- Eddy et al. – my 2 (and a half) cents As a relatively new kiter, a “much older” windsurfer, and a BS Association member, I continue to be supportive ofMessage 1 of 1 , Apr 26, 2009View Source
Eddy et al. – my 2 (and a half) cents
As a relatively new kiter, a “much older” windsurfer, and a BS Association member, I continue to be supportive of the work Jon is doing to restore kiting on Lake Lowell . Knowing little about the full situation at this point… the possible need for Federal Register Notice of rule changes makes me much more optimistic! Is there a lawyer in our group that deals with federal actions????
That said, we need to be open to input from all the members of our loosely organized group (or are we more like tribes) as efforts continue. For this reason I believe some sort of meeting needs to be held to convey information, ideas and even “opinions” that we may desire to expressed. And, we should consider drafting a “letter to the editor” so we can state our positions and get some public exposure. The tone of that letter may be critical to how we are group are viewed, and it can get our objections into an appropriate context (e.g., how can one group of users be singled out for exclusion when there is a public process underway to determine the allowable uses).
Also, when we met with COE on Lucky Peak access (and then on Barley Bay improvements) we had a few representatives to ensure COE understood our group’s position(s). This may be an appropriate time to ID those that should be involved in broader discussions with various agencies and public officials. It seems like it might be appropriate to have at least one kiter and one windsurfer (i.e., have both tribes represented).
Finally, Betsy is secretary and past president (2007). I think she may have a list of members that were pulled together when we formed. It’s probably time to update that list. When formed, our group was open to anyone that had an interest in our sports. Bottom line, more will be better even if our opinions vary widely and the tribes speak in different tongues.
Thanks again for your efforts this past year, and to the many others of both tribes that “help keep an old brave happy”. Jack
P.S. I have many more comments but I still only type at a rate of about 5 words a minute, and to be honest, I think at a much slower rate than that! And besides, less said is some times better.
Jack Harrison, PhD, PE, PH-GW
From: BoiseSailors@... [mailto:BoiseSailors@...] On Behalf Of Betsy Russell
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:06 PM
To: Jim VanDerHeyden
Cc: Boise Sailors Association
Subject: [BSA] Re: Kiteboarding @ Lake Lowell
Basically, my feeling was that such quick action was required that we didn't have time to have a meeting (as Jack had suggested), and since we were all virtually "meeting" anyway on this forum, I nominated Jon to be our BSA rep to handle this kiteboarding issue at Lake Lowell . We're not very formal. No one objected; all I saw was support for this move, and I applaud Jon for his efforts.
Jim, you are up next to be president, succeeding Eddy. You're right that we have no formally established changeover date, and it makes good sense for it to be the spring work party or thereabouts. I see no conflict between any of that and what's already going on. Eddy's in the midst of coordinating the donations now for the weather station. I think our group is working pretty well!
The only thing that could be better would be if I could get out on the water at some point!
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Jim VanDerHeyden <jlv@...> wrote:
Ok, a little insight is needed here.
First I don't want any of the kiters to think I am not on there side,
we are a group. I am just stating what it is that I know so far with
the situation and the knowledge that I have to this point that was
given to me by the athorities at Dear Flat, now and at a pervious
times. It appears that Jon has taken it a step further to insure the
kiters user rights on the water. But honestly that should be up to
Eddy, if we are to stick to the protocol established in this group. I
posted the info for the group in the hope that Eddy would respond. But
as it stands Jon has done so, and Jon and Eddy I believe have talked
about this issue. Jons efforts are appreciated, thanks Jon.
I have been involved in communicating & working with ACE, and Dear
Flat before there was a group. I was also a small part in establishing
BSA. I spent a considerable amount of time doing some of the ground
work to establish the weather station @ L. P. As of last summer I was
asked to be the acting V.P. and then was asked by Betsy and Jack to be
President this year.
