances easily 
recyclable or we need an "appliance bill" - something that [unfortunately]
forces a behavior on the part of the manufacturer and the consumer.


/Chris 

<    It's catching up with us, plain and simple.
<    
<    Don't dance if you can't pay the fiddler... and all of that stuff.
    
    Agreed, but at least give me a chance...  Some of the household appliances 
and cleaning agents etc. are not disposable.  Period.  What does one do with
old paint?

	You can't pour it out.
	You can't send it to the landfill.
	You can't give it away on hazmat day (I've found it to be one of the 
		excluded materials.)
    	If it contains lead you can't use it as paint. 
	You can't burn it.  
	You can't eat it. 
	... and eventually the can rusts away so by inaction you become a
		polluter by default... 

    I may be getting a little carried away (exaggerating a little) but I'm sure
you get my point (as I got your point.)

    It's not unlike the state or Feds mandating new programs, but not providing
any funding or other means to comply with that new program or law.  Very
frustrating.

   I like the way they did it in Germany.  The manufacturers are required to
PROPERLY dispose of everything they sell.  This way not only the cost of
production, but also the cost of disposal is included in the purchase price of
the product.  This gives a much truer cost of any given product and it's paid
for up front...

Al

    re: .31
    
    You pointed out a good example of "profligacy."
    
    Nobody knew that lead paint was bad stuff until people started getting
    seriously ill from it. It is one of the examples used by the anti-nuke
    folks.
    
    A lot of the issues raised in the last few replies have more to do with
    overall environmental issues than with clean waters, and I don't want
    to digress from the clean water issue and what we can do about it.
    
    I haven't looked yet, but there may be something about old paint in the
    ENVIRONMENTAL_ISSUES conference. Have you checked there?
    
    re: a couple back
    
    I and a growing number of other people are dedicated to the task of
    making it harder and more painful for people to use rivers as their
    dump sites. I'm doing everything I know how to make so we *don't* find
    more stuff in the rivers.
    
    Access barriers are the first step. A few boat ramps are going to be
    closing at a variety of places because of dumping, for example.
    
    How many of you remember the refrigerator at the bottom of the ramp at
    the only public access point on Lake Boone in Hudson last year?
    
    It was a DES diver who hauled it out so you could get your boat in.

    I think the odds are pretty much about 50/50 over whether we find
    more garbage in the rivers or boaters find less access.

    Nobody blames the boaters. It's just that the things that make it
    easier for you to get your boat in the water makes it easier for
    dumpers to jettison their garbage into the water. 

 
    John H-C

    
>    Access barriers are the first step. A few boat ramps are going to be
>    closing at a variety of places because of dumping, for example.

	Thats odd, I had thought that, since a lot of this stuff seems 
to appear in the very early spring (OK, late winter) that most of it 
was hauled out on the ice in the dead of winter and left to fall 
through or float away on a flo.  If I'm right then closing boat ramps 
and/or policing them won't help.  I'm absolutely NOT going to dump on 
snowmobilers, but if I had a washer to dispose of and if I had a 
snowmobile and if I wasn't an environmentally responsible person.... I 
could just tow it  "somewhere"   - -  but I wouldn't, of course.


>    How many of you remember the refrigerator at the bottom of the ramp at
>    the only public access point on Lake Boone in Hudson last year?

	refrigerators are all too common, unfortunately they're also 
too big for me to haul out single (or even double) handed.  There is 
some hope though, since the recent Mass legislation re refrigerant 
recovery there is at least ONE startup business that will come and 
collect old fridges for free - just so that they can retrieve the 
refrigerant.  I "assume" they do the right thing with the case 
afterwards ??

>    Nobody blames the boaters. It's just that the things that make it
>    easier for you to get your boat in the water makes it easier for
>    dumpers to jettison their garbage into the water. 

	right, its possible - but somehow I don't imagine folks 
hauling trash to the boat ramp, at least not in quantities that would 
justify ramp closings.

	Reg

    I don't know of anywhere in eastern MA where the trash has arrived on
    the bottom because it was left on the ice. I'm not saying it doesn't
    happen, it just isn't common enough that I've come across it yet.
    
    Most of the trash we find is indeed right by the boat ramp. Rivers
    around here don't freeze over enough for people to safely play on them
    in the winter
    
    I just visited the site we cleaned up last Saturday, and the trash
    hasn't all been picked up yet. Somebody, however, has come to the ramp
    and deposited two pickup beds' worth of debris in an area that was
    clean before they arrived.
    
    The access barriers are going up at that site as soon as possible.
    
    John H-C

re                      <<< Note 1052.34 by SPARKL::JOHNHC >>>

    
>    Most of the trash we find is indeed right by the boat ramp. Rivers
>    around here don't freeze over enough for people to safely play on them
>    in the winter

	Some years they even don't freeze up enough so we can't play IN 
them (-:  
    
>    I just visited the site we cleaned up last Saturday, and the trash
>    hasn't all been picked up yet. Somebody, however, has come to the ramp
>    and deposited two pickup beds' worth of debris in an area that was
>    clean before they arrived.

	Hmmmmm, maybe you've found a partial solution right there ??
The "somebody" probably thinks that stuff is to be left at the ramp 
now, so that "somebody else" can come along with a dozer or snow 
plough and shove it all in the river at once - and "officially".  
Perhaps the trash in the river problem could be partially solved by 
establishing the current dumping sites as drop off points  ??
BFI could leave a dumpster near each ramp.....  never mind, it makes 
too much sense.

>    The access barriers are going up at that site as soon as possible.

	So now the dumping will be done on the land side of them ?
    That will make it easier to clean up.

	R

    Closing ramps to limit dumping?  Are you serious John? I am sure you
    are.  If a person is willing to back up their pickup truck to a ramp
    and throw a refrigerator off then why not dump it into the lake from
    the roadside.... whats the difference?  All closing ramps will do is
    keep boaters out, and I suppose the trash they potentially dump from
    their boats.  BUT, what about all the cottage owners, and swimmers
    off docks, and hikers etc.  Why single out boaters, why not just close
    the whole lake down and emminent domain the cottage owners out?
    
    This 'solution' reminds me of school.  One person commits an offense
    so the whole class gets punished.
    
    Jeff

    
    This is absolutely ridiculuous John, using a boat ramp to dump
    
    trash at, is about as funny as robbing the police station at
    
    the change of a shift. Most of us would certainly look for
    
    an obscure spot, to jettison the junk. Admittedly, i suppose
    
    you could go there at night, and accomplish the same.
    
    Closing or obstructing public ramps is a bit too much,
    
    alternatively we otta close some public roads for the same
    
    reason.  Please examine your thinking, you punish the violators,
    
    not the public.
    
    JIm

Just a couple weeks ago, a crew of Massachusetts' most upstanding
residents of the prison system did a wonderful job of cleaning
roadside trash from along route 495.

Now, less than 2 weeks later, debris is already beginning to
accumulate.   In some places, it's even apparent that intentional
dumping has taken place.

Not to worry, I am now in the process of having route 495 closed
to public access, due to the actions of a few.  It will become
one of America's most beautiful highways, unspoiled by motorists
who may actually want to partake of it's beauty.



Is this story ridiculous?  Of course it is.  But no less so than 
a private group with their own agenda attempting to close public 
access to waterways, supposedly because of the actions of a few.  
Or that private group actually *soliciting* cleanup assistance from 
those same dastardly powerboaters, and then attempting to close off 
access as soon as the cleanup is completed, while blaming the mess 
on powerboaters.

I'd even go out on a limb, and say that some members of that private
group may be just *looking* for a reason, ANY reason, to close off
that access.  Has anyone considered the possibility, and I'm not 
naming names or pointing fingers, that a far-out member of that group
may have even had the trash "planted" right after the cleanup, in
order to prove a point and help ensure the passage of their not-so-
hidden hidden agenda?  Unlikely, but certainly possible.

We went down this rathole last year.  I'll say it again, that powerboaters
have as much interest in maintaining clean water and ramps as any self
proclaimed "environmentalists".  Not many of us are taking our trash with
us to dump at the ramp while we're launching our new 600hp "Screamin'
Eagle".

There will always be a small element who have no consideration of others,
and will find a place to dump their trash.  Their actions shouldn't be
allowed to spoil things for the majority.  I seriously doubt the legality
of the DES authority to close off public access.  Especially when said
group obviously is not unbiased, but instead has an obvious agenda in
closing public access wherever possible.  But in this day and age, I don't
doubt that a small but vocal group will be successful in doing so, in the
name of environmentalism.

Let me say this - if you do successfully close off access, my guess is
that this will be the last year that you get any "volunteers" from the 
powerboat contingent to help with your cleanup. After all, where will  
they launch?

Rick

    First: The DES is not a private group. It is supported by the public,
    which is why the IRS gave it tax-exempt status.
    
    Second: We are working on the road-next-to-water problem. We are not
    ignoring it.
    
    Third: We are not looking to close all boat ramps. We are going to do
    our best to block access to ramps used for dumping more than anything
    else.
    
    Fourth: The number of powerboaters who have come to our aid can be
    counted on one hand. It's become nothing more than a gesture made to
    avoid excluding anybody when I ask for help here. If powerboaters were
    as concerned and active about combatting the trashing of public waters
    as other visitors and users of those waters, the whole situation would
    be a lot better for everybody.
    
    Fifth: I describe things as I see them. When you hear/read me talking
    in here, I am talking/writing as John Hicks-Courant rather than as the
    Divers' Environmental Survey, which has an executive committee on whose
    decisions I don't even have vote unless there is a tie.
    
    How come you powerboaters don't have DES equivalent as the sailboaters
    do?
    
    John H-C

    Since the bandwagon is rolling.....

    What was written by John in the past shows how he draws his conclusions.
    Pure speculation. He is chastising a law enforcement official
    he has never had the pleasure to talk to. Just because this guy hasn't
    wasted his time talking to John he is a bad person? I wouldn't waste
    my time talking to him either. He has an answer to everything.
    
