|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 Previous Item - SPA Advisory Panel
This will go to the previous thread in this topic. | 
Favorite option: If you want this item to be marked as a favorite, click on the black heart.
No Seaplanes Allowed! |
|  Next Item - 90% finished Searey for sale
This will go to the next thread in this topic. |
|
|
|
 |
Dan Nickens - Dec 07,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Severe restrictions to seaplane access are being proposed for a federally controlled navigable waterway. If the Bureau of Land Management selects its preferred alternative seaplanes will be prohibited on much of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. That’s almost 150 miles of beautiful water that will be off limits to seaplanes.<br /><br />A draft management plan has been published for public comment. It can be seen at <a href="http://www.mt.blm.gov/">http://www.mt.blm.gov/</a> by selecting Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument' and “Resource Management Plan.” The public comment period extends through January 26, 2006.<br /><br />Only one alternative, Alternative B, allows unrestricted seaplane access. The others will effectively keep seaplanes off the water.<br /><br />The draft plan lumps seaplanes and Personal Water Craft together for evaluation. Though the authors recognize that there may be some “perceived” differences they are apparently too ignorant or lazy to evaluate them separately.<br /><br />The rationale for prohibiting seaplanes and PWCs is a perceived incompatible with the majority of current users. Most people using the river float down it according to the BLM. Floaters don’t want noise or waves according to the draft plan. Don’t you just hate it when riff raff fliers spoil a perfectly good river meditation? Auntie Penelope was so startled she spilled her afternoon tea!<br /><br />The Seaplane Pilots Association has made no objection to the proposed action. It’s up to individuals to fight this. The best way to do that is tell the bureaucrats that seaplane pilots are legitimate users. Personalized letters are the most effective way of making our case.<br /><br />Inaction will result in the loss of a major resource for seaplane pilots. Please take a few minutes to voice your opinion.<br /><br />Here’s what I’m sending them:<br /><br /><br />Mr. Gary Slagel<br />Monument Manager<br />Bureau of Land Management<br />Lewistown Field Office<br />P.O. Box 1160<br />Lewistown, MT 59457-1160<br /><br />Re: Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument,<br />Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement<br />Public Comments<br /><br />Dear Mr. Slagel:<br /><br />This letter is in response to the request for public comments concerning the draft Resource Management Plan for the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. For reasons described below, Alternative B best meets the objectives mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA). It is the alternative that I support.<br /><br />My use of the river has been for recreational purposes. I’ve accessed the river by automobile, canoe, airplane and seaplane. It is a marvelous national treasure and I applaud the Bureau’s objective of preserving it for multiple uses.<br /><br />Unfortunately most of the proposed alternatives unreasonably restrict public access and use of the river. In an apparent attempt to placate environmental extremist and commercial interests, most of the alternatives, including the “preferred” Alternative F, restrict uses to a minority elite segment of the public. It is clear that those that can afford to take extended floating trips down the river are favored over all others.<br /><br />Motorized access is particularly curtailed in most of the alternatives. The rationale expressed in the draft plan is that noise from motorized craft interferes with expectations of certain users. While the tranquility of the river is a valued asset, restricting legitimate visitors to prevent offending the sensitivities of a minority of the national population is unreasonable, undemocratic, and contrary to the requirements of the FLPMPA.<br /><br />In generally objecting to restrictions on motorized vessels, I particularly object to proposed restrictions on seaplanes. Of all access methods, the seaplane presents the least environmental stress. Access by seaplane is by its nature short term and transitory. There is no pollutant discharged to the water.<br /><br />Unfortunately seaplanes are inappropriately grouped with Personal Water Craft (PWC) for purposes of evaluation. PWC are primarily for water sports and water borne recreation. Seaplanes are primarily used for access. Seaplanes have much shorter exposure times than PWCs. Seaplanes typically do not operate in close proximity to other craft. Waves generated by seaplanes are of short duration and limited extent.<br /><br />The visual impact and perceptions further differentiate PWCs and seaplanes. Most people associate seaplanes with wilderness environments and bush operations. The successful integration of seaplanes in such environments has been well proven and accepted in Alaska.<br /><br />There is no rational basis for combining seaplanes with PWCs in the draft plan. Seaplanes should be separated from Personal Water Craft for purposes of evaluation and management.<br /><br />Seaplanes are safe and compatible with other uses. A study demonstrating the success of seaplanes in operating with other water craft is available through the Seaplane Pilots Association (<a href="http://www.seaplanes.org/">www.seaplanes.org</a> .<br /><br />The draft management plan states that “there has been no BLM-documented case of a floatplane landing on any section of the river outside of the Fort Benton area.” Apparently the BLM documentation is sadly lacking in this regard. In addition to my personal access by seaplane, I’m personally aware of a half dozen other seaplane pilots that have used the river in the past two years. There are many others that have indicated an interest in doing so.<br /><br />Seaplanes have the potential to open up access to handicapped people that would otherwise be precluded from experiencing the Monument. The use of seaplanes for this purpose through volunteer projects in other areas has been quite successful. Cutting off such access would violate the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act.<br /><br />Alternative B provides for access by seaplane. As stated in the Plan, resource protection is not compromised by this alternative. There is, therefore, no reason to consider other more restrictive alternatives at this time.<br /><br />Sincerely yours,<br /><br /><br />Dan Nickens<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
| | Attachments:
BLM Web Site
| | |
|
Jon Ladd - Dec 07,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Nice effort Dan. Do you think it would suffice if I appended a me too! to this or should I try something original?
