[Paddle] Re: registration

[Floyd.Gene at mail.dc.state.fl.us]

I thought that name looked familiar, so I did some searches and saw a bunch
of problems involving name-calling and flamewars on the Tal-rides cycling
mailing list. Please consider my end of this discussion closed.

I stand by my opinion that a relatively token fee may be beneficial to the
non-motorized community by heading off potentially greedier legislation
introduced by powerboaters and non-boaters hungry to see us pay an equal
share and that both T&G and FWC may be valid recipients of such funds as
long as they are spent on projects of benefit to paddlers. I have stated my
opinion and supporting views/evidence as clearly and non-emotionally as
possible and really have nothing more to say on this subject. 

Further investigation may prove me false, but that is how I feel based on my
current knowledge.

Incidentally, if anyone is not familiar with the Garden of Eden Trail, you
can find details at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/guide/regions/panhandleeast/trails/Nature_Con
servancy.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Captain F.M. O'Lary [mailto:ctfuzzy at canopy.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 1:08 PM
> To: Floyd.Gene at mail.dc.state.fl.us
> Subject: RE: [Paddle] Re: registration
> 
> 
> At 11:09 AM 2/14/2005, you wrote:
> >> 1) "Non-profit" definitely does not imply "good" ~or~ 
> >> ethical. I could elaborate extensively on first hand examples 
> >> with CCC to support this position - but this ain't the 
> forum for that.
> >
> >I never said that it was good, only that it was different 
> from a state
> >agency after you said that they (T&G and CCC) were in cahoots. I was
> >pointing out the difference, with one being a state agency, 
> and the other
> >being a non-profit organization.
> 
> 
> Gene, look at the membership of CCC. See any G&T folks on 
> there?? They _are_ "in cahoots" big time, gimme a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> 2) Why should my paddling tax build sidewalks for ~anyone~??
> >
> >Why should anyone else's taxes pay for mapping, outhouses, 
> garbage cans,
> >loads of sand, or a parking lot at a place that we might 
> want to paddle? If
> >you help write the law, you might have a choice in what your 
> so-called
> >"paddling tax" is spent on and help make sure that it's not spent on
> >rail-trails. Let someone else write it for you, and you will 
> most likely
> >lose that choice.
> 
> 
> Laws are written with money. Not with end users. A simple and 
> undeniable fact of practical truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> 2a) Hiking is not done on pavement. "Walking" is done on 
> >> pavement. There is already too much pavement, and far too 
> >> little hiking trail.
> >
> >I agree. So what kind of pavement did T&G use on the Garden 
> of Eden Trail,
> >the Phipps Trail, the Munson Hills off-road Bicycle Trail, any of the
> >canoeing trails etc etc (there are many more, but you get 
> the picture). You
> >are concentrating on blasting an entire organization because 
> they paved 1
> >(ONE) trail in our area (and I'm sure a few more statewide) 
> while ignoring
> >the numerous hiking and canoeing (yes...paddling trails, 
> which is what this
> >discussion is supposed to be about although it keeps being 
> hijacked back to
> >rail-trails) which vastly outnumber the rail-trails both locally and
> >statewide. Not sure what this has to do with paddling or 
> canoe trails.
> 
> Funny you mention those projects. T&G didn't incept or build 
> ~any~ of them, did they? I am unaware of what could possibly 
> be named a "garden of eden trail". Well, discounting the 
> Cadillac trail, now cut to shreds by the government. I figure 
> given the irony, you mean that Micosukee Greenway . . . 
> thing. The thing CCC represented to the local mountain biking 
> community as being in their best interest - you may remember.
> 
> You mentioned being in favor of "paddling tax" revenue being 
> routed to the "T&G" folks. That is how this topic area became 
> relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> 2b) Did you miss the photo of the last "improvement" posted 
> >> to this list for a paddling put-in? AN ALUMINUM DOCK !! That 
> >> is __not__ a paddler friendly improvement.
> >
> >I saw that. That was a nice picture of the work being by the 
> Florida Fish
> >and Wildlife Commission, not the Office of Trails and 
> Greenways. I too
> >disagree that it's not suitable for our purposes, but I have 
> no idea where
> >that comment came from in the middle of a bunch of other 
> remarks blasting
> >T&G. Were you trying to imply that T&G made that dock and 
> called it a canoe
> >dock? As far as I can tell from re-reading Liz's email, it was an FWC
> >project. I too disagree with it, but I would make my 
> feelings known to FWC,
> >not use it in the midst of a tirade against T&G like it 
> meant something
> >against them. 
> 
> 
> It was illustrating the idea of what these governmental 
> agencies (and their special interest subsets) universally 
> seem to think of as "improvements" and how clearly common 
> sense shows that to be hog-wash.
> 
> BTW - what tirade? I pointed out with a clear civil voice 
> that T&G is NOT a paddler's (or mountain bikers's) friend. 
> Respectfully, if you call history being reiterated a tirade, 
> perhaps you need to reevaluate your support of this  . . . group.
> 
> 
> 
> >> 3) We already have legislation requiring bike lanes. That 
> >> means anyone with a non-motorized vehicle has already been 
> >> accommodated - by law. That alone makes a very strong 
> >> argument against paving ~any~ more ground for non-motorized 
> >> traffic, in my opinion.
> >
> >We don't need bike lanes, and most serious cyclists don't 
