channel

I don’t know why anyone on any side of this is portraying this channel as hopelessly polluted, sounds like they are just making typical portray the Navy as villains assumptions. When I went to boot camp at NTC in 1979 our company marched the bridge over it many times a day, and at that time there were no industrial activities whatsoever on any part of that channel,l a situation that remains today from the looks of the overhead map. Nevermind if the water is so bad why would paddlers and canoists and SUPs even want to be in it?
On the bigger enforcement issue as far as I’m concerned let’s enforce the hell out of antiwake laws and give all these hobbyists the pristine on water experience they desire- and let them pay for it with a hefty permit or day use fee for every one of them to be there.
Our public revenues are stretched thin enough without us having to staff and equip a boat with babysitters for people who all believe what they want do on the water is what everyone should be doing on the water, and that goes for both sides. The guys with jet skis see a channel as an inviting place to play, and so do the people with slower craft. Unless I’m mistaken 5 mph speed limits only apply to being within certain distances of other persons, docks, etc, so there is not a blanket 5 mph limit in the whole channel. If the jet skier is in violation is it because the SUP’s and canoists are farther from the shore than they could be if they chose? All these craft have one thing in common, and why they aren’t on the bay, the desire for still smooth waters.
Still the larger point is if you need a responsible party there full time to referee these squabbles, you should have to pay for it, not the rest of us who aren’t using it-and if that’s unacceptable ban everyone from using it. Problem solved.

Reply