Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KTO
I noticed that! I was actually originally intending to have them be flip flop (Certain areas of the lake ARE off limits, and for the other MOST of the lake is off limits)
I think also that rafting can get to carried away sometimes, when people (Now I am not blaming anyone or saying I hate rafters) throw their trash out the side, bother wildlife in a cruel way (even if it's technically legal), or if they were to get into the way of another boater, such as rafting in a fairly "tight" zone, and sometimes and blasting music to the extreme (especially innaproppriate music!). I believe that those people are mainly the cause for rafting problems. Rafting should be stopped because of those people mentioned. I'm not saying I hate rafters in General, but mainly that I dislike rafters who over abuse their power, and I think it is they who ruin it for the rest of the rafters out there who want a fairly peaceful rafting experience.
If I have said anything that others think perfectly fine, please let me know!
|
Can I let you know if I think you've said something un-fine ?
(I've bolded the above) It appears that while I was off-line formulating a response Cal addressed the point that I take exception to. I hope it doesn't appear that I'm piling on.
While I agree there are the few who who "abuse their power" I don't agree that the solution is a lake-wide ban on rafting. If your neighbor has loud party, or even a long history of loud parties, I wouldn't petition the town to ban all gatherings of more than X people. If the local town basketball court was attracting a "bad" crowd I wouldn't ask the town to close it. I would ask the town to better police the activity in question when the abuse occurs. This does take more effort and patience but we adopt the approach of always letting the few ruin it for the many, pretty soon we'll be left with the ability to do nothing. Moreover there's a moral aspect to this ... punishing the good guys along with the bad guys ... just doesn't seem right to me, at least not until all other options have been exhausted.
I believe the bill has stalled but I'm sure it'll come back. What I don't quite understand is why it's necessary. It would appear the present system has a good set of checks and balances in it. If there's enough abuse in a spot then the property owners can petition for a NRZ and achieve the same result as the bill. This should incentivize the rafters to curb the excesses yet it sets up a barrier, though surmountable, to stop a single "ornery" property owner from a hair trigger response. Have the granting authorities effectively rejected all NRZ petitions causing people to seek another redress ? Or is it a case of someone "important" petitioning for a NRZ and getting rejected ?? One of the sponsoring reps cited the usual concerns and was quoted as saying he didn't want to "move the problem from 1 spot to another", hence the need for lake-wide ban. He seemed to think that eventually all the shore would be developed and become NRZs anyway so why not make it happen now. I think his reasoning and the bill is just too encompassing and discriminating against those who aren't part of the problem.
I'm not part of the big rafting group, when I anchor it's usually alone and looking for a quite, empty (! ha !) spot on the lake. We might tie up with another boat or 2 and break out the Magma. I can understand both the property owner and boater POVs but I think there just isn't enough need for this bill.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KTO
I did say that those select few ruin it for everyone else, and I did mean that. Marine Patrol can't watch every spot on the lake at one time, therefore, to stop all of these problems, maybe rafting should be discontinued, or maybe in certain select areas. . . just a thought. . .
|
I would say that there are times when I cruise past the sandbar in W. Alton, already a NRZ, and see boats clogging the channel to WAM. If the MP can't keep up with the existing NRZs, then I don't think making the whole lake a NRZ is going to help. I wonder if more enforcement when and where it's needed would help.