New fees Proposed!!!

Will-C":220i9fh3 said:
From U.S. news
" Over the past year, the EPA has been rocked by embarrassing scandals, including revelations that a high-ranking agency official had defrauded the agency of more than a million dollars over a decade by impersonating a CIA agent, an employee was caught watching porn for six hours a day on the taxpayer dime (and who received a performance bonus), and widespread reports that employees at the EPA’s office in Denver had repeatedly used a hallway as a bathroom".
D.D.
Click to expand...
Written by an author - William Yeatman - who works for a foundation - the Competitive Enterprise Institute - that seeks to reduce or eliminate any government regulation.

Those who think all government regulation and specifically the EPA are bad are encouraged to breathe the kind of air that is present in large cities in China and which would be present in large cities in the US had it not been for clean air regulations put in place in the 70's and updated regularly since then. Does anyone remember what LA skies looked like in the late 60's and early 70's?
 
I'm not opposed to try and prevent the spread. It's my opinion that the money exists to combat the spread of the mussel if it's as bad as it's been stated. I never said everything the EPA did was wrong but where are they on this matter? It is the environment and they are the protection agency right? Some folks, me included think the EPA has gotten a little out of control on some issues. If you don't shut off the source of the mussels how will you continue to keep them from spreading. My objection is to go after sportsmen and boaters for having to foot the bill for a problem they did not create. Certainly the shipping companies who traverse our inland waterways could be held accountable? Make them fund the clean up by raising their fees. Every time there is a problem no matter who creates it will it be the sportsmen and boaters are required to fund the clean up?
 
Will-C":cwhkvdny said:
I'm not opposed to try and prevent the spread. It's my opinion that the money exists to combat the spread of the mussel if it's as bad as it's been stated. I never said everything the EPA did was wrong but where are they on this matter? It is the environment and they are the protection agency right? Some folks, me included think the EPA has gotten a little out of control on some issues. If you don't shut off the source of the mussels how will you continue to keep them from spreading. My objection is to go after sportsmen and boaters for having to foot the bill for a problem they did not create. Certainly the shipping companies who traverse our inland waterways could be held accountable? Make them fund the clean up by raising their fees. Every time there is a problem no matter who creates it will it be the sportsmen and boaters are required to fund the clean up?
Click to expand...
Now there's an idea in there -e.g. charge the shipping companies for the cost of mitigating the problem. As for shutting off the source - at this point recreational and sport boaters are the primary source for the spread. Admittedly, they didn't create the problem but they are now part of the problem and its their (our) boats that need to be decontaminated when we move from quagga infested waters to other places. Of course, such fees to the shipping industry will ultimately be passed on to the consumer (and I'm fine with that - but I'm willing to bet that industry would not be). The points IMHO are: 1) we need effective decontamination of boats that move from quagga infested waters to other places; 2) that the majority of such boats are recreational and sport boats (for example there's not a lot of commercial shipping on Lake Powell) 3) There needs to be some way to fund that decontamination and enforce that it happens (when the word enforcement is used, it implies some governmental involvement) 4) Any useful solution will likely inconvenience the recreational boater since it's difficult to keep track who is and is not a suspect for contamination and 5) Whoever has to pay will likely complain.
 
Certainly a dedicated scientist. Excellent work. But the article does not say what % of the grant was from Government, and private sources. Many seed and early development grants are from private/commercial sources.

The other issue, is taking what is effective in the lab, and translating that into a practical solution on the lakes--and to prevent the spread of the infestations to other areas? Second what side effects may come from increased concentrations of the bacterium which is effective on the muscles on other biological systems which have not been adequately tested? For example the bacteria is a variety of Pseudomonas which can be a human pathogen.

Hopefully this type of work will bring results, but the fact remains that the best way to prevent spread is for boaters to be aware, and take adequate precautions, even without inspections and fees.
 
MilesandMiles":2jfyml7l said:
I'm not sure which parasite is more dangerous: the invasive species or the government "saving" us from them via endless taxation and harassment.
Click to expand...
Well what is your proposed solution to the mussel problem? And tell me how you will get the relevant boaters to comply without some government involvement.
 
rogerbum":1pq35mpx said:
MilesandMiles":1pq35mpx said:
I'm not sure which parasite is more dangerous: the invasive species or the government "saving" us from them via endless taxation and harassment.
Click to expand...
Well what is your proposed solution to the mussel problem? And tell me how you will get the relevant boaters to comply without some government involvement.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who sees every problem (real or concocted) as fixed by running to the government.