    Its getting to the point that these "Environmentalist" are playing on 
    emotion more than fact. Its getting ridiculous.  The worst part is 
    people that are not close to a subject and don't know all the facts
    believe all this B.S.. Its boats this year, last year it was fishermen
    at Whites pond in Concord. Who's next year, kids tinkling in the water
    when they go swimming? Give it break.
  

    Rich
      

    I find the suggestion that an enviormentalist might dump in an
    effort to promote a favoured program rediculous.  That would be
    like suggesting a fireman might set a fire to ensure job security.
    
    Oh that's happened, I guess I'll have to find another example.
    
    -Joe
    

re: 1052.41
>> I find the suggestion that an enviormentalist might dump in an
>> effort to promote a favoured program rediculous.  That would be
>> like suggesting a fireman might set a fire to ensure job security.
   

I think you've proven my point exactly.  If you also follow the fishing
notes conference, you know that in the fishing conference, John has 
consistently blamed fishermen for most of the trash found in the lakes 
and rivers.  Here in the powerboats conference, it's us powerboaters 
who are dumping our trash, old appliances etc. at the ramp.

I have no problem whatsoever with turning the tables and pointing the
finger back at special interest groups who have an individual interest
in closing certain ramps and public access.  We've also recently had
a neighbor of the ramp in question, complaining that he can sometimes
hear powerboats on the river while out raking leaves in his yard. You
know, I can sometimes hear Harley Davidsons on route 101, which is about
1/2 mile from my house.  I'm going to start a crusade to close route 101
because Harley Davidsons make too much noise.  (Not).

If having trash dumped at a ramp right after a cleanup is what will 
expedite the stated goals of neighbors and special interest groups, I
don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that one of them 
would do it.  If such an accusation offends these people, then I guess
the shoe is on the other foot, for a change.  Trash is dumped by uncaring 
individuals at state parks, mountain tops, rest areas, beaches, and the 
list goes on and on.  Why not put a "closed" sign on the whole goddamn 
world?

In this case, we have a small special interest group (OK, so they're 
not "private"), who has picked out one area of public access to actively 
seek to take away.  Unfortunately, because they are organized and boaters 
for the most part are not, they will probably be successful.  And the 
boaters will have no place to launch, while the trash dumpers will simply 
move on to find another place to dump.  I also feel that "trash" is being
used as the current means to justify this agenda.  Anyone who has followed
John's preachings in this conference over the last couple years is probably
aware that the real intention is to limit public access, especially to 
motorized boats.

Just one more example of life in the People's Republic of Massachusetts,
I guess. 

Disclaimer - John, I'm not ragging on you personally.  We've met,, we've
done business, and I actually think you're a pretty nice guy. I just don't
agree at all with your opinions or intentions to close public access to a
group that we both know aren't even responsible for most of the trash you 
blame on us.  

Rick

I agree with Rick et al's thread.  Only other comment 
I've got is that closing the ramp will not stop whoever's
doing the dumping from dumping there.  Bottom line is 
you can't legislate intelligence or morality.  

John, all you're doing by making these kind of statments in 
thiese forum's is causing a ruckus and getting attention.
The people causing the problem are not sitting here 
reading these notefiles.  And if they are, I seriously 
doubt that they're going to respond to that they actually
are doing the dumping.  I don't know what you hope to 
accomplish by making these statements in these forum's,
but its definitly not positive. 

Rick, you should move this whole thread to the rathole,
or the soap-box-i'm-better-than-you-sinners forum.

tired of hearing crap like this.
joe

    My turn.  I would think that closing the ramp would actually cause more
    trash to be dumped.  At least with the ramp open, people are going to
    show up once in awhile to launch a boat so there would be some chance
    of getting caught (at least in the middle of the day) dumping stuff
    there.  If you close the ramp, then it becomes nothing but a dead-end
    street with no traffic, a perfect place to dump without getting caught.
    By the way, I don't really think putting up a gate or not will stop it
    because the dumping probably occurs at night.  If the people have gone
    to all the trouble to drive down there in the middle of the night, they
    are going to throw it out with or without a gate in their way.  I
    strongly believe that we as individuals just need to get involved
    instead of always waiting for the government to fix everything.  Just 
    yesterday I stopped two kids who were throwing beer bottles into the
    local swimming hole.  They would then break them with a sling shot.  I
    drove by and kept on going because I was in a rush to get home.  My
    guilt got the best of me and I went back to give them hell.  I could
    have just as easily have gone home.  I don't even swim there.  If more
    people would take the time to report suspicious license plates of
    people leaving the launch ramp in the middle of the night, perhaps
    something could be done short of having to close the ramp.
    There's got to be a better way.
    Wayne

    
    Not to be ridiculuous, but a fireman was doing that just recently.
    
    I agree, it doesn't make sense for an enviornmentalist to do this.
    
    But it doesn't make sense for a boater to do it either, imagine
    
    whacking a refrigerator with an outdrive or lower unit.
    
    I thought enviornmentalists were trying to preserve the land
    
    etc. for use, and not to barricade access.  
    
    But i'm tired of this crap, "next unsenn""""""""""""""
    
    
    
    

    I plan to assuage as many sore points as I can later. I've generated a
    *lot* of misunderstanding here. So, if any of you think the last few
    replies have missed anything, please stick them in.
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

    I've been reading this string with some interest.  I too would like to
    see all the trashers and polluters caught and properly punished but we
    do live in the *real* world.  There are always going to be the few that
    ruin it for the many.
    
    As for the inclusion of extra trash added to the pile that was dredged
    from the waterway, if you were a homeowner and your town made it
    extremely difficult to rid yourself of either dangerous or difficult
    refuse, what would you do??  If I needed to get rid of something you
    can be guaranteed it would not end up in the water but it might end up
    alongside other refuse that is scheduled for pickup.  I say might!
    
    Just my .02� worth, fwiw.
    
    Dana

    The problem is that trash disposal used to be free, and easy, five days
    a week at the town dump.  The last few years, the dumps have had
    shorter hours, and charge a sometimes hefty fee.  Not only that, most
    of them must be closed by June this year...forever! (altho they may get
    a reprive till October).  
    
    TRASH DISPOSAL MUST BE (VIRTUALLY) FREE AND EASY TO KEEP THE LARGEST
    PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE FROM LITTERING AND ILLEGAL DUMPING!!!
    
    Since private industry isn't breaking down the doors to collect those
    refrigerators and tires, it is up to the government to take the
    initiative.  I'm sorry, folks, but it will cost you more tax money,
    because the old dump system was cheap, but environmentally bad.  
    
    Closing the boat ramp cures the symptom but not the disease.  
    
    John, I must say closing the boat ramp for that reason is the dumbest
    thing I ever heard of.  You are working the ass-end of the process!!
    
    Carl

	I've found that with a little initiative, that you can
	find good, free solutions to handling bulky trash.  Where
	I live, Charlton MA, we pay for our own trash pickup since
	the dump closed about a year ago. When the big water heater
	went, the trash company wanted $25 to haul it off.  I wasn't
	up for that, so I made a couple of phone calls and found that 
	Patriot Metals in Worcester recycles them, so I dropped it off 
	there, no charge.   I think they take refridgerators too.
	
	Getting rid of this kind of stuff is difficult, and we're in
	a transition period from using a dump or having all-trash-pickup.
	We don't have a decent recycling system at all, and it's going to 
	take a while to get people into recylcing.  In the meantime,
	until a system is in place, people are gonna dump stuff.
	Thanks to people involved in cleanup efforts, the effects are
	minimized.
		
	Closing boat ramps to reduce dumping in the water is hardly
	a solution to anything.
		
	fwiw

	Ken

The cause of the trash problem is obvious and is mentioned in 
this note several times. At both the state and federal levels, 
Departments of Environmental Protection are driven by 
environmental advocates (radicals?) and environmental special 
interest groups ranging from Green Peace to MASPERG. What they 
conveniently offer as a solution to the trash problem is recycle. 
If they get their way, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will be allowed in a 
land fill. These same people vigorously complain when their 
drinking water has one part per billion of a contaminant but 
will fight in court for their right to drive  without using 
seat belts.

But as I mentioned earlier, we are rapidly boxing ourselves in. 
Towns cannot burn or bury their trash but they can haul it 
"away!" Do you recall the barge of trash hauled from New York a 
couple of years ago? The trash was eventually returned to New 
York because it became a national embarrassment traveling from 
country to country in search of a dump site.
PLAN TO SEE MUCH MORE TRASH ILLEGALLY DUMPED.


Joe

	More fuel to the fire ?

	Well, I wasn't going to bother.    Heck, why not ?

	In response to my reply in which I expressed doubt about the 
value of  "scouring the bottom"  I received some mail.  I won't bother 
to post the whole text of it, but I found it mildly offensive in the 
following ways;

	i)	Repeated demeaning references to "you, as a power
boater" followed by very unsound logic that presumed to derive some
of my priorities and value set. 

	ii)	Implications that I (as a power boater) am either 
environmentally unaware or uncaring.   Believe this - I did NOT need 
your micro lesson in ecology, or was it in marine biology ?  It was
difficult to tell, since it was more of a rant than a lecture. 


	I stand by my original belief, that in the total scheme of 
things this stuff (once there) is probably not worth a whole lot of 
effort to move it.  Wherever it is moved to will probably suffer in 
some way (fish and algea  vs  creatures in or on the soil or in the 
air).  The acts of moving it result in the consumption of resources
(OK, so canoes used by the divers don't burn gasoline, but I'd bet
that the divers don't walk to the river and at some point the canoes
were probably car topped to the river).  BFI trucks don't run on air
alone, etc. "Recycling" is more of a political buzzword than a
practical reality, albeit one that we'd like to believe in.  With
current and foreseable technologies most recycling processes are too
energy intense and therefore expensive both in immediate cost ($$s)
and long term costs (environment).  So, what to do ? 

	a)	Duhh,  "education" ?   Thats most politicians' first 
suggestion to most problems (-:   Is it appropriate here ?
I'd guess that there have been generations that assumed that rivers, 
lakes and oceans were appropriate dumping grounds - unfortunately the 
ocean is still being used a LOT and "officially", probably because it 
is sufficiently far "away" for us to throw things (throw it away).
I would like to believe that everyone under the age of seventy five 
now knows better.....  thats what I would LIKE to believe.

	b)	Enforcement ?   We've covered it.

	c)	Encouragement to  "do the right thing"

	We've covered this too, as towns have realized the cost of 
burying everything they have passed that cost (plus) on to those who 
want to get rid of stuff.  To some extent this has lead to illegal 
dumping, though a lot of towns have official amnesties from time to 
time when they will accept, for example, paints and fertilizers.

