# Making THING illegal should be a CRIME !



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Recently discovering another ban on Jetski'shas reminded me how much it bothers me when people make physical objects illegal. 
Although this particular ban makes operating thim which is a behavior within a certain area illegal it's actually a different behavior that I think they wanted to ban. 
Operating them like a jerk. 
It seems like so often when people are faced with a minor behavior that they dislike or slightly annoys them their responceis to beat it over the head with a sledgehammer.
It seems that many people are annoyed by people frolicking ,the response is to close various parcels of water from PWCs. 
I believe the PWC's are a typically new technology that has not been fully utilized yet. 
For instance while they were banned from the state Marine Park area because of the possibility they could harm marine life there they actually seem much safer. 
I've seen whales or purses and walrus with the typical cash pattern a propeller leaves. 
A JetSki in the same situation wouldn't have left a mark and probably not even a bruise. 

I see this type of response to a lot of innovative new products where the new product that doesn't have many people to stand for it yet is banned and a promising new technology inhibited. 

Why is it that people can't admit it's the behavior they're not happy about and pass narrowly defined rules aimed at that behavior ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I believe the PWC's are a typically *new technology* that has not been fully utilized yet.


They were old when I used to sell them 20 years ago.



AmericanStand said:


> Why is it that people can't admit it's the behavior they're not happy about and pass narrowly defined rules aimed at that behavior ?


Because "narrowly defined" rules won't solve the problems nearly as well as *one *simple rule that says "NO PWC's Allowed"


----------



## Harrier (Mar 1, 2015)

Knowing where this ban was implemented might shed some light on why it was done.

Qui bono? (who benefits).

Often the benefit is monetary, but not always.

Some people just like the ego trip they get from telling others what to not do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were old when I used to sell them 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> Because "narrowly defined" rules won't solve the problems nearly as well as *one *simple rule that says "NO PWC's Allowed"


I think compared to the boat that 20 years or even 40 would be pretty recent. 
Sure banning PWCs will solve any problems they make but unless the problem is simply they exist it's a. Poor substitute for addressing the actual problem. 
For instance if noise is the problem banning PWCs won't reduce the noise of other boats since they can be just as loud. 
Worse yet in a nation founded on freedom it seems inherently wrong create any more than the least restrictive rule.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Harrier said:


> Knowing where this ban was implemented might shed some light on why it was done.
> 
> Qui bono? (who benefits).
> 
> ...


 I've seen PWC bans in a wide cross section of areas, but the one that got my attention is in katchmak bay Alaska 

But I'd like to examine the subject on a wider basis. Like a local lake where airplanes are banned and boats are unrestricted. 
Dangerous grades where engine brakes are prohibited. 
Places where guns are allowed but silencers banned. 

I get it that each of these things can cause a problem but why isn't the problem banned not the item ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I've seen PWC bans in a wide cross section of areas, but the one that got my attention is in katchmak bay Alaska
> 
> But I'd like to examine the subject on a wider basis. Like a local lake where airplanes are banned and boats are unrestricted.
> Dangerous grades where engine brakes are prohibited.
> ...


I'll assume this is the story that stoked your ire. https://inletkeeper.org/issues/jet-skis

Now we can all discuss it with the same facts. A fifteen year old restriction on the use of personal watercraft is up for renewal. It doesn't ban PWCs. You can still own one. You can still buy one. You can still manufacture one. You can still sell one. They haven't been banned. What has been restricted is their operation in certain areas. That is a restriction on behavior. Just what you say you want. 

Back in the good old days I grew up fishing on many state owned and managed lakes that had a 10hp max limit on outboards. Did that mean the state banned outboards over that limit or just restricted the operation of outboards over that stated limit to other bodies of water? Did they ban the motor or its use. Did they ban the item or the behavior of using it? 

Of course there were those who had motors of higher rated horsepower who wished to fish these lakes and swapped out an engine cover with a 9.9 rating for their 15 or 20 hp actual cover. When caught they weren't fined for owning a greater hp outboard but for the behavior of operating it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> For instance if noise is the problem banning PWCs won't reduce the noise of other boats since they can be just as loud.


I doubt noise is the problem.
It's more likely the reckless high speed manor in which they are often ridden.