Here in my neck of the woods (for example) we're having a decline in lake trout numbers. What is the government's solution? reduce the catch--for the sport anglers only--down to one lake trout. Did the DNR reduce the commercial take? Nope. Did they put any restrictions on the native netting that permeates the entire bay? Nope. You can hardly troll in a straight line for a 1000 yards without dodging a native net in much of Chequamegon bay. It's an example of the government picking low lying fruit by just taxing the general public more, or reducing the catch down to "not worth it" levels.

As far as solving the invasive species issue: I think an already established corporation with strong lobbying ties should "win" a no bid contract to supply the DNR with a mandated boat cleaner. Since this bottle of snake oil (I mean boat cleaner) will be "official" (the government said so) it will cost $99.95 a gallon. A DNR officer will be required to watch you (at gun point) thoroughly clean your boat before it goes in the water (to catch one lake trout).

This should solve the problem by simply pricing 80% of the boating community right out of the hobby.

See, government IS the answer.
 
MilesandMiles":2n2ys0gm said:
rogerbum":2n2ys0gm said:
MilesandMiles":2n2ys0gm said:
I'm not sure which parasite is more dangerous: the invasive species or the government "saving" us from them via endless taxation and harassment.
Click to expand...
Well what is your proposed solution to the mussel problem? And tell me how you will get the relevant boaters to comply without some government involvement.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who sees every problem (real or concocted) as fixed by running to the government.
Click to expand...
No - but someone who recognizes that some problems will require enforcement of some type and someone who isn't willing to leave that to good ole boys just doing the right thing.
MilesandMiles":2n2ys0gm said:
Here in my neck of the woods (for example) we're having a decline in lake trout numbers. What is the government's solution? reduce the catch--for the sport anglers only--down to one lake trout. Did the DNR reduce the commercial take? Nope. Did they put any restrictions on the native netting that permeates the entire bay? Nope. You can hardly troll in a straight line for a 1000 yards without dodging a native net in much of Chequamegon bay. It's an example of the government picking low lying fruit by just taxing the general public more, or reducing the catch down to "not worth it" levels.

As far as solving the invasive species issue: I think an already established corporation with strong lobbying ties should "win" a no bid contract to supply the DNR with a mandated boat cleaner. Since this bottle of snake oil (I mean boat cleaner) will be "official" (the government said so) it will cost $99.95 a gallon. A DNR officer will be required to watch you (at gun point) thoroughly clean your boat before it goes in the water (to catch one lake trout).

This should solve the problem by simply pricing 80% of the boating community right out of the hobby.

See, government IS the answer.
Click to expand...
The above is just a tongue in cheek rant to point out how bad government is but not an actual solution. I'll give you another chance - what's your real solution and tell me how it happens with no governmental involvement? If you can't do that, than perhaps government actually is the answer.
 
rogerbum":1za5ascq said:
MilesandMiles":1za5ascq said:
rogerbum":1za5ascq said:
MilesandMiles":1za5ascq said:
I'm not sure which parasite is more dangerous: the invasive species or the government "saving" us from them via endless taxation and harassment.
Click to expand...
Well what is your proposed solution to the mussel problem? And tell me how you will get the relevant boaters to comply without some government involvement.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who sees every problem (real or concocted) as fixed by running to the government.
Click to expand...
No - but someone who recognizes that some problems will require enforcement of some type and someone who isn't willing to leave that to good ole boys just doing the right thing.
MilesandMiles":1za5ascq said:
Here in my neck of the woods (for example) we're having a decline in lake trout numbers. What is the government's solution? reduce the catch--for the sport anglers only--down to one lake trout. Did the DNR reduce the commercial take? Nope. Did they put any restrictions on the native netting that permeates the entire bay? Nope. You can hardly troll in a straight line for a 1000 yards without dodging a native net in much of Chequamegon bay. It's an example of the government picking low lying fruit by just taxing the general public more, or reducing the catch down to "not worth it" levels.