If recycling worked economically it would be possible for recycling
centres to  *_BUY_*  stuff, even make house calls to pick up stuff to
buy it.  People still follow their wallets to a large extent, I find 
it curious that someone would return a can for a nickle, but risk a 
$50 or $100 fine for dumping - I'd guess they either assume they won't 
be caught or derive excitement from the risk of being caught )-:

	My suggestion of dumpsters at or near the places that people 
find to be natural (to them) dumping points wasn't in jest.  It could 
be  VERY PRACTICAL  given that the towns often own the land that the 
ramp is on - if not the town then some water resources authority.


	Bah, enuf.    I'm bad, we're all bad.   I'm going into 
depression for the week-end.  Gonna dwell on what a bad person I am.  

I'm going to play my Brazialian Rosewood (from the rain forest) guitar.

I (as an amateur musician) must not care about the eco system of the 
rain forest, right ?  Toe_tally  BAD !

	R

>> Note 1052.46
>> I plan to assuage as many sore points as I can later. I've generated a
>>  *lot* of misunderstanding here. So, if any of you think the last few
>>  replies have missed anything, please stick them in.
  
Yes, I have a question I'd like "assuaged".  As we both know, in the 
"fishing" conference I placed a pointer to this string, as a public service
to any fishermen who'd like to get involved before you succeed in closing 
the Bedford ramp that many of them use.  

After your following statements:

>> Note 1052.32
>> Access barriers are the first step. A few boat ramps are going to be
>> closing at a variety of places because of dumping, for example.
   
>> Note 1052.34 
>> I just visited the site we cleaned up last Saturday, and the trash
>> hasn't all been picked up yet. Somebody, however, has come to the ramp
>> and deposited two pickup beds' worth of debris in an area that was
>> clean before they arrived.
>> The access barriers are going up at that site as soon as possible.
   
My question to you is, why are you now denying in the fishing conference
that you ever stated you planned to close the Bedford ramp, and that your
actual plan is to close the Middlesex Turnpike Bridge abutment?  It's
here in black and white. Don't say we misunderstood.  You know that you've
gotten a bunch or people worked up.  You know that you said you intended
to close the ramp, not a bridge abutment. Why would any of us give a rat's
ass, or would you even bother mentioning that you're closing a bridge
abutment?  This has been your standard practice for two years, to deny what 
you said, or blame it on a "misunderstanding on our part.  Now you're going 
to explain to us sinners what you actually said, right?

I've said it before, hardcore boaters and fishermen *could* and *should*
be among your best allies.  You wonder why the number of us who actually 
help you can be "counted on one hand". It's because you ask for help, then 
badmouth us and attempt to close off our water access immediately afterward.

I think Jeff Gilman had it right - let's revert all waterways to nature
and totally eliminate public access.  Ramps, houses, beaches, you name it.
You've asked not be lumped in with the other waterfront homeowners on 
Lake Winnipesaukee whose runoff of sewage, lawn fertilizers and pesticides,
laundry detergent etc. are polluting the lake.  OK, so you're different. But 
because SOME homeowners do it, I think you should all suffer the consequences.
Kind of the same thing you've done to all powerboaters because of the actions
of a few.  Feels good, don't it?

I've about had it with this hypocrasy and B.S.

Rick

I'd like to add my 2 cents to this conversation. I realize this is the BOATS
conf and I really dont want to rathole this but I would like to add a couple
things about radical environmentalists. The group PETA(People for the ethical
treatment of animals) published a pamphlet on how to discredit hunters. They
said to buy shotguns and bows and arrows and go out and shoot livestock during
hunting season thus making hunters look bad. They also have put out poisoned
dog food and dog food laced with broken glass for hunting dogs.

There was a book published, the name of which I forget, but the author bravely
called himself "Sceaming Wolf". In the book he suggested picking up arms and
entering the woods during hunting season and shooting hunters and leaving them
there.

If *some* radical, so called environmentalists are willing to purposely shoot
livestock and humans then dumping trash aint nothing to them.

I don't know John H-C but I would give him the benefit of a doubt and say
that HE probably wouldn't dump stuff but *maybe* others have. Chances are some
lazy good for nothing slob took the easy way out and is making everybody else
pay.

Walt

                           

    I hear the screams against power boaters as practicing unsound life
    styles.  No one in particular said it in this string, but I am hearing
    this more and more in general.  Lets put power boating in perspective:
    
    I will reduce my use of my power boat when I see an across the board
    effort to reduce:
    
    1. Recreational plane flying.
    2. Jet skiing
    3. Snowmobile use (except for law enforcement)
    4. Unnecessary trips to the store with cars, vs. combined shopping
       trips.
    5. Downhill skiing.  (fuel use to get to ski area, and run tows) let
       alone lodging etc.
    
    My point is that whatever turns you on recreationally is 'ok'.  What
    ever isn't in 'your' interest group is the other guy and he/she is
    wasting fuel.  Its all a matter of priorites.
    
    As one person pointed out even the 'purist' canoist who wouldn't DREAM
    of putting an engine on their canoe still drove to the lake and burned
    fuel getting there, sometimes many hundreds of miles to persue their
    'environmentally sound' hobby.  I can buy the argument if you live in
    a cabin by a lake, don't own a car and literally don't burn fuel to
    persue that hobby that your canoing is RELATIVELY purist.  
    
    We are all 'guilty', we all use fuel 'inappropriately' at times.
    
    I agree that alot of the trash is more of a cosmetic problem (sets
    a tone) than a true environmental problem.  How does a paper cut thrown
    in a lake hurt the flora/fauna?  It doesn't, but its presence sets a
    tone which encourages others to say what the hell I might as well
    throw my empty oil can in too look at that paper cup!
    
    Waste which includes hazardous substances such as oil, paint, gasoline
    etc. is another matter, that does pose a true environemental hazard.
    
    Jeff

    I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still 
    waiting for "assuage-ment".....
    
    Gus
    

    Looks like you may have to wait a couple weeks. I'm busy trying to make
    sure Digital has a stellar fourth quarter.
    
    John H-C

re                      <<< Note 1052.56 by GLITTR::JOHNHC >>>
>                               -< Rathole reply >-

>    Looks like you may have to wait a couple weeks. I'm busy trying to make
>    sure Digital has a stellar fourth quarter.

	They say there's  *_LOTS_*  of stuff at the bottom of the 
Mill pond;  stuff we could/should have sold many years ago.....
Maybe we could have a  "stellar fourth"  by selling it for its  
"historic value"  ??
    
>    John H-C

	R

    I agree with the gist of Rick and Charlies comments.  John, you know I
    have taken you out in my POWERboat so you could do a DES survey in Lake
    Winni.  That IS cooperation from the powerboating sect.  Incidentally
    it did consume fuel (create pollution) to haul the boat to Lake Winni
    and run the boat on Lake Winni as well as to drive the compressor to
    refill your air cylinders.  But, admittedly that pollution was created
    in the interest of environmental protection rather than purely for re-
    creational reasons. 
    
    Tell me you don't dive and drive sometimes for purely recreational
    persuits?
    
    I feel that powerboats are being singled out by some of the comments
    you are making in this string.  Yes, we pollute and some undoubtedly
    throw their beer cans over the side.  But what group DOESN'T?  Even the
    purist cross country skiiers and canoists have to drive to their point
    of use, and some of them undoubtedly throw trash away as they go.
    
    I think that the government is using emotionalism over environmental
    concerns to put some pretty questionable laws through.  Such as giving
    the power to fine people for environmental infractions to LOCAL
    officals WITHOUT DUE PROCESS!  That is a violation of the Constitution
    of the United States.  But who cares because its done in the NAME of
    the environment riding on the crest of environmental concern.
    
    There has to be a balance here.
    
    I admire your efforts and the intentions of DES John.  I truely do. 
    There are few people who care enough to get off their butts and drag
    tires out of river bottoms, we need more like you.  To close ramps
    without 'due process' because a few opportunists dump trash at boat
    ramps is a violation of common sense and the publics rights.  Do you
    really think that the guy with a pickup load of trash is going to go
    back home with it after he finds the ramp closed (assuming he doesn't
    simply move the barrier)?  Of course not, he will dump it by a highway
    or a dirt road or a parking lot or somewhere else instead.  Oh, I
    forgot, in the context of preserving WATERWAYS thats ok because the
    trash didn't wind up by a lake or pond, right?  Now its somebody elses
    problem (rather than DES's) and the publics problem because the ramp
    is closed.
    
    The Rockingham Recreational Trail (skimobiling in the Winter, ATV's
    in the Summer) has trash dumped on it frequently by illegal dumpers.
    Maybe we should close that too?  Then the ATV'ers will have more 
    inclination to ride in the WMNF or other illegal areas because their
    legal riding site got closed.
    
    And, as Rick said, if we just 'close' the outdoors we will solve the
    entire trash problem because the dumpers will have no place at all
    to dump the stuff (LEGALLY) they will have to keep it.  The catch is
    the word, LEGALLY.
    
    I do powerboat, (and pollute via exhaust fumes) but I also pick up
    trash as I go.  Not on the scale DES does but if I see a beer can
    bobbing in the lake I do stop and get the damm thing and haul it home.
    
    Give the powerboaters some credit too please John.
    