AmericanStand said:


> I think compared to the boat that 20 years or even 40 would be pretty recent.


Yes, "boats" are older than PWC's, but that doesn't mean PWC's are a new phenomenon.
If you want to get technical, a small dugout canoe was the first "PWC".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_water_craft


> Water scooters - as they were originally termed - were first developed in the United Kingdom and Europe in the *mid-1950s*, with models such as the British 200cc propellor-driven Vincent _Amanda_, and the German _Wave Roller_.[2][3]


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I doubt noise is the problem.
> It's more likely the reckless high speed manor in which they are often ridden.]


 That may be true but wouldn't the point be the same ?putting them in bigger bigger more powerful boats hardly seems like it would solve the problem. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, "boats" are older than PWC's, but that doesn't mean PWC's are a new phenomenon.]


 Using the information you have presented they would to be seem to be nowhere as mature a technology as other boats. In other words if they have only been around since the 1950s they are a very new thing indeed. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> If you want to get technical, a small dugout canoe was the first "PWC".
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_water_craft


 I can see the logic in that idea but the source you quoted defines them as many others do as having a inboard jet drive ,being under 13' long and being operated from on not in the craft.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I'll assume this is the story that stoked your ire. https://inletkeeper.org/issues/jet-skis
> 
> Now we can all discuss it with the same facts. A fifteen year old restriction on the use of personal watercraft is up for renewal. It doesn't ban PWCs. You can still own one. You can still buy one. You can still manufacture one. You can still sell one. They haven't been banned. What has been restricted is their operation in certain areas. That is a restriction on behavior. Just what you say you want.
> 
> ...


 I think your post is a great example of the problem. 
You don't see those restrictions as bans yet think what they would do to a industry if in place on all water. 

On the other hand if there had simply been a no wake restriction wouldn't everyone. Have been as well off and many better off ?


----------



## chaossmurf (Jan 6, 2017)

speaking of no wake zones ----why the heck are PWC told to slow down in those ---when they make a much much much bigger wake when going slow???


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I think your post is a great example of the problem.
> You don't see those restrictions as bans yet think what they would do to a industry if in place on all water.
> 
> On the other hand if there had simply been a no wake restriction wouldn't everyone. Have been as well off and many better off ?


I don't know. What I do know is that from reading the link I posted and several other accounts that before the restrictions were put into place 15 years ago two years of study and debate were done those involved. They likely had a greater knowledge of the issues and ramifications of the action than either you or I have from afar. So maybe you could find a phone number or email address from someone with actual knowledge and ask them if they'd be better off with your idea. I'm not qualified to answer beyond they'll decide what they decide and no one will have their jet ski taken from them if they obey the law. Jet skis will not disappear from Alaska.

Restricting behavior, as you advocate, isn't a ban on an object. Government restricts many behaviors. Alcohol is legal. Drinking it in certain places isn't. Alcohol isn't banned. Driving over 70mph is illegal in many places. That doesn't mean fast cars are banned.

One of my favorite places in the world is the Boundary Waters and Voyaguer Park. Jet skis and almost any other motorized water craft cannot operate there. Sometimes restricting such behavior is a good thing.


----------



## ShannonR (Nov 28, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Recently discovering another ban on Jetski'shas reminded me how much it bothers me when people make physical objects illegal.
> Although this particular ban makes operating thim which is a behavior within a certain area illegal it's actually a different behavior that I think they wanted to ban.
> Operating them like a jerk.
> It seems like so often when people are faced with a minor behavior that they dislike or slightly annoys them their responceis to beat it over the head with a sledgehammer.
> ...


http://www.boatingmag.com/boats/truth-behind-pwc-bans-lake-powell-mead-and-mohave

http://www.seadoosource.com/fueleconomy.html

I was told, long ago that the older jetskis were vastly inefficient and basically dumped about 1/3 of their fuel right into the water as waste. Whether or not this is true, or if I even understood correctly, is debatable.
But look at the stats and see for yourself. That's alot of carbon emissions and burned fuel and blah blah for a personal watercraft. Granted, boats are often similar in their efficiency but they hold more than one or two persons onboard!