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Dec 08,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Actually the political pundits say there is more impact from original letters than form letters. It doesn't have to be long winded like mine. If the letter simply and briefly comments, it has the same impact. Having worked on a nuclear waste disposal rule I can tell you that every comment is logged and summarized for the proposing agency and a response is generated.
| | |
|
Mark Alan MacKinnon - Dec 08,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
I am a member of SPA and would like further info on why they are taking no action on this one.
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Dec 08,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Me too, Mark. Maybe because the area doesn't have routine seaplane users they don't care. Maybe they don't want to upset the airplane groups that have lobbied to keep the back country strips open. Maybe they think it's just a 'regional' issue. There is a recent thread on the SPA forum concerning this issue but there has been no pronouncement forthcoming from the hallowed halls of seaplanedom.
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Dec 08,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Actually, Mark, the quick way to find out SPA's position is simply to call Mike Volk. I did. He expects to make a 'major announcement' concerning the Plan in the next several days. Mike says the Association has 'been working behind the scenes' to change the proposal. As a result the deadline for comments has now been extended until April 2006. He suggested that any comments be delayed until SPA publishes its position that will include 'additional legal ammunition.'<br /><br />Why the need for secrecy in SPAs efforts? I don't know but I'm willing to give them the benefit of a great deal of doubt.
| | |
|
Mark Alan MacKinnon - Dec 08,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
Thanks for taking the time, Dan. Looks like they are doing something, and had their reasons for keeping it under wraps until ready for announcement.<br /><br />SPA has been under critical fire recently, but I think it is a good organization that is small but growing. They are still small enough where you can call and talk to the president directly. Try doing that with AOPA or national EAA.
| | |
|
Chris Vernon-Jarvis - Dec 08,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
You may also care to have a look at BC and have a word with Fred G.<br /><br />There was a proposed policy to close all Park lakes to seaplanes, however after careful lobbying and negotiation the powers that be were persuaded that they were considerably less polluting than the alternatives and in fact the Seaplane Association is now a monitoring and stewardship group for most Park lakes.
| | |
|
Fred Glasbergen - Dec 09,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
When a group start suggesting of banning float planes it can lead to a slippery slope where all sorts of groups think that this is a good idea. I just read on the Av Web that Chicago is thinking of banning float planes, what is that all about? For those interested should go to our web site <a href="http://www.bcfloatplaneassociation.com/">www.bcfloatplaneassociation.com</a> and you will be able to see the proactive partnership agreement that we made with BC parks and our provincial government. It opened a lot more lakes and we now have become some sort of stewerdrship of our parks.<br />It was'nt done by just talking to bureaucrats and park wardens who are more concerned <br />about there own jobs.Sure that is the same in the US. Get hold of the politicans and let them know your concerns and get after the SPA to make sure they do something and with enough letter's and phone calls they can't ignore this problem.
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Dec 09,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
In recent conversations with SPA I've cited the example of what you guys are doing in B.C., Fred. SPA is just now starting to figure out they need to be proactive and you are showing the way.
| | |
|
Rick Oreair - Dec 10,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
I think that is an idea whose time is really come in Florida. We should be volunteering to be as Chris put it'Stewards' of our waterways. Who better than us? Dan, thanks for getting the ball rolling, if it can happen elsewhere, it can happen here.
| | |
|
Dan Nickens - Dec 10,2005
Viewers
| Reply
|
| |
The Seaplane Pilots Association has added a Regulatory Brief to its web site (see <a href="http://www.seaplanes.org/advocacy/breaks.htm">www.seaplanes.org/advocacy/breaks.htm</a>. Members are encouraged to comment on the proposed regulatory plan. In summary SPA recommendations would have members include the following assertions:<br /><br />1. There is no “factual or evidential basis” for excluding seaplanes in the plan;<br />2. The river is a federal navigable waterway held in trust for the public that facilitates interstate travel by seaplanes that cannot be closed under federal law;<br />3. No basis is cited in the document for differentiating seaplanes from motorized boats;<br />4. Closing the river to seaplanes puts pilots at risk in bad weather or when mechanical problems occur during transit;<br />5. Together with the Charles B. Russell Wildlife Refuge the proposed plan will prohibit seaplane operations on nearly 200 miles of the Missouri River.<br />
| | Attachments:
SPA Advocacy Brief
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
- About Searey.us -
- Contact Searey.us -
|
- Privacy Statement -
- Terms of service -
|
Copyright © 2024 Searey.us & Brevard Web Pro, Inc. -
Copyrights may also be reserved
by posters and used by license on this site. See Terms of Service for more information.
|
| |
- Please visit our NEW
Chapter Place Website at: chapterplace.com or
Free Chapter Management Website at: ourchapter.org. Good for all chapters, groups or families. |
| | | | | | | | |