    Jeff

    
    Figured as much....
    
    

    What a rathole.................

    Rathole:  So what, the topic is relevant and interesting isn't it?
    
    
    Jeff

    About an hour ago, another team member and I were waiting for a file to
    finish compiling, and our conversation turned to noting. She mentioned
    that she missed keeping up with some conversations on the net, and I
    told her about an obligation I had standing to explain a number of
    things.

    I've been thinking off and on about all the stuff that's been said
    here. To tell the truth, I find myself close to overwhelmed by all
    I have to explain before any "assuaging" can even begin. I want to
    say *something* to you all to assure you that I really do want to
    talk and understand.
    
    Well, the time and energy to respond to every cry of the heart I've
    understood in the last few replies is still lacking, but I thought I
    would try to lay out some background with a file or two that already
    exists. The next reply is from a column I had -- and may still have if
    they are willing to carry my words again after this project is over --
    in the local paper. The column's banner was (is?), "On The River."
    
    Enjoy or disparage, whichever way your inclinations dictate. I think
    there may be another column or two that will give you some more
    background on my perspective, but I'm not up to reading through them
    all at the moment.
    
    John H-C
    

		Think Globally, Act Locally

A couple of years ago, I took a visiting Swiss through a wooded 
section of the Shawsheen River in Billerica and Tewksbury. He was 
flabbergasted. 

"I thought wild rivers like this could only be found near the Amazon 
in Brazil, or maybe in your West," he said. I laughed. It struck me as 
funny that a world traveler like Peter would be so naive as to think 
of the Shawsheen River, with houses on its banks and car parts 
projecting from its bottom, as a wild river. Then it hit me that Peter 
had seen a lot of rivers all over the world, many more than I had, and 
it frightened me to think that somebody like him had seen so few 
rivers in as "natural" a state as the Shawsheen. Peter and I talked 
about the alpine streams and rivers of Switzerland and about other 
rivers he'd seen. It was a depressing conversation. It did, however, 
reinforce my feeling that, in working to restore the Shawsheen, we 
were helping to preserve what has become a rare natural wonder. 

Last week, in the floodplain between Middlesex Turnpike and Rte. 3A, 
an osprey flew by me with a fish in its talons. For a moment, I forgot 
all about the trash in the river and the obscene foam from the sewage. 
I realized once again, as I do every time I see a mink there, that the 
Shawsheen River still has a wild strain worth working to preserve.

A few days later, I mentioned the Wild & Scenic River study on the 
Concord River to a fellow DES diver. He laughed. "`River,' I 
understand," he said, "but wild? scenic? Give me a break!"

I talked him into a trip down the Concord River. On Sunday, after 
leaving one car at River Street, we drove to Concord. We put in just 
below Egg Rock, where the Assabet and Sudbury Rivers meet to form the 
Concord River.

The 9-mile trip took us three hours. We would paddle for a while, and 
then float for a while. We talked a little bit at the beginning of the 
trip. Within the first mile, though, conversation basically stopped.

There was a quiet on the river that it would have been rude to 
disturb. It wasn't silence. In fact, it was quite noisy. The birds of 
spring were in full riot. We could hear avian conversations, 
pronouncements, challenges, and contests all around us. There were too 
many different kinds of birds sounding off to even count them. It was 
a LOUD quiet. The foggy air was full of spring.

We passed slowly through the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 
and its vast wetlands. There was a "hatch" in progress. Aquatic 
insects (midges) were coming out of the water and taking to the air as 
adults. These tiny bugs struggled to emerge from the water everywhere 
we looked, and the air teemed with their predator.  

Wherever there was a calm patch in the river, the air was aswarm with 
tree swallows. They lurched, jinked, and swooped to snatch the insects 
leaving the water. There were too many birds, and they moved too 
quickly, to count. Sitting as still as statues, we could hear their 
wings as they flew by our heads. We watched, mesmerized, as they 
careened around us.

Whenever we broke our silence to comment quietly on what we had seen, 
our conversation would startle a heron or a pair of wood ducks or 
mergansers into taking off from a nearby hidden place. (Mallards took 
off, loudly complaining, at every bend in the river, no matter how 
quiet we were.)

When we took our kayaks out of the water at River Street, I asked my 
friend, "Did you see the `wild and scenic' part?"

"Yeah," he said, "I get it." 

I'm convinced that anybody who spends a few quiet hours listening and 
watching either of our two local rivers will also get it. They are 
beautiful rivers.

I've stood on the banks of the Neva River in St. Petersburg watching 
starving Russians fish for carp in water that bubbled with kerosene 
and diesel slicks. I've seen a river with no name on the Kola 
Peninsula flowing half brown and half black. I've walked by anglers on 
the Rio Plata in Buenos Aires as they complained about the scarcity of 
fish in the smelly, chocolate water. I've stood on the bank of Rio 
Gallegos in Patagonia looking at dogs wash ashore in plastic bags. 
I've watched the swans on the Neckar River in Heidelberg, brown from 
their shoulders to their bills, trying but unable to clean the river 
scum off their long necks. I've caught the odious stench of the Rhine, 
the Seine, the Thames, the Tiber, and the Guadalquivir in my nostrils 
and taken short shallow breaths through my mouth until the wind 
changed.

I'm grateful my local rivers are still in better shape than those 
rivers. I'm glad they're still in good enough condition that something 
can be done to save them. It's true, they have some severe problems, 
but they are problems that can still be fixed. The trash can be 
removed. The pollution can be stopped. We can prevent our rivers from 
turning into the foul streams the rest of the world knows and has 
given up on.


    

    John,..... how do I put this?  I don't think anyone has ANY problem
    with your goals which is to make our waterways cleaner for everybody.
    Which means to me: Any living thing.
    
    Your dissertation in .63 described a scene most of us understand
    and can relate to personally.  I certainly can.  Not the viewing
    the filthy foreign rivers part, but I am sure the filthy rivers are
    there and knowing it highlights the importance of helping the waterways
    which CAN still be helped. 
    
    The 'axe to grind' some of us have is not in the goals but in SOME of
    the methods used to attain those goals. Myself and others have already
    endlessly gone into the reasons against blocking the ramps.
    
    I know your goals are worthwhile and as I said applaud them.
    
    When is the next river cleanup?  Sometime in mid June?  I will try
    and make it. Can you point me to details of when where and resources
    needed?  Would my POWER boat help?   I am willing to haul and load the
    barge or load trash into a towed canoe.
    
    Jeff 

    Only one thing to say to reply .63..
    
    
    			Excellent.
    

re: Note 1052.63  Think Globally, Act Locally

Nice Story. But what's your point?  No one here is disputing that the
Concord River in the Concord/Bedford area is a beautiful place, worthwhile
of being preserved for enjoyment by everyone.

I can appreciate the beauty and serenity of the river by canoe.  We also
do an annual canoe/camping trip in Maine.  Having grown up in the area, 
I've canoed the Concord River many times.   I also enjoy powerboating
on it, and when I meet up with canoers, I try to minimize my impact on
them by slowing down to headway speed, and steering clear.  That is the
*law*, and violators should be penalized, not all powerboaters banned.

What's at issue here, is whether one particular group has the right to
limit access to only those using the type of craft or access that they 
approve of.  The same case can be made against any type of OHRV, people 
that build waterfront homes, ski areas, shopping malls, etc. that affect
the "nature" experience for others.  I'd love to be able to beach my boat
(make that "canoe") and go ashore for a hike, picnic, swim, etc. while
boating on Lake Winnipesaukee.  But we both know that's not possible
ANYWHERE on the lake, right?  Aren't you a part of the group that makes
it not possible?

I think I know what your point is, that because the Concord river is 
such a beautiful river so close to an urban area, that powerboaters
shouldn't be allowed to spoil the experience for others.  Am I right?
My point is that no one group has a right to limit the experience to 
their way of enjoying it, and that we all need to co-exist and be a little
more tolerant.  It all depends on your point of view.  When I'm in a canoe,
powerboats aggravate me as much as they do you.  When I'm in a powerboat,
having to slow down for a canoe is a pain in the neck.  When I'm on a jetski,
I have a blast.  When I'm in my boat, I HATE the damn things.  But it *IS* 
possible to co-exist, and a good start would be that violators of the rules 
should be dealt with strictly, but on an individual basis.  The solution is 
not to close access to all those that you don't personally approve of.

Rick

JohnC - Help me out here.

Do you want to close ramps to keep the dumpers out or the powerboats out?
If the ramp is closed are you advocating that canoes are restricted as well?
If you believe that powerboaters pollute is there some rationale that 
demonstrates that canoers do not?


RickW - I don't remember JohnC writing that the powerboaters are the ones
doing the dumping or polluting; just that he wants to stop the dumping. 

But certainly powerboaters would be the ones most affected by a ramp closing.
Closing a ramp won't stop anyone who wishes to dump his pickup truck full
of crap - he'll just find another location, ramp or no ramp.


I personally have never seen a boat loaded full of trash, tires, hot 
water heaters and washing mashines being launched at any boat ramp.

Doug.

    Doug, my interpretation of Johns' ramp closings was to make it more
    difficult for a pickup truck full of trash to use the ramp to back up
    on and 'launch' the trash into the waterway.  Of course a canoist or
    small boat owner (car top) would not be hindered much by a closed ramp
    unless IT WAS ILLEGAL TO USE THE RAMP TO LAUNCH IN ANY FORM.  But
    the closed ramp would sure keep anybody out who had to launch from a
    trailer.
    
    My impression is that for the most part John would like to limit or
    eliminate powerboating, cottage owners living on waterways, jetskiis, OHRV's
    and any type of waterway use which has an environmental impact.
    
    But John is looking from the perspective of a person who personally
    sees (darn near daily) all the crap on the bottom of lakes and rivers
    that so many of us have thrown there.  He sees the reduced species
    diversification, the algae overloads, and other things I don't even
    know about.
    