So from an emissions standpoint, yes I can absolutely seeing it being harmful to marine life.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I don't know. What I do know is that from reading the link I posted and several other accounts that before the restrictions were put into place 15 years ago two years of study and debate were done those involved. They likely had a greater knowledge of the issues and ramifications of the action than either you or I have from afar. So maybe you could find a phone number or email address from someone with actual knowledge and ask them if they'd be better off with your idea. I'm not qualified to answer beyond they'll decide what they decide and no one will have their jet ski taken from them if they obey the law.


I spent a lot of years working in those waters fishing. 
But I'm not sure that's actually relevant. What I've noticed is a lot of small communities swat mosquitoes with sledgehammers. Worse yet when people make rules they tend to be very narrowly focused on their own individual welfare not that of the community as a whole. 
for those unfamiliar with Alaskan politics they are traditionally greatly influenced by Washington DC and outside conservation groups. 

By the way I noticed in my work in that in similar environments that propeller driven craft seem to do a lot of damage to marine mammals while a JetSki would be more likely to inflict at most a bruise. 
Actually due to the nature of the way marine mammals behave I suspect JetSki's would have far fewer accidental interactions with marine mammals 
In other words lots of whales porpoises walrus and seals cruise 3 to 5 feet underwater which puts them in exactly the zone to get a propeller across the back and a JetSki only interacts with a few inches of the top of the water. 



mmoetc said:


> Jet skis will not disappear from Alaska.


 If you take a look at Alaska you will find that proportionately jet skis have almost disappeared. The banning of them in a few key areas tends to make them impractical. 
Much as back in the day the laws of three key states mandated that all semi trucks be 55 feet long instead of the 75 feet they were allowed in most others. 



mmoetc said:


> Restricting behavior, as you advocate, isn't a ban on an object. Government restricts many behaviors. Alcohol is legal. Drinking it in certain places isn't. Alcohol isn't banned. Driving over 70mph is illegal in many places. That doesn't mean fast cars are banned.


Ding Ding Ding !
You hit it here !!!
Towns ,school zones ,many places ban the behavior of driving over a certain speed. Think what it would do to automobiles if each place we have a speed limit banned completely the operation of faster and slower automobiles in that area ?

Would you have an interstate car and a town car and a country car and the school zone car?
If motorcycles were exempt from the band would you have any car at all or would you learn how to get by with a motorcycle and sidecar?
Think how impractical it would be to start out from your farm go through two or three small communities on the way to the interstate Drive for a bit go through two or three small communities to arrive at the feed store and then make the return trip?




mmoetc said:


> one of my favorite places in the world is the Boundary Waters and Voyaguer Park. Jet skis and almost any other motorized water craft cannot operate there. Sometimes restricting such behavior is a good thing.


 And I can agree with that. 
But it doesn't seem right to pick on one type of motorized watercraft


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I spent a lot of years working in those waters fishing.
> But I'm not sure that's actually relevant. What I've noticed is a lot of small communities swat mosquitoes with sledgehammers. Worse yet when people make rules they tend to be very narrowly focused on their own individual welfare not that of the community as a whole.
> for those unfamiliar with Alaskan politics they are traditionally greatly influenced by Washington DC and outside conservation groups.
> 
> ...


It's simple. I'll trust the local people involved who know the issues to make the best choices for themselves. How would your argument change if it became a federal mandate that jet skis must be allowed on every body of water? Isn't that what you are essentially arguing for? Often the best government is that closest to the people involved. 

You can continue to rant and rail from afar and tell them they're wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> That may be true but wouldn't the point be the same ?putting them in bigger bigger more powerful boats hardly seems like it would solve the problem.


People don't typically drive boats like maniacs.
The problem is how people act when riding PWC's, and restricting their use in some areas is the simplest solution.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People don't typically drive boats like maniacs.
> The problem is how people act when riding PWC's, and restricting their use in some areas is the simplest solution.


