Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS
Because their feet are far back on their bodies, Loons must wriggle on shore to build and tend to their nests.
Because Loons select low and marshy areas for their nests, Loons' favored habitat is unsuitable for building cottages and McMansions.
Even before actually raising their families, Loons are highly territorial. With that requirement of a huge " Lebensraum", Loon nests are rarely located in sight of one another. So territorial, even much larger birds are in danger of a fatal Loon attack.
One visit to Winter Harbor's single favorable marshy area would enlighten those who think boaters aren't a problem. ![Roll Eyes](https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes2.gif)
|
ApS, I am not sure what you are trying to get at with your post... Concerns over loons and defining the correct verbiage for no-wake legislation aren't really the same topic, and in fact are really quite unrelated.
Boaters are indeed a problem for loons, but changing how we define no-wake isn't going to change that.
People will always break the no-wake zone, no mater how it is defined, and yep on occasion it will happen around a loon nest, and might cause a problem.
I have also seen loon nest problems in area's where the wind causes the wave action etc.
You always seem to amaze me with how you try and argue problems. Tying unrelated issue together, to try and justify something....