    I too would like to see all environmental damage caused by people stop. 
    The only way that could happen would be to eliminate people.  (I
    suppose the PLANET would be better off for it but it would sure be hard
    on humans).  So, barring that 'solution' the best we can do is to limit
    and control the damage as best we can, which is where Ricks'
    suggestions for compromise and tolerence for others recreational
    activities come in.
    
    It has gotten to the point on the major New Hampshire Lakes where its
    difficult to find something one can do on the water which isn't
    environmentally harmful, or illegal.  Just BEING there is
    environmentally harmful. If you want to land, your pretty much limited
    to ramps (see how important the ramps are) or an occasional public dock
    or marina.  Forget stopping on a nice beach or island.  The islands
    are all privately owned with NO TRESPASSING signs all over them and the
    beaches can't be legally landed on either.
    
    You can't raft because it annoys the property owners, yet the property
    owners can have all the parties they want because its private land.
    
    I am not sure which group is more restrictive, the private land owners,
    or the government with its' endless laws.
    
    I should be grateful that just being out on my boat on the lake isn't
    illegal, (yet).
    
    I may come across as one of the boaters who wants to run rampant all
    over the lakes with my turbo 50000 Cigarette Boat, throw beer cans,
    trespass on private property and be the general problem many of the
    laws are aimed at.
    
    In fact I run a 16 ft wooden boat with a 25 Hp engine on it.  I cruise
    at 10 knots, pick up the damm beer cans when I see them, I don't party
    and I respect the no trespassing signs even though their existance
    annoys the hell out of me because a minority has managed to tie up the
    whole damm lake for their own essentially exclusive use while trying to
    keep me and others like me OUT.
    
    When I feel pressure from environmental groups to close down what
    limited access I still have because of the actions of a few
    irresponsible persons I see red.  
    
    Jeff
    
    

    On a brighter note, how many people noticed that their NH boat
    registrations went up by an average of about $4-5 dollars this
    year?  I saw an article in a NH paper about it a few weeks ago, 
    I wish I had saved it.
    
    The extra money is to go DIRECTLY into a fund to help improve
    public access to NH lakes and rivers.  Included in the immediate
    plans if I remember right were Lake Winnie, the Merrimack river,
    and some other lakes I'm unfamiliar with.  Conspicuously absent
    from the present list is the state's most exclusive and private
    lake, Squam Lake.  Hopefully that'll change next year.
    
    We, as powerboaters need to take a more pro-active role in help
    maintaining and improving public access.  Both by improving the
    physical portion of the access, and reporting or somehow getting
    rid of the few bad apples that ruin things for us.  If we sit back 
    and do nothing, I think we've seen what the intentions of the 
    environmental extremists will do to us.
    
    Unlike the "user fee" that went into a black hole, this fee increase
    is supposed to directly benefit us, and I will gladly pay it.  In 
    fact, if they're accepting contributions, and I can find out where 
    to send it, I'll send them some more.
    
    Rick

    YES, I did notice the increase Rick, and I wrote it off as still
    another black hole my money was pouring into.  I am GLAD to hear
    at least its INTENDED to increase access.  Lets hope corrupt officials
    or programs with 'greater needs' don't siphon it from its intended
    purpose. 

    Yes Squam is exclusive, 'you think Winnie is hard to gain access on'.
    I boat on Squam alot.  There is ONE (1) ramp available on Squam and
    each year I keep my fingers crossed that it will still be there.
    If the Squam Property Owners Association had its way I am sure it
    would have been closed.   Its a ROUGH ramp with curbstones tumbled
    every whichway and steep.  With any sort of bigger boat you almost
    HAVE to have 4 WD to get the gearing and traction to force the curb
    stone chocked trailer wheels back up the ramp.

    But, Squam is I am told still drinking water quality.
    
    
    Jeff

Wow!

    Seventy replies to this topic. Eighteen of them are mine. Eleven of them 
    are from the time before the flames began.

    Looking through the replies, I can't help but marvel at the lather some 
    of you can work up.
    
    I've looked at each reply fairly carefully. I've decided not to bother
    trying to explain much of anything. It would be derided as preaching.
    So, THWI.
    
    
    John H-C

I imagine that *somebody* will be offended by my responses. Seems I don't have to say anything at all for some folks to go ballistic.


==============================================================================
Note 1052.38          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        38 of 70
GOLF::WILSON "Think Spring!"               52 lines  19-MAY-1993 17:13
              -< We go thru this every year >-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>There will always be a small element who have no consideration of others,
>and will find a place to dump their trash.  Their actions shouldn't be
>allowed to spoil things for the majority.  I seriously doubt the legality
>of the DES authority to close off public access.  Especially when said
>group obviously is not unbiased, but instead has an obvious agenda in
>closing public access wherever possible.  But in this day and age, I don't
>doubt that a small but vocal group will be successful in doing so, in the
>name of environmentalism.

Restricting access to or closing a ramp, if it is a town ramp, is done by the 
town. If it is a state ramp, access is restricted or closed by the state. That 
is the legal process, and that's how it works. In the two cases where the DES 
has had a voice in restricting access to boat ramps, one is a town ramp and 
the other a state ramp. In the former, which is the one that provided the 
kindling for this flamefest, access is being to restricted to stop the dumping 
rather than the launching of boats. I've never seen anybody launch a boat 
there, and very few people other than dumpers, carp fishermen, and IV drug 
users are even aware of it. When we (I and the chairperson of the Billerica 
Recycling Comittee) went door-to-door asking the neighbors what they thought 
of the idea of closing off the area -- this was required of us by the Town 
Manager -- we discovered two households that had been trying to get the area 
closed for ten years. Everybody else in the neighborhood, and I do mean 
*everybody*, thought it was a fabulous idea. People from two different houses 
told us they didn't even go down to that end of the street unless they had to, 
and if they had to, they went armed.

In the other situation where access is going to be limited to cartop boats, 
the town just paid $20,000 to have the pond treated for eurasian milfoil, and 
they will be paying another $3,000/year to keep it under control. When the DES 
was asked what we thought needed to be done to prevent a recurrence, we told 
them what kind of maintenance program would work, and we told them they would 
have to close the pond to trailered boats. I honestly don't think the notion 
of prohibiting trailered boats was a new one to them. They are very well 
versed in lake management, and it is common knowledge that trailered boats are 
the primary source of eurasian and variable milfoil. I think the DES opinion 
was just another voice echoing their opinion.

Why just trailered boats? 

When the trailer backs into the water in a milfoil-infested pond, shreds of 
milfoil get picked up by the trailer, and strands of milfoil get wrapped 
around the propellor. Once the boat is on the trailer and out of the water, 
the owner almost always simply drives away. The next time he or she puts the 
boat back into the water, the shreds of milfoil are dislodged. Once back in 
the water, they put out roots and settle down. This is why milfoil 
infestations are always worst right at public-access boat ramps.

With cartop boats, on the other hand, the owner has to remove the motor before 
hoisting the boat onto the car. Most people remove any shreds of vegetation 
from their lower units before putting their motors into their cars. There 
usually aren't enough sharp edges on cartop boats to pick up any milfoil.
That town has already made it through two of the three steps necessary to 
restrict access to a state ramp. 

==============================================================================
>Note 1052.42          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        42 of 70
>GOLF::WILSON "Think Spring!"               51 lines  20-MAY-1993 10:20
>           -< The real goal is to close access.  Period. >-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>re: 1052.41
>>> I find the suggestion that an enviormentalist might dump in an
>>> effort to promote a favoured program rediculous.  That would be
>>> like suggesting a fireman might set a fire to ensure job security.
>   
>
>I think you've proven my point exactly.  If you also follow the fishing
>notes conference, you know that in the fishing conference, John has 
>consistently blamed fishermen for most of the trash found in the lakes 
>and rivers.  Here in the powerboats conference, it's us powerboaters 
>who are dumping our trash, old appliances etc. at the ramp.
>
Rick, you are wrong. I've never said anything like that here or anywhere. How 
you managed to hear that in your head is a mystery to me.

>I have no problem whatsoever with turning the tables and pointing the
>finger back at special interest groups who have an individual interest
>in closing certain ramps and public access.  We've also recently had
>a neighbor of the ramp in question, complaining that he can sometimes
>hear powerboats on the river while out raking leaves in his yard. You
>know, I can sometimes hear Harley Davidsons on route 101, which is about
>1/2 mile from my house.  I'm going to start a crusade to close route 101
>because Harley Davidsons make too much noise.  (Not).

No, Mr. Berens is not a neighbor of the ramp in question. You made an 
assumption, and it was wrong. He does have a point about the noise pollution 
on the river, and there are laws in place to control it. Unfortunately, there 
is nobody out there enforcing the laws. The area around the Rte. 225 boat ramp 
on the Concord River is in a National Wildlife Refuge. The ramp belongs to the 
state, and the wildlife refuge to the Department of the Interior. Hence the 
odd situation where you have a source of disturbance for the wildlife right in 
the middle of a wildlife refuge. 

Noise pollution is a very real problem in wildlife areas. Mr. Berens's 
complaint is legitimate. One of my occasionally voiced complaints against some 
powerboaters is that they think the water is just like a freeway without the 
rules of the road. Rick, I never thought of you as one of those guys until you 
so swiftly drew an analogy between the Concord River and Rte. 101.

>
>If having trash dumped at a ramp right after a cleanup is what will 
>expedite the stated goals of neighbors and special interest groups, I
>don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that one of them 
>would do it.  If such an accusation offends these people, then I guess
>the shoe is on the other foot, for a change.  Trash is dumped by uncaring 
>individuals at state parks, mountain tops, rest areas, beaches, and the 
>list goes on and on.  Why not put a "closed" sign on the whole goddamn 
>world?
>

Gee, can you say profanities like that in Notes conferences? Good thing the 
moderator didn't see what you wrote. <grins>

>In this case, we have a small special interest group (OK, so they're 
>not "private"), who has picked out one area of public access to actively 
>seek to take away.  Unfortunately, because they are organized and boaters 
>for the most part are not, they will probably be successful.  And the 
>boaters will have no place to launch, while the trash dumpers will simply 
>move on to find another place to dump.  I also feel that "trash" is being
>used as the current means to justify this agenda.  Anyone who has followed
>John's preachings in this conference over the last couple years is probably
>aware that the real intention is to limit public access, especially to 
>motorized boats.
>
You are wrong, Rick.