True enough on both issues. 
But it's not the PWC that decides how it's operated. Not only is it the people on it but it is the behavior that they have been taught is acceptable or not. 
The point is I don't have a problem with the restricting their use I have a problem with them being restricted FROM use at all. 
Remember this nation was not created for the convenience of law-enforcement. 
I don't think people typically run PWCs like maniac with their use becoming more and more restricted to that type of use it becomes a self-feeding problem.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> It's simple. I'll trust the local people involved who know the issues to make the best choices for themselves. How would your argument change if it became a federal mandate that jet skis must be allowed on every body of water? Isn't that what you are essentially arguing for? Often the best government is that closest to the people involved.
> 
> You can continue to rant and rail from afar and tell them they're wrong.


 Sure a lot of time locals to do. On the other hand this situation isn't necessarily driven by the locals. 

Should the I've got mine now to heck with yours crowd be allowed to rule everything ?
The way I understand it a few rich in holders of land within the park were the driving force behind the situation. 
Then when you add in a few members of the state bureaucracy and national conservation units how many locals were actually involved?

The big thing I see in this is its death by 1000 paper cuts

There are very few jet skis operated in Alaska and it's mainly because of a few restrictions in a few key locations. 

Yet JetSki's would be the safest boats operating around marine mammals and in many of the waters of the state. 
They also have the ability to do much of the work of rule Alaska in a better and unique way.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

"*Making THING illegal should be a CRIME !*"

My second cousin, twice removed, crackgranny69(as she's known on the police force and intermittent internet) has been saying the exact same thing since she was 50. 25 years ago.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Yet JetSki's would be the safest boats operating around marine mammals and in many of the waters of the state.


A Jetski hitting a Manatee at 50 MPH can do just as much damage as a boat at half that speed.



AmericanStand said:


> There are *very few jet skis operated in Alaska *and it's mainly because of a few restrictions in a few key locations.


Yeah, that freezing cold water has nothing to do with it at all.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A Jetski hitting a Manatee at 50 MPH can do just as much damage as a boat at half that speed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that freezing cold water has nothing to do with it at all.


 Kinda stacking the deck ?
Do you have a thing against jet skis or is that statement just for arguments sake ?
Can is a weasel word. Sure it's a possibility but what is the likelihood ? Don't you think it's also unfair to compare 50 mph on one and 25 on the other?
Under what scenario do you think even with you implied could be true?
The worst case scenario oh for the JetSki is that the manatee is rolling on the surface. If the manatee is more than 6 inches deep the JetSki is not even going to touch him. 
But let's go with worst-case what's going to happen when that serviced manatee is one over by a conventional boat ? First off the impact wait is likely to be more on a conventional boat but I'm not going to stack the deck. 
What say the weights are equivalent. 
The JetSki will go on over and leave a bruise and perhaps a small cut. The conventional boat on the other hand is either going to shove him down into the water break his back and then chop gashes across his back or make a good bruise on his back and impact his side with the propeller which will tip upwards and ycut the belly out of him. 
Given the choice I think the manatee would choose the Jetski. 

Your cold water argument about jet skis in Alaska just doesn't fly. People canoe kayak scuba surf and all kinds of other water sports in the water in Alaska.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> There are very few jet skis operated in Alaska and it's mainly because of a few restrictions in a few key locations.





AmericanStand said:


> Kinda stacking the deck ?
> Do you have a thing against jet skis or is that statement just for arguments sake ?


It's reality



AmericanStand said:


> Don't you think it's also unfair to compare 50 mph on one and 25 on the other?


No, because Jetskis will run faster than most boats due the horsepower to weight ratios.
People tend to run them faster, which is why many places restrict their use.
I said that before too.



AmericanStand said:


> Your cold water argument about jet skis in Alaska just doesn't fly. People canoe kayak scuba surf and all kinds of other water sports in the water in Alaska.


They can ride motorcycles too but I bet you see more people with big snowmobiles than large two wheeled bikes.



AmericanStand said:


> Given the choice I think *the manatee would choose the Jetski*.


Manatees are free to ride all the Jetskis they want, where ever they want.
People have restrictions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Sure a lot of time locals to do. On the other hand this situation isn't necessarily driven by the locals.
> 
> Should the I've got mine now to heck with yours crowd be allowed to rule everything ?
> The way I understand it a few rich in holders of land within the park were the driving force behind the situation.
> ...


