CHECK THIS OUT

[captmac]

http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

Please take action immediately; let our voices be heard!

All you have to do is enter your zip code and the web page will address it to your elected officials representing ( ) your state/district.

[hornyheadchub]

I'm in.

Send it to everyone you know who owns a boat.

[Rusty]

Don't crucify me, I have a honest question. Would this effort help on the prevention of the spread of Zebra mussels? A serious question, so don't start calling me names.

Is this effort only to raise money? Will the money be used for more enforcement to prevent ballast dumps? The reason I ask, years ago I had the greatest time snorkeling in an area where many tourist boats were located. One of the larger boats pulls up within 100 yards of us and dumps the waste out. It looked like a porta-potty had exploded. Needless to say, I payed a price to do this and only snorkeled for 20 minutes. Now if would stop this, then I can see why it would be important to have such laws passed.

Are they positive that it will affect all boats?

[davekeim]

I'm all for the EPA regulating pleasure boat discharge! Look at the big CRAP hole of LOZ. If you want to crap in your boat great but dispose of it properly. My guess is Zebra mussels feed on human waste. How can any one who enjoys fishing Missouri waters support such CRAP! Get it CRAP in your fishing waters! "Honey it's almost full. Please flush the 200 gallons of piss, crap, toilet paper, and tampons into the lake."

You own a boat in Illinois it is inspected once a year to make sure your boat can't mechanically dump waste. It must be fixed to were you can't dump your waste tank. You dump you pay.

I can't see anyone who enjoys being on or IN the water can support this!

If you can afford a boat that has a head you can afford to dispose of the waste!

Also it does not apply to every one who owns a boat. Only those who have the pleasure of enjoying a boat with a shower and head! Think before a sudden reaction to responding to that CRAP link!

Gee! Did I say that?

ABDITO!

Signed,

Cardiac

[SilverMallard]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had those kinds of thoughts when I watched that video. It was highly sensationalized (water washing over the side and then running off the other is "bilge water"...pleeze!). Bilge water is water held in a BILGE in a pretty good size boat. And I am quite certain that the US gov't has ZERO intention of regulating the water quality of the water you bail out of your canoe or jonboat with a bucket! LOL

On the other hand, the JUDGES rules in such a way that would indicate that. But that was just a court ruling. I'm sure some more common sense will enter the legislation in response to that decision. Judges do this sort of stuff all the time. And such sweeping and ridiculous changes NEVER result from those cases.

But I am all for recreational boats in the US NOT being exempt from efforts to insure they aren't discharging pollution into our inland and littoral waters. I'm also all for a sensible, phase-in period for mandating 4-stroke engines on boats. I strongly defended against an attempt by Honda USA to pass legislation in MO several years ago to force a 4-stroke conversion that had no period of years for recreational boat owners to plan for the upgrade. But if they gave everyone 4 years or so to plan for it and didn't exempt municipal, state, and federal watercraft, I'd support the idea in a heartbeat. 2-strokes are nasty, messy water and air polluters. And there are gazillions of them out there on our lakes and rivers.

Interestingly, Doyle Childers was our state Senator then. Now he's the head of DNR. Some of you know he owns boat dealerships. He was head of the state boat dealers' assn at the time. He was the point guy in killing that bill and I talked to him quite a bit about it. HE opposed it because he said boat dealers stood to lose a LOT of revenue in the most profitable part of their businesses: the engine repair shops. And there were 3 boat dealership owners on the committee where this bill was circulating. The bill never got out of that committee.

Now Doyle is our embattled head of DNR, dealing with sexual harassment scandal after scandal, Muslim terrorists using state resources to funnel money to Islamicist terrorist orgs in the Mideast, issuing permits to CAFOs next to state parks and mining operations on sensitive Ozarks streams, and rolling back years of progress in environmental conservation that occurred PRIOR to his watch.

[Rusty]

Interesting background on that guy, thanks. And people wonder how this stuff gets dumped.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Why? If they're big enough to have ballast tanks and visit foreign ports, they can surely stand the cost of protecting our waters.

[hornyheadchub]

My guess is Zebra mussels feed on human waste.

Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) , like the vast majority of their molluscan counterparts are filter feeders. If Human waste is present, then it will be filtered like any other fine particulate from the water. Having raised many different bivalves (mostly spp. found in MO) I can tell you that the particle size is the limiting factor here. A mussel as small as D. polymorpha feeds on particles probably no bigger than ~400microns. Directly associating the presence of Human waste with the presence of D. polymorpha is dead wrong. Suspended organic material, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and microalgaes are what what make up the menu for D. polymorpha. ANY body of water with ANY of the above make for a suitable habitat for D. polymorpha.

As for the spread of D. polymorpha, our ONLY hope is that boat owners take personal responibilty for their own actions (e.g. properly cleaning boat hulls, and trailers and livewells and engine cooling systems etc.). As we all know, if we fail to take responsibility for our own actions to prevent the spread of invasives/exotics, there will be a suit-and-tie guy that sits behind a desk somewhere, who will sponsor legilation to force us to comply with the language as he/she drafts it, regardless of how spot-on it is with reality.

Here are a few links to more info on this issue:

NMMA News Center #1

NMMA News Center #2

Nixon Peabody LLP

PWSRCAC

Here is the ruling (actually dated 30 March 2005). Pertinent info in pages 12, 13, 17, and 18.

I've yet to dig up the 2006 ruling.....anyone care to help?

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

[gonefishin]

Why? If they're big enough to have ballast tanks and visit foreign ports, they can surely stand the cost of protecting our waters.

If a boat is big enough to visit foreign ports is it doing on a lake the size of LOZ, mentioned above?

Not picking on you Wayne you are just the one who mentioned foreign ports so your post was handy.

[Wayne SW/MO]

If a boat is big enough to visit foreign ports is it doing on a lake the size of LOZ, mentioned above?

I haven't been on the east end of LOZ in a few years, so you got me there. What lake did they move all those 40-50' footers too?