>Just one more example of life in the People's Republic of Massachusetts,
>I guess. 
>
>Disclaimer - John, I'm not ragging on you personally.  We've met,, we've
>done business, and I actually think you're a pretty nice guy. I just don't
>agree at all with your opinions or intentions to close public access to a
>group that we both know aren't even responsible for most of the trash you 
>blame on us.  

I've never blamed the powerboaters for the dumping. Feeling guilt about 
something? <g>


==============================================================================
>Note 1052.52          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        52 of 70
>GOLF::WILSON "Think Spring!"               51 lines  21-MAY-1993 13:17
>             -< A 55 gallon drum for the fire >-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Note 1052.46
>>> I plan to assuage as many sore points as I can later. I've generated a
>>>  *lot* of misunderstanding here. So, if any of you think the last few
>>>  replies have missed anything, please stick them in.
>  
>Yes, I have a question I'd like "assuaged".  As we both know, in the 
>"fishing" conference I placed a pointer to this string, as a public service
>to any fishermen who'd like to get involved before you succeed in closing 
>the Bedford ramp that many of them use.  
>
>After your following statements:
>
>>> Note 1052.32
>>> Access barriers are the first step. A few boat ramps are going to be
>>> closing at a variety of places because of dumping, for example.
>   
>>> Note 1052.34 
>>> I just visited the site we cleaned up last Saturday, and the trash
>>> hasn't all been picked up yet. Somebody, however, has come to the ramp
>>> and deposited two pickup beds' worth of debris in an area that was
>>> clean before they arrived.
>>> The access barriers are going up at that site as soon as possible.
>   
>My question to you is, why are you now denying in the fishing conference
>that you ever stated you planned to close the Bedford ramp, and that your
>actual plan is to close the Middlesex Turnpike Bridge abutment?  It's
>here in black and white. Don't say we misunderstood.  You know that you've
>gotten a bunch or people worked up.  You know that you said you intended
>to close the ramp, not a bridge abutment. Why would any of us give a rat's
>ass, or would you even bother mentioning that you're closing a bridge
>abutment?  This has been your standard practice for two years, to deny what 
>you said, or blame it on a "misunderstanding on our part.  Now you're going 
>to explain to us sinners what you actually said, right?

No. You're quite wrong. It's not here or anywhere in black and white, green on 
black, or amber on black. I never said I had any intention of closing the Rte. 
225 boat ramp. Ok, I won't say you misunderstood. I'll just say you fantasized 
the whole thing. Find a place where I have denied something I said, Rick. Good 
luck.

>I've said it before, hardcore boaters and fishermen *could* and *should*
>be among your best allies.  You wonder why the number of us who actually 
>help you can be "counted on one hand". It's because you ask for help, then 
>badmouth us and attempt to close off our water access immediately afterward.

Well, I like the idea of having such allies. I find it a little bit of an 
obstacle, though, when folks fabricate negative stories and attitudes and then 
attribute them to me. 


>I think Jeff Gilman had it right - let's revert all waterways to nature
>and totally eliminate public access.  Ramps, houses, beaches, you name it.
>You've asked not be lumped in with the other waterfront homeowners on 
>Lake Winnipesaukee whose runoff of sewage, lawn fertilizers and pesticides,
>laundry detergent etc. are polluting the lake.  OK, so you're different. But 
>because SOME homeowners do it, I think you should all suffer the 
>consequences.

Gee, I imagine all the shorefront property owners who've heard me "preach" (as 
you would put it) about lawns and faulty septic systems near water would be 
more than a little surprised to see this. I don't recall asking not to be 
lumped in with anybody, though I suppose it's possible. I really *don't* like 
being associated with some kinds of shorefront property owners, or some 
powerboaters.

==============================================================================
>Note 1052.66          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        66 of 70
>GOLF::WILSON "Think Spring!"               37 lines  28-MAY-1993 10:23
>         -< Different Strokes for Different Folks >-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>re: Note 1052.63  Think Globally, Act Locally
>
>Nice Story. But what's your point?  No one here is disputing that the
>Concord River in the Concord/Bedford area is a beautiful place, worthwhile
>of being preserved for enjoyment by everyone.

As I explained in .62, the purpose of my posting that article was just to give 
some background about my attitude toward the river, which is stated in 
straightforward fashion in the last paragraph of .63.

>
>I can appreciate the beauty and serenity of the river by canoe.  We also
>do an annual canoe/camping trip in Maine.  Having grown up in the area, 
>I've canoed the Concord River many times.   I also enjoy powerboating
>on it, and when I meet up with canoers, I try to minimize my impact on
>them by slowing down to headway speed, and steering clear.  That is the
>*law*, and violators should be penalized, not all powerboaters banned.

I agree wholeheartedly about how powerboaters should conduct their boats 
around paddlecraft. That aside, most of the Concord River is *headway speed 
only*, and that is the *law*.


>What's at issue here, is whether one particular group has the right to
>limit access to only those using the type of craft or access that they 
>approve of.  The same case can be made against any type of OHRV, people 
>that build waterfront homes, ski areas, shopping malls, etc. that affect
>the "nature" experience for others.  I'd love to be able to beach my boat
>(make that "canoe") and go ashore for a hike, picnic, swim, etc. while
>boating on Lake Winnipesaukee.  But we both know that's not possible
>ANYWHERE on the lake, right?  Aren't you a part of the group that makes
>it not possible?

No, that is not what is at issue. You're just plain wrong, Rick.

>
>I think I know what your point is, that because the Concord river is 
>such a beautiful river so close to an urban area, that powerboaters
>shouldn't be allowed to spoil the experience for others.  Am I right?
>My point is that no one group has a right to limit the experience to 
>their way of enjoying it, and that we all need to co-exist and be a little
>more tolerant.  It all depends on your point of view.  When I'm in a canoe,
>powerboats aggravate me as much as they do you.  When I'm in a powerboat,
>having to slow down for a canoe is a pain in the neck.  When I'm on a jetski,
>I have a blast.  When I'm in my boat, I HATE the damn things.  But it *IS* 
>possible to co-exist, and a good start would be that violators of the rules 
>should be dealt with strictly, but on an individual basis.  The solution is 
>not to close access to all those that you don't personally approve of.

No, you don't know what my point is. You are wrong. I'm not really interested 
in frustrating myself or annoying you, so I'll leave it at that.

==============================================================================
>Note 1052.69          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        69 of 70
>GOLF::WILSON "Think Spring!"               25 lines  28-MAY-1993 12:46
>               -< Some Good News >-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    
>    We, as powerboaters need to take a more pro-active role in help
>    maintaining and improving public access.  Both by improving the
>    physical portion of the access, and reporting or somehow getting
>    rid of the few bad apples that ruin things for us.  If we sit back 
>    and do nothing, I think we've seen what the intentions of the 
>    environmental extremists will do to us.

Agreed.


    

==============================================================================
>Note 1052.36          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        36 of 70
>SALEM::GILMAN                    13 lines  19-MAY-1993 14:50
>                  -< Solution? >-
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Closing ramps to limit dumping?  Are you serious John? I am sure you
>    are.  If a person is willing to back up their pickup truck to a ramp
>    and throw a refrigerator off then why not dump it into the lake from
>    the roadside.... whats the difference?  All closing ramps will do is
>    keep boaters out, and I suppose the trash they potentially dump from
>    their boats.  BUT, what about all the cottage owners, and swimmers
>    off docks, and hikers etc.  Why single out boaters, why not just close
>    the whole lake down and emminent domain the cottage owners out?

We are closing off an unofficial, illegal dump. It just so happens to be a 
boat ramp as well. We are planning on working to block every dumping site on 
the river, including the roadside dumps. If you think this cannot be done, 
take a drive along River Street in Billerica some time. The town placed posts 
about four feet apart along the roadside where it passes through a wetland, 
and the dumping in that wetland has stopped. 

It can be done, and we're working to see it done a lot more often. 

We are out to stop the dumping into the water. We are not out to keep people 
away from the water. If you think that having people near the water and 
dumping in the water amount to the same thing, you have a much poorer opinion 
of humanity than I do.

>    
>    This 'solution' reminds me of school.  One person commits an offense
>    so the whole class gets punished.

Well, if I recall correctly, the rest of the class only got punished when 
nobody turned in the offender.

>                 
>=============================================================================
>Note 1052.54          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        54 of 70
>SALEM::GILMAN                    38 lines  24-MAY-1993 14:51
>                    -< Trash >
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I hear the screams against power boaters as practicing unsound life
>    styles.  No one in particular said it in this string, but I am hearing
>    this more and more in general.  Lets put power boating in perspective:

You didn't hear it from me.

>    
>    I will reduce my use of my power boat when I see an across the board
>    effort to reduce:
>    
>    1. Recreational plane flying.
>    2. Jet skiing
>    3. Snowmobile use (except for law enforcement)
>    4. Unnecessary trips to the store with cars, vs. combined shopping
>       trips.
>    5. Downhill skiing.  (fuel use to get to ski area, and run tows) let
>       alone lodging etc.
>    

Ok. I haven't flown a plane in 8 years. I'm not even current. I don't use a 
jet ski. In fact, I would much rather see them outlawed altogether. (There! 
*That* was a scream against jetskis! I feel the same way about dirt bikes! And 
snowmobiles!) Already cut the unnecessary trips to the store. And I'm willing 
to cut back on downhill skiing. There's two of us ready to work a deal. Think 
we can get a movement going? <grins>


>    My point is that whatever turns you on recreationally is 'ok'.  What
>    ever isn't in 'your' interest group is the other guy and he/she is
>    wasting fuel.  Its all a matter of priorites.