Maybe you can provide information about the assertion that locals aren't involved so we can discuss things intelligently. I know you often claim to know more than the rest of us but until I see it I can't comment on it.

I do know from my reading that the advocates of lifting the restrictions are those who can afford a $10K-$20K PWC to play with on weekends and the businessmen who make and sell such things. No ulterior motive there, right?

And it's not a we got ours situation. The proponents of the restriction aren't saying people cannot come into the waters just that they must come in those waters with the same conditions as the locals use. 

Until you can show me some constitutional writing that gives anyone the right to drive their PWC anywhere they wish your arguments will fall on deaf ears. If a local body wishes to legally restrict some activity they have every right to. And that type of government should be supported, not decried.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I hate it that this has devolved into a discussion about one item in one place however that being said let's carry-on. 
If you will look carefully on Google or any other source that I have found you'll find quite simply there are very very very few locals living in the kachamak bay critical habitat area. 
So obviously a lot of people outside the area have to do with this situation. 

Looking a little deeper into the argument the idea of letting local people have the say-so on things like this is Democracy. 
That has always turned out to be something to be feared. 
Perhaps the form of government most damaging and least successful. 
Luckily in this republic we have some guaranteed rights for all. 
And that is the basis of this thread. 
The idea that everyone should have the most rights that they can without infringing on others. 
And that is the reason I think all laws should be tailored as narrowly as possible. 
Example of cars being a very good one. 
Generally they're allowed to go everywhere but they are banned from certain areas where they would do more harm than good. And the fact that they can do 100 mile an hour does not preclued their use in school zones at 15. 
The fact that they work well hasn't precluded motorcycles from being allowed almost everywhere and automobile is. 
The fact that motorcycles are quick maneuverable and have higher rates of speed has a preclude them from being allowed most places that behavior simply restricted.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> I hate it that this has devolved into a discussion about one item in one place however that being said let's carry-on.
> If you will look carefully on Google or any other source that I have found you'll find quite simply there are very very very few locals living in the kachamak bay critical habitat area.
> So obviously a lot of people outside the area have to do with this situation.
> 
> ...


Again, show me the links and we'll discuss them.

Show me the right to ride a PWC wherever you wish and I'll cede the point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> The fact that motorcycles are quick maneuverable and have higher rates of speed has a preclude them from being allowed most places that behavior simply restricted


They have to obey the traffic laws.
It's not as easy to enforce the laws on a body of water, so the *simple solution* is to restrict the use altogether.



AmericanStand said:


> I hate it that this has devolved into a discussion about one item in one place however that being said let's carry-on.


It was your example, although it seems what you really want to discuss is a "political" topic rather than a law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ShannonR said:


> I was told, long ago that the older jetskis were vastly inefficient and basically *dumped about 1/3 of their fuel right into the water as waste*. Whether or not this is true, or if I even understood correctly, is debatable.


That applies to many 2-stroke engines.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Again, show me the links and we'll discuss them.
> 
> Show me the right to ride a PWC wherever you wish and I'll cede the point.


 You misunderstand my point. 
There isn't a right to do anything you wish. 
But there Should Be a burden on government. To use the least restrictive way possible to achieve needed results.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have to obey the traffic laws.
> It's not as easy to enforce the laws on a body of water, so the *simple solution* is to restrict the use altogether..


 Laws shouldn't be written for The convenience of the police. 
That's not really the nation that we live in or at least not the one that most of us want to live in. 

Again back to the car and motorcycle illustration. 
Relatively speaking both motorcycles a PWC's are both more difficult for police in automobiles and boats to enforce the law against
Yet we seldom ban motorcycles out right in locations cars are allowed. 

I have no problem with PWC's having to obey the same laws boats do but banning them out right in a location where their operating characteristics would be beneficial just doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> You misunderstand my point.
> There isn't a right to do anything you wish.
> But there Should Be a burden on government. To use the least restrictive way possible to achieve needed results.


A ban on such vehicles in a specific area may be the least burdensome for all involved. To enforce restrictions on speed, proximity to shore or wildlife and the variety of other behaviors which would need to be defined, legislated and controlled against would require much more action. And much more subsequent enforcement activity. 