As far as solving the invasive species issue: I think an already established corporation with strong lobbying ties should "win" a no bid contract to supply the DNR with a mandated boat cleaner. Since this bottle of snake oil (I mean boat cleaner) will be "official" (the government said so) it will cost $99.95 a gallon. A DNR officer will be required to watch you (at gun point) thoroughly clean your boat before it goes in the water (to catch one lake trout).

This should solve the problem by simply pricing 80% of the boating community right out of the hobby.

See, government IS the answer.
Click to expand...
The above is just a tongue in cheek rant to point out how bad government is but not an actual solution. I'll give you another chance - what's your real solution and tell me how it happens with no governmental involvement? If you can't do that, than perhaps government actually is the answer.
Click to expand...

"you'll give me another chance"? Roger, I owe you nothing...

But, I will proudly confess by my own accord that yes, I think governments ALWAYS go bad (is there not overwhelming historical evidence of this?) and ours is certainly no exception.

If you find your allegiance in the government, I would speculate that you're probably paid by it in some way, or that you find reflective power and glory in an abstraction, to enforce your "will" and world views on others at the barrel of a gun (enforcement) Lucky for you, government will always provide justifications for you to feel good about.

I personally can "regulate" myself, and manage my own life better than any monopoly of violence can or will ever do. This goes for just about everything, including keeping my boat clean. Furthermore, I'm certain I can manage my own life far better when not forced to give 50% of my income to a bureaucratic nightmare that can never live within it's means (I mean, the population's means, produced by productive labor)

If "government" truly wants to solve this problem, the solution isn't taxing modest boaters (and "good 'ol boys")…

So Rogerbum, keep your government loving away from me eh.
 
smckean (Tosca)":27il0bbh said:
Strangely, these various arguments from all ends of the spectrum reminds me of the Ebola epidemic (including the international implications).
Click to expand...

fti Please see the following link for a free online course on
the evolving Ebola epidemic:

http://news.emory.edu/stories/2015/02/e ... _EB_030515

Emory University will offer an online overview course on the evolving Ebola epidemic and its various aspects including disease, prevention, management and treatment, response, ethical considerations, communications and a post-Ebola global health landscape.

The course is available via Coursera—an online, educational platform that offers free professional development courses. The six-week course is offered March 31 through May 11.

"Ebola: An Evolving Epidemic," takes a broad look at the West African Ebola epidemic that lead headlines in 2014. Since the outset of the epidemic, the disease claimed nearly 5,000 lives in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. A small number of cases were treated in the United States, with four patients successfully treated by the Emory University Hospital staff.

"We are really excited about the course and truly believe that it will be a terrific aid to the education of a broad audience on this topic," explains Carlos Del Rio, MD, course co-director along with Dabney Evans, PhD, MPH, both of the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory.

The course is intended for a general audience. Some public health and/or medical background is helpful but not mandatory. Those interested in enrolling in the six-week course may sign up at www.coursera.org/course/ebola

"Because we have made such tremendous strides in our Ebola research, it is important to share our knowledge and lessons learned in order to dispel myths and eliminate unnecessary panic," Del Rio continues. "This Coursera course is a great way to accomplish this task."
 
I think boats that come from infested waters should be in quarantine for until the mussels can be proven to be dead. I don't think that would require any more money then the government spend thrifts all ready have fleeced the boaters and sportsmen for. All of the effected states should be contributing to the scientist from New York who seems to have the best handle on the situation. They should also pool resources and decide on the best plan of action. Maybe get all on the same page so to speak. Maybe slow down pissing away monies on items of less priority. This mussel problem isn't all that new and it would seem the government is getting to the party a little late as usual. Obviously no one took the zebra mussels in the Great Lakes that seriously for decades. There are lakes in New York that you can have a row boat on but the boat can never leave it to be used else where. They have to be left there so they can't get contaminated by other waters. More money isn't necessarily the answer to the spread. A fisherman on Lake Ontario said the zebra mussels required them to become better fisherman because the water clarity was so much improved. Any similarities to the Ebola problem are just a coincidence. You can't get Ebola from eating the mussels right? The government is not always right remember the war on poverty? All fixed; right?
:sad
D.D.
 
Is it true that if you have been to Africa in the past five years you can't donate blood? Maybe it's an over reaction?
D.D.
 
Back
Top