National, not amusement, parks--(Florida)

CaptnKirk · 01-25-2006, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Imagine canoeing in a remote part of the Everglades and suddenly rocking in the wake of a Jet Ski, or watching squirrels scurry away from a noisy motorbike on a nature trail at Biscayne National Park. At Yellowstone, snowmobiles already shatter the silence, despite studies and testimony from park employees that the eardrum-blasting machines pollute the air and disturb wildlife.

Since Congress created it 90 years ago, the National Parks Service has existed to protect and preserve national parks. But, as has happened often on President Bush's watch, that conservation mission is about to change. Instead of "a mandate to preserve park resources and values" for future generations, a Bush administration rewrite of management policies substitutes ambiguous, waffling language that orders the park service to "balance" protecting resources with visitor use.

The National Parks Conservation Association fought, successfully, an earlier attempt to rewrite park management rules. National Park Service Director Fran Mainella, once director of Florida's parks, said in published reports that rules had to be revised — because of homeland security concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks. Fine. But that should not mean that the park service should stop preserving the parks.

Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton, who supervises the park service, reflects President Bush's lack of a conservation conscience. She has rebutted reports by her department's own scientists showing that Alaska's wildlife could suffer if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened to oil drilling. She has pushed to open Florida's Gulf Coast to drilling and let the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delay designating protection areas for manatees.

The Bush administration and its appointees excel at working behind the scenes to allow what has been forbidden. Quietly, they rewrite rules that restrict private business interests or curb pollution. Then the devilishly clever policy wonks give a bad policy a benign new name — such as "Clear Skies" for a policy that allows more air pollution.

Take Section 4.9 in the proposed revision of National Park Service rules. Remove a promise that the park service "will preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks." New language says the service will restore degraded soundscapes "wherever practicable." That could mean, for example, allowing off-road vehicles or personal watercraft in the parks if stopping them or regulating them is too expensive. Another proposed change deletes requirements that park managers close off-road vehicle routes if bikes or motorcycles using them damage the land or hurt wildlife. Instead, individual park managers decide whether the vehicles are causing damage.

Another provision, 8.2.3.3, strikes a prohibition on personal watercraft. The noisy water toys "may be permitted through special regulations and when this use has been identified as appropriate for a specific park." Still another makes promotion of airports near parks a duty of park managers and staff, already dealing with too little money and too much work. Given the uproar that plans for an airport near the Everglades raised before the idea finally was shelved, that provision seems downright sinister.

Florida's parks are particularly vulnerable. Miami-Dade County's Biscayne National Park, the largest marine park in the system, has the third-largest coral reef in the world. Its natural resources are in poor condition. It needs money for maintenance, education and law enforcement to protect manatees, sea turtles and other wildlife from speeding boaters. As many as 27 of its 35 fish species are overfished. In Everglades National Park, Florida Bay, a marine lagoon, suffers from overfishing and habitat loss. Boaters running aground have damaged sea-grass beds, and drainage and other water projects threaten wading birds.

People can comment on the proposed changes until Feb. 18. To do so, or for more information, visit the National Parks Conservation Association Web site at www.npca.org/stoptherewrite.

The 1916 law that created the National Park Service got it right: Protect and preserve these special places so our children and grandchildren can experience the same joy and wonder they have inspired in us.

Palm Beach Post

01-25-2006, 09:20 AM

More from the National Park Service site:

Quiet Waters

Jet Skis, Waverunners, and other personal watercraft (PWCs) are relatively new to the national parks, yet they have already done substantial damage to the park experience, wildlife, and environment. With their high speeds, unpredictable movements, and excessive noise, these machines endanger and disturb wildlife. Most of the machines in use are powered by highly polluting two-stroke engines that release up to 30 percent of their fuel/oil mixture directly into the air and water. Their high power-to-weight ratio coupled with the fact that the PWC industry advertises them as machines built for speed and maneuverability demonstrates that PWCs are more a thrill craft than another form of water transportation.

These machines are fundamentally different from traditional boats. Just ask the Coast Guard, which gives PWC manufacturers a waiver so that PWC do not have to comply with the basic safety features required on other boats.

Due in large part to NPCA's efforts, the National Park Service has adopted a rule that permanently prohibited PWC use in 66 park units. Five other park units—Cape Cod National Seashore, Cumberland Island National Seashore, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and Whiskeytown National Recreation Area—adopted permanent bans in the spring of 2002. But a number of other park units have only a temporary PWC ban in place. These 16 remaining park units—some national seashores, national lakeshores, national recreation areas, and one national preserve—could choose to allow unrestricted PWC use, to ban PWCs entirely, or take some action in between. These units must develop Environmental Assessments and special regulations in order to open their waters to PWC use. NPCA will notify its activists when these Environmental Assessments and special rulemakings have public comment periods, so that they can urge the Park Service to restrict PWC use in these remaining park units.

NPCA is proud of its successes and continues to rely on the voices of concerned citizens. To help with the Motorized Abuse Campaign, become a member and an activist of NPCA.