The local populace will decide and vote just as they did 15 years ago.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Relatively speaking *both motorcycles a PWC's are both more difficult for police in automobiles and boats to enforce the law against*
> Yet we seldom ban motorcycles out right in locations cars are allowed.


That's another false premise.
A police car can easily catch an offender on a motorcycle, and an officer in a boat can see when a PWC commits a violation. The difference is there aren't as many officers in boats and they would have to see the violation to make an arrest or citation.

The restriction on PWC's is exactly what you said they *should* do:



AmericanStand said:


> But there Should Be a burden on government. To use *the least restrictive way possible to achieve needed results*.


It's the least restrictive and most cost effective too, as well as being the easiest to enforce.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Easiest for the cops isn't the least restrictive for the population. 
I've never seen a cop in a car that could catch a moter cycle , I'm sure it could happen but it's rare.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The restriction on PWC's is exactly what you said they *should* do:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the least restrictive and most cost effective too, as well as being the easiest to enforce.


 How can you see it as least restrictive ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> How can you see it as least restrictive ?


Because it's the least restrictive means *that achieves the needed result.*
We're going in circles now.



> To use *the least restrictive way possible to achieve needed results*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I've never seen a cop in a car that could catch a moter cycle , I'm sure it could happen but it's rare.


They don't have to "catch" them.
They only need a license number and a radio to contact cars up ahead.
They can witness the violations the same as they would with any other vehicle.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People don't typically drive boats like maniacs.
> The problem is how people act when riding PWC's, and restricting their use in some areas is the simplest solution.


Same as comparing a Harley to sport bikes in many cases.



Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't have to "catch" them.
> They only need a license number and a radio to contact cars up ahead.
> They can witness the violations the same as they would with any other vehicle.


Cant outrun the radio!

I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Jet skis are not for transporting, fishing, commerce or anything else but screwing off. They go fast pretty much everywhere, most riders are more concerned with themselves and will cause hazards to other boaters by acting foolishly on one! Cut in front of 3 boats and hit that wake heck yeah! I say this with confidence as I once was that kid! You ban 4 wheelers in ditches due to pheasant population but not snowmobiles? That's outrageous you say?!?! Common sense goes a long way. The cost to enforce younduns acting like idiots in one area on a PWC compared to saying NO PWCs is a lot more cost effective and personally if that's what was voted by the people in the area or created because of it rightly so. You brought up guns, if an establishment doesn't allow guns that is their right, I will choose not to frequent it. It's illegal to drink and drive we didn't ban booze or cars, just the mixing of the 2. I can die for my country at age 17 with parents permission but cannot drink a beer until 21, what's with that! Fight for something that matters. Get over it or vote someone in that can change it.YOU HAVE THE POWER!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Jet skis are not for transporting, fishing, commerce or anything!


 Thanks for bringing this up it's a great point. 
The restrictive rules are making this so. Just as a automobile wouldn't be used for those if enough random places banned them. 

I suppose it was my recent discovery of how useful they are at these things that led me to the discovery of how needless laws made it so much harder to use them in these ways.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Thanks for bringing this up it's a great point.
> *The restrictive rules are making this so.*


No, those were the realities before any restrictive rules.
You just want to ignore the facts.



AmericanStand said:


> I suppose it was my recent discovery of how useful they are at these things that led me to the discovery of how needless laws made it so much harder to use them in these ways.


They aren't "needless laws".
They are put in place to solve specific problems.

People don't typically arbitrarily decide to restrict things if there are no complaints of misuse.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> [QUOTE="Texaspredatorhu, post: 7877450, member: ] I'm not really sure what the issue is here. Jet skis are not for transporting, fishing, commerce or anything!


 Thanks for bringing this up it's a great point.
The restrictive rules are making this so. Just as a automobile wouldn't be used for those if enough random places banned them.

I suppose it was my recent discovery of how useful they are at these things that led me to the discovery of how needless laws made it so much harder to use them in these ways.[/QUOTE]

It's no different than a state banning smoking in all public establishments. They did it for health reasons, they didn't ban smoking because you can still walk your happy backside out the door and light up. The reason for the bans instead of trying to catch people acting wrecklessly on PWCs is because of money. Not to mention there are not nearly the "regulations" as there are for autos and motorcycles so in reality what are you enforcing? No wake? Speed limit? Illegal passing? 