Well, actually, my priorities tend to center around the health of aquatic 
habitats. Occasionally the misuse of the available technology has an adverse 
affect on aquatic habitats. If you think I single out boaters and fishermen, 
you've never heard me rail against divers who can't stay off the bottom and 
shorefront homeowners who have to have a green lawn on the lakeside.

>    
>    As one person pointed out even the 'purist' canoist who wouldn't DREAM
>    of putting an engine on their canoe still drove to the lake and burned
>    fuel getting there, sometimes many hundreds of miles to persue their
>    'environmentally sound' hobby.  I can buy the argument if you live in
>    a cabin by a lake, don't own a car and literally don't burn fuel to
>    persue that hobby that your canoing is RELATIVELY purist.  

Avoiding air pollution is not what makes canoers get on the water. It is the 
silence and solitude of canoeing that appeals to most of them. It is the  
silence and solitude that powerboats ruin. That's why some canoers have really 
negative feelings about powerboaters.

>    I agree that alot of the trash is more of a cosmetic problem (sets
>    a tone) than a true environmental problem.  How does a paper cut thrown
>    in a lake hurt the flora/fauna?  It doesn't, but its presence sets a
>    tone which encourages others to say what the hell I might as well
>    throw my empty oil can in too look at that paper

I agree.

>=============================================================================
>Note 1052.58          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        58 of 70
>SALEM::GILMAN                    59 lines  25-MAY-1993 12:16
>                   -< Balance >
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I agree with the gist of Rick and Charlies comments.  John, you know I
>    have taken you out in my POWERboat so you could do a DES survey in Lake
>    Winni.  That IS cooperation from the powerboating sect.  Incidentally
>    it did consume fuel (create pollution) to haul the boat to Lake Winni
>    and run the boat on Lake Winni as well as to drive the compressor to
>    refill your air cylinders.  But, admittedly that pollution was created
>    in the interest of environmental protection rather than purely for re-
>    creational reasons. 
>    
>    Tell me you don't dive and drive sometimes for purely recreational
>    persuits?

I don't have a problem with any of this. Did I say somewhere that driving a 
boat or a car was inherently evil? This holier-than-thou attitude some of you 
are ascribing to me just plain isn't there.

>    
>    I feel that powerboats are being singled out by some of the comments
>    you are making in this string.  Yes, we pollute and some undoubtedly
>    throw their beer cans over the side.  But what group DOESN'T?  Even the
>    purist cross country skiiers and canoists have to drive to their point
>    of use, and some of them undoubtedly throw trash away as they go.

No, the *dumping* is being singled out.

>    
>    I think that the government is using emotionalism over environmental
>    concerns to put some pretty questionable laws through.  Such as giving
>    the power to fine people for environmental infractions to LOCAL
>    officals WITHOUT DUE PROCESS!  That is a violation of the Constitution
>    of the United States.  But who cares because its done in the NAME of
>    the environment riding on the crest of environmental concern.

You lost me here, Jeff.

>    
>    There has to be a balance here.
>    
>    I admire your efforts and the intentions of DES John.  I truely do. 
>    There are few people who care enough to get off their butts and drag
>    tires out of river bottoms, we need more like you.  To close ramps
>    without 'due process' because a few opportunists dump trash at boat
>    ramps is a violation of common sense and the publics rights.  Do you
>    really think that the guy with a pickup load of trash is going to go
>    back home with it after he finds the ramp closed (assuming he doesn't
>    simply move the barrier)?  Of course not, he will dump it by a highway
>    or a dirt road or a parking lot or somewhere else instead.  Oh, I
>    forgot, in the context of preserving WATERWAYS thats ok because the
>    trash didn't wind up by a lake or pond, right?  Now its somebody elses
>    problem (rather than DES's) and the publics problem because the ramp
>    is closed.
    
Fine by me if he wants to put it by the highway. More people will see it, and 
maybe more people will become angry enough to do something about the problems 
that have lead to the dumping in the first place.


>    The Rockingham Recreational Trail (skimobiling in the Winter, ATV's
>    in the Summer) has trash dumped on it frequently by illegal dumpers.
>    Maybe we should close that too?  Then the ATV'ers will have more 
>    inclination to ride in the WMNF or other illegal areas because their
>    legal riding site got closed.

No, let's just outlaw ATVs and snowmobiles and be done with it.

>=============================================================================
>Note 1052.64          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        64 of 70
>SALEM::GILMAN                    22 lines  26-MAY-1993 12:09
>                   -< Cleanup >
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    John,..... how do I put this?  I don't think anyone has ANY problem
>    with your goals which is to make our waterways cleaner for everybody.
>    Which means to me: Any living thing.
>    
>    Your dissertation in .63 described a scene most of us understand
>    and can relate to personally.  I certainly can.  Not the viewing
>    the filthy foreign rivers part, but I am sure the filthy rivers are
>    there and knowing it highlights the importance of helping the waterways
>    which CAN still be helped. 
>    
>    The 'axe to grind' some of us have is not in the goals but in SOME of
>    the methods used to attain those goals. Myself and others have already
>    endlessly gone into the reasons against blocking the ramps.
>    
I explicitly said *some ramps*. I did not say anything about blocking all of 
the ramps. I also said *some ramps" would be closing because of the *dumping*. 
At no point have I equated dumping with powerboating.

>    
>=============================================================================
>Note 1052.68          Boating/Skiing/Fishing on Clean Water        68 of 70
>SALEM::GILMAN                    63 lines  28-MAY-1993 12:02
>               -< Limited Access >
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Doug, my interpretation of Johns' ramp closings was to make it more
>    difficult for a pickup truck full of trash to use the ramp to back up
>    on and 'launch' the trash into the waterway.  Of course a canoist or
>    small boat owner (car top) would not be hindered much by a closed ramp
>    unless IT WAS ILLEGAL TO USE THE RAMP TO LAUNCH IN ANY FORM.  But
>    the closed ramp would sure keep anybody out who had to launch from a
>    trailer.
>    
>    My impression is that for the most part John would like to limit or
>    eliminate powerboating, cottage owners living on waterways, jetskiis,
>    OHRV's and any type of waterway use which has an environmental impact.

Everything has an environmental impact. Every time we exhale, we generate some 
CO2, for example. It has an affect or impact, though it's hardly negative as 
long as we still have trees around in large enough numbers. I would amend the 
end of your sentence  to read "...a systemically  detrimental environmental 
impact." rather than "...an environmental impact."  None of the things you 
describe my wanting to limit or eliminate is negative per se. The way that 
some people use them is very negative, and we all suffer from the behavior of 
those people.

>    
>    I too would like to see all environmental damage caused by people stop. 
>    The only way that could happen would be to eliminate people.  (I
>    suppose the PLANET would be better off for it but it would sure be hard
>    on humans).  So, barring that 'solution' the best we can do is to limit
>    and control the damage as best we can, which is where Ricks'
>    suggestions for compromise and tolerence for others recreational
>    activities come in.

I disagree. I don't think people equate to trash. I still haven't figured out 
how I got tagged with the "uncompromising and intolerant" label. Heck, I've 
been hanging out in here and in the FISHING conference for a couple years. 
This is the first flareup in quite a while, and I'm not even sure I started 
it.

    
    
>    You can't raft because it annoys the property owners, yet the property
>    owners can have all the parties they want because its private land.

Actually, some of us fought to limit the rafting in Braun Bay because we were 
tired of pulling all the trash from the rafting boats out of the water in 
front of our houses. Others fought to limit the rafting because water quality 
monitoring in the area showed that all of those people and all of those boats 
were affecting the water. (Mainly because they used the lake as a toilet, 
thinking, I'm sure, that the solution to pollution is dilution.) Mostly, 
though, the thing that swayed the board against the motorboat lobbyists was 
the fact that the very rich person who owns that mansion those hundreds of 
people used to raft in front of couldn't sell his house because of the 
rafting, and the rafting was the reason he wanted to sell his house. Seems he 
had a prospective buyer or two fly in to look the property over, but they 
couldn't even "land" because of all the boats in the bay. There's that huge 
house with its huge green lawn going right down to the water, and nobody wants 
it because of all the transient boaters who settle in like starlings every 
weekend. They deserve each other.

You should know that the no-rafting rule doesn't prevent people from coming to 
the area and spending the day. It just limits the number of boats that can be 
tied together. It has put a damper on the number of boats over there on any 
given day, though. Last summer, nobody in the area reported seeing more than 
150 boats over there at any one time. In previous years, counting more than 
250 was not rare. Figure on average three people per boat in an area smaller 
than a football field, and you've got a situation worse than Walden Pond on a 
hot Saturday in August.

>    
>    When I feel pressure from environmental groups to close down what
>    limited access I still have because of the actions of a few
>    irresponsible persons I see red.  

At the environmentalists rather than the boors in the cigarette boats, right?
I like Rick's idea of powerboaters' taking a more active role in protecting 
the waters they like to boat on.

re: Note 1052.71 (and the last 500+ lines)
>>I've decided not to bother trying to explain much of anything
>>It would be derided as preaching.
 

Apparently you changed your mind?

      Well John, you generally have my vote. I'm one of those people who is
    active with clubs and organizations in whatever I do.  Unfortunately, I
    also ride a snowmobile, a dirt bike, AND I ski and have a powerboat.
    (To name a few things that I do) I even like to 4WD.  I also happen to
    belong to(And actively participate in) groups that promote *responsible*
    use of ALL of the above. I'm also one of the people who picks up after 
    others, both on water and on land. 
    
      I'm also one of those folks who believes the country is big enough
    for responsible land use of pretty much every kind. The key word is
    responsible. There are people in every group that I've ever seen (And
    yes this includes non-motorized recreators) who by their
    actions, damage the environment and couldn't care less.
    
    				Kenny

    A comprehensive reply to Rick and myself John.  I appreciate your effort
    to take our points one by one.
    
    The water quality issue regarding rafting is news to me... but the
    rational makes sense.
    