From what I understand, a kiter is president one year, a windsurfer
vise president , then the V. P. becomes president and a kiter will
become V.P. and so on goes the cycle.
As a group I believe we need to establish a transfer date, when the
acting Pres & Vise Pres switch out. I vote it should be the spring
work event/party of each year. I am glad Jon is stepping up, but is
this stepping on, like what happened last year with the weather
station situation between Eddy and Myself before I was asked to be
V.P. The lines are being blurred again here and I would like to get
them cleared up. I spoke with Eddy regarding this issue and we agree
to let Jon run with this.
What I do not agree with is that Jon was given this responsibility
without Eddy or Myself being consulted. I am not clear at the moment
who delegated this, maybe it was Eddy, I have not been informed of
that decision so far. In my opinion this un does the purpose of having
a Pres & Vise Pres.
This form should continue to post all activities and situations and
decisions, so that we are all informed as a group, which was my issues
last year that was not being followed through with, but was resolved
then. So that protocol can continue to work effectively in the group,
with the Pres having the "One Voice" out to the other environments.
I also believe that a paper needs to be drawn up that indicates who is
who each year and states the guidelines to work with. AIt would also
be nice to have all members names, phone numbers & address available
to each of us for future use, possible mailings, extended
Thanks, Jim V.
On Apr 25, 9:48 am, Gear Daddy LLC <geardaddy...@...> wrote:
> I¹m signed up for getting a citation also. I got your back Jon.
> From: Kiter - Jon Bolt <idakite...@...>
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:30:20 -0600
> To: Jim VanDerHeyden <j...@...>
> Cc: Boise Sailors <BoiseSailors@...>, Snowkiteidaho
> Subject: [BSA] Re: Kiteboarding @ Lake Lowell
> Thanks for input, Jim. The sail on your pole board is suspended in
> above your board by your mast, and extends far over your head into"Federal
> Air Space" too.by
> To filter the responses and help you get unlost...I have been designated
> consensus to represent the BSA in working with local, state, and federalw:st="on">Lake Lowell . If you
> entities to retain kiting (and windsurfing) access to
> want to preserve windsurfing access which, because of the federal rulesthe sidelines and jumping
> governing wildlife refuges, will likely be threatened too sooner or
> later, please help when called upon. Sitting on
> in just to offer skepticism will not help your (and our) cause. Youcould
> start that help by giving me the name & contact info of the PortlandFWS
> manager you spoke to sometime back.years
> A key starting point to know is that many of us have kited at LL for
> without ban or enforcement of any ban. I myself first kited there in2002
> and Eddy was even earlier. As every year past, the kitinggrew. Never,
> until this year, was a ban firmly declared or atttempted to beenforced.
> Last year was the best wind year for LL I can remember and dozens ofkiters
> regularly used the lake. Rangers came over in their boats to have alook.
> Even then they never approached us to communicate a ban and nocitations
> have ever been issued. The brochure they handed you, which is placedat
> many of the access points, never listed kiteboarding as a banned activitypermitted
> until this year. So, undeniably, kiteboarding has long been a
> activity. If they don't declare it banned, and more importantlydon't
> enforce a ban when they see it, legally it is consideredpermitted. Even if
> FWS contends it has always been banned, a pattern of neglect toenforce a
> ban when the activity is plainly visible constitutes a waiver of the rightkiteboarding, it
> to the ban and likely estops FWS from future enforcement (i.e., getting a
> court to uphold the ban).