I know plenty of rivers where you cannot run more than a 25-35 horse engine. When I was stationed in Missouri I ran into it a lot. Run the electric motors, problem solved. If you are running out of places for your jet ski trade it in for a boat or 4wheeler.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The village near me banned vegetation more than 6 inches tall. 
Are you OK with that general ban since they did want to get yards mowed?
After all it was very easy to enforce you didn't have to check to see what kind of plant or if there was a particular reason for that plant or anything else ,very simple easy PEZy?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> The village near me banned vegetation more than 6 inches tall.
> Are you OK with that general ban since they did want to get yards mowed?
> After all it was very easy to enforce you didn't have to check to see what kind of plant or if there was a particular reason for that plant or anything else ,very simple easy PEZy?


As with most of your claims without links to the actual law and what exceptions it may or may not contain or what bodies of land it applies it is impossible to comment intelligently. According to the way you state the ordinance reads all vegetation over six inches would require cutting down every tree and bush in the village. Is that what it really says?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes that's what it really said.
And like others here have said about other laws they said it would be easy to enforce without any fancy lawyer language or other stuff.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> As with most of your claims without links to the actual law and what exceptions it may or may not contain or what bodies of land it applies it is impossible to comment intelligently. According to the way you state the ordinance reads all vegetation over six inches would require cutting down every tree and bush in the village. Is that what it really says?


So you say. Without an actual link to the actual law I'll maintain my skepticism and refrain from further comment except to ask how many trees were cut to the ground enforcing it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes that's what it really said.


Show us a copy of this ordinance, please.
I suspect there's a lot more to it than what you're implying.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Timber, bush, vegetation not generally interchangeable. I know plenty of places that REQUIRE you to keep your grass and vegetation low to prevent snakes and rodents to help keep PEOPLE safe not to keep it purdy


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> So you say. Without an actual link to the actual law I'll maintain my skepticism and refrain from further comment except to ask how many trees were cut to the ground enforcing it?


 Lol not a tree was lost. 
After a year or arguing and jumping through legal hoops to make it a ordernance it final went into effect. 
The village had a meeting and was discussing where to force compliance first when a audiance member suggested they start with the mayors yard. 
When he spit and sputtered about how nicely he cut his grass a neighbor complained about his tomatoes Then a member of the board caught on and realized it was his chance to get rid of the neighbors orchard (it attracts wasps and bees)

It didn't take long to decide not to enforce that law. 
There were two board members that did want to enforce it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It's your story. Without links that's all it is.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Thank Goodness there isn't a link to everything. 
Would you want to live in a world where there was ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Thank Goodness there isn't a link to everything.
> Would you want to live in a world where there was ?


Nope, I wouldn't. 

But in my neck of the woods all such actions must be publicly posted. New ordinances and laws are often printed in newspapers. They are also often posted online. There's a record somewhere. 

Based on your past posting history I'll take any of your stories with a grain of salt until they can be independently verified. Your memory doesn't always include all pertinent details.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Thank Goodness there isn't a link to everything.
> Would you want to live in a world where there was ?


There should be a way to look up the ordinance online, even in the most backward of communities.
Without proof, there's little reason to believe what you said is accurate.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Nope, I wouldn't.
> 
> But in my neck of the woods all such actions must be publicly posted. New ordinances and laws are often printed in newspapers. T.


 It's sorta that way here. They are posted on some of the poles and notice boards in town. 
But I don't have any idea how to provide a link to a power pole from 20 years ago.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> It's sorta that way here. They are posted on some of the poles and notice boards in town.
> But I don't have any idea how to provide a link to a power pole from 20 years ago.


If the only place an ordinance is posted is on a power pole how do they enforce said ordinance after a couple of rains?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> It's sorta that way here. They are posted on some of the poles and notice boards in town.
> But I don't have any idea how to provide a link to a power pole from 20 years ago.