> really want them,
> >myself included. Most vehicular cyclists would prefer simply a wide
> >shoulder. Not sure what this has to do with paddling or 
> canoe trails as this
> >is a transportation issue (and is covered fully on the DOT 
> website) not a
> >recreation one.
> 
> 
> Again, *you* thought of giving them paddling tax revenue. 
> That brings this squarely onto topic, I believe.
> 
> 
> >> Oh, and I think it bears pointing out that "G&T" and CCC were 
> >> both heavily involved in the effort to get these bike lanes 
> >> written into law (they were also responsible for that 
> >> abomination called the Micosukee Greenway). One would think 
> >> that would meet the goals of any non-motorized (wheeled) 
> >> folks. Just ask "T&G" and CCC, they both said that was why 
> >> this law was a good thing. Now apparently they have a 
> >> different position. Huuummmmmm. Sounds like  . . . . politics 
> >> at play, to me.
> >
> >I'm curious just what you have against anyone who would dare 
> to enjoy their
> >outdoors experince differently than you and what makes their 
> wishes and
> >desires any less important than yours? Many people do not 
> feel comfortable
> >riding on highways, including (but not limited to) small children,
> >inexperienced cyclists, people operating 3ft wide 
> wheelchairs, and skaters.
> >In addition, as much as I do not feel the NEED for a bike 
> path, I must admit
> >that riding or walking through the solitude of an 
> off-highway path is much
> >more pleasant than taking a lane in bumper-to-bumper 
> traffic, which I am not
> >afraid to do either and often do during my commute to work. 
> Once again, not
> >sure what this has to do with paddling or canoe trails.
> 
> 
> I have nothing against anyone wanting to enjoy anything they 
> care to, Gene. I have a problem with being expected to pay 
> for it. A big problem - common sense precludes it !
> 
> BTW - lets not forget CCC & G&T were two of the biggest 
> driving forces in this area promoting this "bike lane law" as 
> a "safe" idea. I'm thinking that should speak volumes !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> fwiw. 
> >> Mike.  <-- wondering what happened to the list were the topic 
> >> as paddling and "political advocacy" was off limits.
> >
> >When the part about political advocacy was put in, I think 
> most of us took
> >that to mean that we shouldn't talk about issues  of a 
> political nature that
> >weren't related to paddling. IE, I shouldn't plug my 
> favorite candidate on
> >here, encourage everyone to vote yes on 14.5 or rag on some 
> non-profit group
> >that I have some unknown bone to pick with etc. What we are trying to
> >discuss here is an issue that while it may not be of a 
> pressing nature now,
> >may very well come to be in the future, and it WILL affect 
> paddlers if it
> >does. I think that everyone agrees that IF we knew that the 
> state was going
> >to require registration, it would be to our benefit to beat 
> them to the
> >punch with a much more paddler-friendly law. We can't ignore 
> it, and while I
> >think that thoughtful discussion of the pros and cons is 
> in-place, ragging
> >on an agency because they had a common goal with a group 
> that someone seems
> >to have an intense dislike for is not. 
> >
> >The question is, when is it too late? Do we wait until the 
> state has a law
> >on the booksand then try to get it repealed? Do we wait 
> until we hear vague
> >rumors of such a law and try to get our law from a standing 
> start to passed
> >before theirs does? Do we wait until they propose the law 
> and try to defeat
> >it or amend it to fit our ideas after it's been proposed? I 
> don't claim to
> >have all the right answers, but I do think that we stand a 
> much better
> >chance of getting the law to read the way we want to if we 
> write it, propose
> >it, and help it pass rather than simply waiting to see what 
> happens when the
> >non-paddlers (AKA the vast majority) write it on their own. 
> That is my
> >personal opinion, and like all opinions I may be wrong. 
> >
> >As I said earlier, those were just some possibilities of how 
> the money could
> >be directed IF we decide that we want to go down this road, 
> and I didn't
> >really think I would have to defend it considering how much 
> good each of
> >these programs does for paddlers already. We may even be able to
> >specifically say that the money would only go to such and 
> such's paddling
> >program and will not be used to buy pavement for railbeds or 
> aluminum docks
> >that are unsuitable for paddlers. If we write the law, we 
> can talk about
> >those kinds of things. As we talk about it, there may be 
> other ways to deal
> >with any monies that may be mentioned later on, but the 
> important thing is
> >that we know there are ways to spend it that can benefit paddlers.
> >
> >I think we've pretty much presented our views here and have 
> shown all sides
> >of the issues at hand with a minimum of name-calling and 
> personal attacks.
> >Let's keep it that way. We are all individuals with our own 
> viewpoints and
> >hopefully respect for each other's viewpoints. This should not be a
> >political argument (or any kind of bashing) but a complete 
> airing of all the
> >factors involved in something so that we can all make 
> informed decisions
> >should that time come where we have to.
> 
> 
> 
> More government in any form is ~never~ better. We have 200 
> years of history just full of examples of that.
>  
> :-) . . in my opinion.
> Mike.
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> Captain F.M. O'Lary
> ctfuzzy at canopy.net
> If cows could fly..you'd appreciate seagulls more.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>