This came from:

http://www.npca.org/across_the_natio..._abuse/pwc.asp

It is obvious the NPS is biased against most if not all motorized vehicles especially PWCs. Their justification against PWCs is grossly inaccurate so you can see what PWCs is up against.

Dave1

01-25-2006, 09:24 AM

More irroneous info from the NPS site:

Should Recreational Vehicles Be Allowed in the Parks?

From Yellowstone to Denali, Big Cypress to Pictured Rocks, our national parks are under siege. Every year jet skis, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, swamp buggies, and other off-road vehicles inflict incredible damage to park ecosystems.

Jet skis can dump 2 to 3 gallons of oil and gasoline into the water every hour.

Snowmobiles can emit 100 times as much carbon monoxide and 300 times as many hydrocarbons as automobiles.

Off-road vehicles destroy vegetation and cause erosion.

Snowmobiles and jet skis can be heard from distances as far as 20 miles.

01-25-2006, 09:39 AM

OMFG!!! I want to punch something!!!!!!!!!

OMFG!!!!! OMFG!!!!! I don't know what else to say!! OMFG!!!!

Lets bombard the "writers" with emails and questions.

AWADawg · 01-25-2006, 08:03 PM

I got a better idea; Get involved with the AWA and the Boatbiscayne.com

This is what these folks are wringing their hands over! They're freaked because the good people are starting to see the screwing we've been getting all these years.

It's one group of people trying to control another group of people.

If every member of PWCToday would go to boatbiscayne.com and send the letters and comments, we'd get somewhere and really flip these envro-thugs out.

The no-fun-allowed crowd depends on the PWC Nation not being involved. I know you hear me say this all the time, but the day we stand together as one, we'll be saying when, where, and how we're going to Ride.

I hate to be pushy. I hate to beg:but people.. you need to be involved in what's going on with access. Just becuase your puddle hasn't been hit yet, doesn't mean it won't.

Stand with us: Join the AWA. It costs less for a year, than it does to fill your PWC with gas just one time: I'll even throw in a great PWC Mag into the deal.
But the real reason to stand with us is to protect your freedom to ride.

That's all we do..

Chris Manthos
AWA

canadan · 01-26-2006, 05:23 AM

Yes we as jetskiiers are under attack, from the your not allowed to have fun crowd.
Read an article recently when a group of jetskiiers where on the way to key west the weather turned. A landing could result in a 500 dollar per jetskii fine.That sounds like the kinda trip we would do.
All jetskiiers are viewed negatively.Just trying to have some fun.Some get it, but most don't.
Keep in mind ,most people are afraid of the water.
Some of those same people are afraid of soap and water.lol.
Before we win this battle we need a strategy.
These people write these negative things because?
They got buzzed by some one on a jetski?(please don't do that, it's just rude, makes the rest of us look bad)
Have personal issues and don't like any thing?
Just like to hear silence in nature?
Cause they are usually too busy talking otherwise?
Big world, who has time to make enemies.Love your tag line capt kirk.
I'll send a missive off in the morning. But a face to face with anybody works wonders.
Don't forget there is always 2 sides to every coin, people are no different.
Btw i do not use the spellcheck.

djyox · 01-26-2006, 06:06 AM

I hope everyone does take some time to stop and sign up at AWADawg's website he posted, put your name on the list at least, or send out a letter. I did it, I don't ride there, but I figure I will want everyone to help out when my river or lakes go up to the chopping block....

And yeah, !!damn hippies!!!!!!!

Prem1x · 01-26-2006, 11:23 AM

Its typical environmentalist logic. Boaters run aground damaging grass and run over manatees and turtles, therefore PWC are too loud.

Signed and sent.

thajeffski · 01-26-2006, 11:39 AM

Lets be fair and balanced about this.

Most PWC's are Loud as ****.

And if you are a nature nut, I can see how that would PISS ME OFF if some loud *** craft came by and distracted me.

So here's my solution. There have GOT to be places that are not safe for jetskis. Like rivers with lots of rocks and weeds.....or places that are too shallow...... let those ****ers go there. and ban jet skis from there.

The people who really ruin this for us are you ****ers who have the modified exaushts. I have a rider in my group who has a jetski I can hear from half a mile away. You cant even see this guy and you can hear it.

He also gets EVERYONE (including us) pissed off on the water when we are just trying to RELAX.

I can deal w/ the normal sounding skis, but the dudes with no mufflers that makes me feel like im at a dirtbike race has GOT TO GO

rickster · 01-26-2006, 11:48 AM

You are exactly what we are fighting about. If there is a problem with the noise level of any craft, then that is a seperate issue than the outright banning of 1 type of craft.

Most PWC's are not any louder than other crafts out there, cigarette boats, big twin diesel cruisers, bass boats, etc... to name a few.

as to the nature folks that want to go visit nature in quiet, how are they going to get there? boats, cars, trucks, airplanes?

Your post absolutely amazes me with the ammount of thought put in it.