So now it happened twenty years ago? And your memory of the details is as fresh as if it happened yesterday. Some people have an answer for everything.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeah, Yeah....Let's bust his balls..........That's the ticket...no pic's......Didn't happen.....LOL


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

hunter63 said:


> Yeah, Yeah....Let's bust his balls..........That's the ticket...no pic's......Didn't happen.....LOL


It may well have happened. But there's no real way of knowing. I'm sure more details will be added as they're "remembered".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> So now it happened twenty years ago? And your memory of the details is as fresh as if it happened yesterday. Some people have an answer for everything.


 Heck it might have been thirty. 
Yes I might not remember it word for word. Heck it might have even allowed vegetation as tall as seven or eight inches. 
But the point is that it was a simple law it simply banned all flora over a very short height. 
There's probably a record in the village records somewhere. 
But still no link to that. 
If I ask at next months meeting to be put on the following months agenda I can probably then request a look at the records and then be granted a veiw of the records the month after that. 

Or you could just google "stupid laws" and I'm sure you will find some far dumber. 
Like the town near here where you can't fish from a giraffes neck.

Heck would it make any difference ? The point is a simple easy to enforce law doesn't make it a good one.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Heck it might have been thirty.
> Yes I might not remember it word for word. Heck it might have even allowed vegetation as tall as seven or eight inches.
> But the point is that it was a simple law it simply banned all flora over a very short height.
> There's probably a record in the village records somewhere.
> ...


But you claimed your recounting was completely accurate to begin with. I can't say whether it was or wasnt. I can't prove or disprove your "memories" so discussing such things is pointless. They offer no probative value.

And at least I know you don't live in Boise. http://m.boiseweekly.com/Cobweb/arc...om-the-back-of-a-giraffe-giraffe-not-included


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Just think of it as a hypothetical and it makes the same point.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Just think of it as a hypothetical and it makes the same point.


What point? That anyone can make up a hypothetical to prove anything? Facts prove things. Hypotheticals are just that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hypotheticals are a way to examine issues.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well if someone is operating a powered water craft and the state requires a Certificate of Number (registration) and expiration decals Just turn them in, just like getting their car license plate number. Turn in them buggers, that feel they can go above the law, and mess with other person safety while on and in the water.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Just think of it as a *hypothetical* and it makes the same point.


So you just made it up?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you just made it up?


No


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Hypotheticals are a way to examine issues.


Yep, hypotheticals are a way to examine issues. They are a way to honestly postulate "what would happen if". Which, if you'll note, is exactly what others did when presented with your "true" story of the ordinance. And conveniently your story expanded to include just those objections in your next chapter of this "true" story. How convenient.

So yes your story did prove a point. Others can judge for themselves what it was.


----------



## Harrier (Mar 1, 2015)

Hypotheticals aren't real.

If only the same was true of Johnson grass.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I've lived a long time I can't furnish you with a link to ever moment........you are just gonna have to deal with it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> And conveniently your story expanded to include just those objections in your next chapter of this "true" story. How convenient.
> 
> So yes your story did prove a point. Others can judge for themselves what it was.


Lol face it it was a stupid law. Most people would see immediately that it wasn't going to be enforced. So there's notheing convenient or unusuall about the way it turned out. 

Although I almost wish it had been. I'm pretty sure I could find a link to " town shaved to the groiund over stupid law"


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol face it it was a stupid law. Most people would see immediately that it wasn't going to be enforced. So there's notheing convenient or unusuall about the way it turned out.
> 
> Although I almost wish it had been. I'm pretty sure I could find a link to " town shaved to the groiund over stupid law"


It's your story......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I'm pretty sure I could find a link to " town shaved to the groiund over stupid law"


But you haven't.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

BFF once again you have chopped up a post to change the meaning of what I said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> BFF once again you have chopped up a post to *change the meaning* of what I said.


You said you could do something, and I pointed out you haven't.
What did I *change* about what you said?
(Keeping in mind I copied and pasted your own words)


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol and again with the red herring. 
Are you going to keep doubling down ?


----------



## Harrier (Mar 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I've lived a long time I can't furnish you with a link to ever moment........you are just gonna have to deal with it.


Yeah, there was a long time before the Internet was widely available to the mass public. The last 25 years has been positive in that more information is available but negative (not solely by and means!) in that many people can't find information anywhere else.


----------

