Black Cove

Sschaar · 10-07-2004, 12:41 PM

Hey ski man lets take your thought process one step further.
I'll give you your point, that it's important to allow other animals the right to survive. My point is, that people living in homes on these islands, driving their boats back and forth to the mainland, walking and driving ATV's around the island, and installing swim platforms, aren't distubing the loons ?
These people are only out to protect their own interests and their using the loon issue to sell it. I'm sure there's s one or two indivuduals who actually have the bird's interest at heart, but the rest of them own property, and they want to restrict everybody else from crowding their space and they'll go to any extreme to accomplish it.
Look at it for what it is.

Ski Man · 10-07-2004, 01:52 PM

My issue had more to do with Broadhopper's wording and general outlook than the issue of the cove. It reminded me of someone else writing in to Time magazine about how we shouldn't worry about the possible extinction of great cats in California and the west, it was more important that people be allowed to live as they chose. I disagree with that outlook.

As for rafters and the bay, I don't care what some of the residents' resons for supporting it may be, I'll always side with the wildlife over a few boat-owners' rights to throw a party.

PROPELLER · 10-08-2004, 09:38 AM

I agree with protecting wildlife & I love loons. My gut also tells me that many times people supporting these no rafting areas only have their interests in mind, not wildlife. Having said that, I will paint a broader perspective beyond Winni to point out what I think happens sometimes in these situations & points to a comment Schaar made. I remember reading about a situation at the Vail ski resort where environmental activists tried to use wildlife to their advantage. Vail wanted to expand some of the ski terrain & these activists tried restrict it on the basis that there was some Lynx that would be endangered. It was later shown that the Lynx had not inhabited the area in over 100 years. I am sure there are many other similar situations where this kind of thing happens.

I do not know alot about specific Loon needs & maybe some one can educate me but what is the difference between say 20 boats at anchor not rafting which is allowed in a no rafting zone & say 5 separate rafts of 4 boats each? How are those rafts more detrimental to the Loons than the 20 individual boats at anchor? Sounds like the property owners have their interests in mind, not the Loons

If no rafting zones continue to pop up around the lake the only no rafting zone will be the broads. I am sure that will be fine with the property owners around the lake I don't that is right either.

frank m. · 10-08-2004, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sschaar

These people are only out to protect their own interests and their using the loon issue to sell it...they want to restrict everybody else from crowding their space and they'll go to any extreme to accomplish it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

people supporting these no rafting areas only have their interests in mind, not wildlife.... Sounds like the property owners have their interests in mind, not the Loons.

Do either of you two know the facts related to this matter? Do you know any of the people you speak about? Have you ever been there? Do you have any basis for making comments like this, or are you just a couple of busy-bodies sitting at your computers with nothing to do except throw darts? Can't you find something better to do?

10-07-2004, 12:41 PM	#1
Sschaar Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 40 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hey ski man lets take your thought process one step further. I'll give you your point, that it's important to allow other animals the right to survive. My point is, that people living in homes on these islands, driving their boats back and forth to the mainland, walking and driving ATV's around the island, and installing swim platforms, aren't distubing the loons ? These people are only out to protect their own interests and their using the loon issue to sell it. I'm sure there's s one or two indivuduals who actually have the bird's interest at heart, but the rest of them own property, and they want to restrict everybody else from crowding their space and they'll go to any extreme to accomplish it. Look at it for what it is.

10-07-2004, 01:52 PM	#2
Ski Man Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 50 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	My issue had more to do with Broadhopper's wording and general outlook than the issue of the cove. It reminded me of someone else writing in to Time magazine about how we shouldn't worry about the possible extinction of great cats in California and the west, it was more important that people be allowed to live as they chose. I disagree with that outlook. As for rafters and the bay, I don't care what some of the residents' resons for supporting it may be, I'll always side with the wildlife over a few boat-owners' rights to throw a party.

10-08-2004, 09:38 AM	#3
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I agree with protecting wildlife & I love loons. My gut also tells me that many times people supporting these no rafting areas only have their interests in mind, not wildlife. Having said that, I will paint a broader perspective beyond Winni to point out what I think happens sometimes in these situations & points to a comment Schaar made. I remember reading about a situation at the Vail ski resort where environmental activists tried to use wildlife to their advantage. Vail wanted to expand some of the ski terrain & these activists tried restrict it on the basis that there was some Lynx that would be endangered. It was later shown that the Lynx had not inhabited the area in over 100 years. I am sure there are many other similar situations where this kind of thing happens. I do not know alot about specific Loon needs & maybe some one can educate me but what is the difference between say 20 boats at anchor not rafting which is allowed in a no rafting zone & say 5 separate rafts of 4 boats each? How are those rafts more detrimental to the Loons than the 20 individual boats at anchor? Sounds like the property owners have their interests in mind, not the Loons If no rafting zones continue to pop up around the lake the only no rafting zone will be the broads. I am sure that will be fine with the property owners around the lake I don't that is right either.