    Some of the points I made were not directed at you.  For example when
    I was talking about eliminating certain recreational activities (tongue
    in cheek) 'you' referred to one... not you John H/C.
    
    I think that environmental groups tend to lumped into my mind as an
    perhaps (at times) overly zealous group which tend to be willing to
    step on anybodies toes to achieve their goals because the end justifies
    the means.  If DES is not like that then I apologize for implying it.
    
    I think that much of the outrage which has been directed in your
    direction (speaking for myself) is because 'they' (environmental
    groups) tend to be a nebulous group people can't talk to.  Often
    the government is behind closings and there is little one can do except
    scream at a blank wall.  When you spoke about closing ramps finally
    there was somebody to talk to about it... YOU!
    
    As I said before, I admire the efforts and of concerns yourself and DES
    in spite of my screams about ramps closings.
    
    I think that you know some of us in the boating conference well enough
    by now to know that we too are concerned about and willing to do things
    for the environment.
    
    The info about introducing foreign plants to uninfested bodies of water
    served as a reminder to me.  I will make a point to pull off any plant
    matter from my trailer and prop when pulling my boat from fresh water.
    What do I look for, any particular types of plant pieces?
    
    
    Jeff

Note 1052.72  
>> I've never seen anybody launch a boat there, and very few people other 
>> than dumpers, carp fishermen, and IV drug users are even aware of it. 

So putting up a barrier will keep these people out?  It seems to me that by
limiting the amount of public traffic through there, you will give at least
two of the three groups in question the EXACT environment that they want,
and thrive on.


>>Rick, you are wrong. I've never said anything like that here or anywhere. How 
>>you managed to hear that in your head is a mystery to me.

>>I've never blamed the powerboaters for the dumping. Feeling guilt about 
>>something? <g>

>>Find a place where I have denied something I said, Rick. Good luck.

Unfortunately, much of what you have written here in the boats conference 
is no longer available as evidence of your track record.  Some noters may 
remember a similar "flamefest" which occured a couple years ago, after you 
DID use this and the fishing conferences to place the blame for most trash 
dumping and other justification for access closings on powerboaters and 
fishermen.  When the contraditions between what you preached and what you 
practiced were pointed out, you deleted all of the replies in question. 
The resulting string of replies was so disjointed that it became useless, 
and was deleted.

You can deny it, but I would think that some people who have followed your 
writings the last two years or so MAY have noticed a tendency on your part 
to want to close access or place other restrictions on the entire boating 
public, because of the actions of a very few.  The recent statements you've 
made in this note alone probably are not all that inflammatory, and to newer 
noters it probably seems that Jeff, myself, and a couple others have jumped 
on your case without justification.  But combined with statements from way 
back, it's become apparent that your agenda of restricting access is not 
finished.  Some of us whose ONLY access is "public" access have a real 
problem with that agenda.

I really do feel sorry that things have worked out the way they have, 
because your message (and actions) of protecting and preserving the 
environment are good ones.  I just can't accept your means of achieving 
that goal, which is that no matter who is at fault, ALL powerboaters will 
suffer if you have your way.  As I said earlier, because of the organization
and public effort on the part of your small group, as opposed to the dis-
organized and individual nature of the boating public, I have no doubt that 
you will get your way.  Congratulations.

Rick

    >So putting up a barrier will keep these people out?
    
    Well, as far as I'm concerned, the only people I want to keep out are
    the dumpers, and, yes, the barriers will keep those people out. The
    carp fishermen and the IV drug users will have to park in the street,
    where their cars will be seen by any interested police officer who is
    called by a neighbor who feels threatened by the presence of these
    people. Most of the illicit activity comes in through the "back
    entrance," which will also be blocked off. That means a quarter-mile
    walk for anybody who wants access through that entrance. They use that
    entrance because they don't want to be seen entering. In the end, I do
    expect a lot of the illicit activity to stop. (No, I don't think carp
    fishing is illicit activity, though I *do* feel that practicing C&R
    with carp *should* be considered illicit. <grins>)
    
    John H-C

    
    
    	Anyone have any thoughts about how a Merrimack River (Lowell &
    Chelmsford) cleanup can be organized? 
    
    	Of course if it means any ramp closings, then forget it! :-)
    
    Rick

    
    	We did one a couple of years back from the bridge in Lowell to the
    dam.  The problem we ran into was disposing of all the junk we picked
    up.  Fifty gallon drums from Grace in Nashua, old washing machines,
    bikes, motors, more soda/beer cans than you can belive, etc. Nobody
    wanted to haul it off we ended up blocking the rowing club ramp and
    pleading with the state to haul it off. 
    
    	 After that experience the folks who organized gave up it was too
    much hassel. One of the former directors of the sailing program handled
    the organization.  I participated and got a wonderful rash from the
    sumac growing along the river bank.  WE had hope to make it a annual
    spring and fall event.
    
    
    Forrest

    
    Hey John HC,
    
    >	We did one a couple of years back from the bridge in Lowell to the
    >dam.  The problem we ran into was disposing of all the junk we picked
    >up.  Fifty gallon drums from Grace in Nashua, old washing machines,
    >bikes, motors, more soda/beer cans than you can belive, etc. Nobody
    >wanted to haul it off we ended up blocking the rowing club ramp and
    >pleading with the state to haul it off. 
    
    	You have connections with BFI, don't you? Think you could help
    us out on this one?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Rick

    We're talking about Lake Merrimack here, right?
    
    Is the section of the river you're talking about in Lowell or
    Chelmsford or both?
    
    How many participants do you have or think you can get?
    
    There are a lot of possibilities here. We could generate some serious
    press coverage if the recreational boaters undertook a cleanup, I
    think. There are two organizations who might take a very active,
    helpful role in such a cleanup:
    
    The Merrimack River Watershed Council
    The Merrimack River Initiative (a federal project)
    
    The Lowell Parks and Conservation Trust might also take a supportive
    stance.
    
    Sure, I'd be very willing to help you out.
    
    
    John H-C
    
     The Merrio

    Yeah, John, this is "Lake Merrimack" we are talking about; the
    Lowell & Chelmsford section. It would be nice to clean all the
    way up to Nashua, but considering the volume of junk in just
    the Lowell and Chelmsford area, I think that would be a major
    undertaking in itself.

    	Seems the main problem Forrest had was removal of the items
    which were taken from the river and it's banks. And since the
    amount of "large" junk is pretty high I would guess that at least
    one of those open dumpsters that looks like bed of an 18 Wheeler
    gravel truck would be required.
    
    	I'm not sure how many boaters I could get to participate, but
    I'd venture to say that we could create a formidable crew. Come to
    think of it, when you add up all the boaters that live on the river
    in the area and all the boaters that don't live there, but use the
    local ramps.... that's quite a large number. Think we could get half
    of them to participate? maybe?
    
    	I wonder if such an effort could be scheduled when the water
    will be down? I know the dam will need attention again this year.
    Anyone know about this?
    
    	John or Forrest, do you have contacts at these Merrimack River
    organizations?
    
    
    	Rick

    Rick --
    
    I've got lots of contacts. Let's take this to e-mail and figure out
    just what you have in mind. As a strawman, here's an idea:
    
    Schedule the cleanup for July or August.
    Start work now. Collect funds through well publicized means to rent a
    60-yarder dumpster and pay the tipping fees.  We could use the DES and
    its tax-exempt non-profit status to get the cost down to half price. I
    think we're looking at about $500 for a full 60-yarder.
    
    We involve the various organizations I mentioned in a previous reply,
    the Merrimack Valley Paddlers, the AMC, the local marinas, the Lowell,
    Chelmsford, and Tyngsboro Chambers of Commerce, and all the divers I
    can put in the water there.
    
    We get reporters out on the water to see the problem first hand and get
    the recreational boater's perspective on the problem. 
    
    Then we get the dam operator to draw down Lake Merrimack for a couple
    days, if that hasn't already taken place.
    
    Doing these things for maximum effectiveness is quite a bit of work,
    BTW, but it really is worth it, IMHO.
    
    John H-C

    
    	I can try and get the word out to the sailing folks, and talk to
    the rowers also.  We had no problem getting plenty of help to do the
    dirty work.  It was disposing of all the junk.  Trust me it is messy
    and dirty work.  The time we did it mother nature decided we need some
    rain to make it more amusing.  Things that were too large to move like
    the stray automobile we ended up leaving.
    
    Forrest

    Getting the stray automobile out of the water won't be a problem if we
    do the upfront work. We pulled a couple out of the Concord River last
    year in the course of our monthly cleanups.
    
    John H-C

	Just imagine cruising up the Lowell/Chelmsford section
of the Merrimack river without looking at all the junk currently
on the river's shores. Wouldn't it be nice to *JUST* see natural
vegetation? You bet it would! Or maybe, you don't actually boat
on this section of river, but are just interested in helping out
for a worthy cause. Here's your chance to contribute to that goal!

Come to the:

	Merrimack River Cleanup

	Lowell/Chelmsford section

	Saturday July 16, 1994

	What do we need from each of you for this cleanup? Mostly
just your able body. We could also put aluminum rowboats, powerboats
to tow them and maybe a ratty pickup truck or two to good use.

	Mark you calendars, so you don't forget!

Thanks,

Rick

ps. Please reply by mail if you plan to attend so I can send out a
reminder as July 16th approaches.

	The Merrimack River cleanup is this Saturday and
we need your help!

	We've enlisted lots of equipment and *really* need
a solid group of volunteers to make full use of it. The City of
Lowell and BFI are supplying dump trucks and dumpsters. 
Consolidated Hydro, Inc is supplying an outboard-powered
barge. All we need now is plenty of volunteers!

	Please plan to attend this Saturday in Lowell.

		Merrimack River Cleanup
		Bellegarde Boathouse (where the sailing
				program is)
		Pawtucket Blvd.
		Lowell, Ma

		Saturday, July 16, 1994 9:00 am - 1:00 pm

Thank you,

Rick