> Aside from this waiver and estoppel problem surrounding
> turns out there are many other long permitted activities that inactuality
> are grossly mis-aligned with the chartered role of Federal wildlifewildlife
> refuges. For example, motor boats can be used only for fishing and
> observations. Of course we all know waterskiers and tubers andwakeboarders
> and PWC's have been permitted in the lake by the thousands without ban oras illegal
> enforcement for decades. Your sail boarding could be interpreted
> if you're not carrying a fishing pole or camera when doingit. So there are
> a ton of recreational uses, including kiting, that have been permitted forselectively ban
> years, which in reality are prohibited under FWS rules. To
> long permitted kiting, while also allowing other uses far more pervasiveLL refuge
> and threatening to wildlife, that will not be enforceable. The
> officer (Todd Fenzl) may choose tobe over-zealous as law enforcement
> personnel often are, and issue heavy-handed citations, but if challengedwithdrawn by
> in court, they very likely will not be upheld...if they aren't
> a federal prosecutor before possibly having to waste his time incourt. A
> judge would look at the legal uses on wildlife refuges, observe allpermitted
> the illegal uses that are permitted, and ask why this previously
> kiting use is now banned when far more damaging uses arepermitted. The
> refuge would very likely be estopped from enforcement.something about
> Refuge management knows that the vast majority of public uses of the lake
> long ago got way incompatible with it's federal charter, and that their
> agency allowed that to happen. So now they are trying to do
> that predicament. That something is to embark on a newly initiatedprocess
> in which they'll gather input & involvement from public user groupsand
> stakeholders (in some way presently unknown to me), and eventually weighnew
> that input against the FWS's federally defined roles for wildlife refuges,
> concluding with a new declaration of permitted and banned activities that
> hopefully will have the support of the public (because they don't have and
> will never get enough officers to enforce unsupported bans). This
> process has recently started. It is my goal as BSA representative toget
> the new and arbitrary ban of kiteboarding rescinded right away, includeprocess, and
> kiteboarding/windsurfing in the this new "allowable uses"
> represent BSA in that process. If a fair and full process isconducted and
> leads to a ban of kiteboarding and/or windsurfing (without also allowingfar
> more damaging uses to continue), then we'll all need to honor thatoutcome.
> But personally, I think it will be very hard for FWS to ban skiing,that will
> wakeboarding, tubing, PWC's, etc., and if those aren't banned
> and kiteboarding or windsurfing or other far more benign uses are,
> likely be unenforceable and FWS will be right back where they are today.manager
> So far I have phoned and spoken to the chief refuge enforcement officer
> (Todd Fenzl), and sent emails and voicemails to the outgoing reserve
> (Elaine Johnson), because Todd said it was Elaine that made the decisionto
> add kiteboarding to the banned list (i.e., it was not a broader, higherlast day and
> level federal-wide policy, but local). Yesterday was Elaine's
> she did not return my calls no doubt due to being buried with wrap-upwork.
> Her replacement manager may not be chosen and in place for many weeks orappeal of
> months. The next manager down in the hierarchy to consider our
> this local ban is Susan Kain, the Visitor Services Manager.I have sent her
> emails, but she is on vacation for 2 weeks. In my many calls toElaine I
> spoke with her admin asst (Barbara) and made it clear Elaine's decision tocould
> add this ban and then depart, and Todd's disposition to enforce, will have
> us all headed for an unproductive and confrontational mess that easily
> waste everyone's time in court challenging citations that arewell. I asked to
> highly unlikely to be upheld. I told this to Todd as
> speak to Elaine but that was not permitted. Eventually the adminto
> queried about what I wanted to ask of Elaine, and then went offline
> communicate that to Elaine (I beleive). I said: to rescind thekiteboarding
> ban immediately because of the wasteful legal/enforcement messes itwill
> likely create for everyone, and include me as representative of BSA in thespeak to Elaine about
> new "allowable uses" process. Todd also said he would
> the messes they could be facing. At the end of the day theadmin told me
> they were all discussing the issue and Elaine would phone me backbefore the
> end of the day. That never happened. However, they know theyhave a small
> hornets nest on their hands. I plan to follow-up with Susan Kainwhen she
> returns, and Barbara and Todd (on the results of their discussionwith
> Elaine about the mess the ban will create), and to thew:st="on">Portland manager
> above Elaine.so
> Until then I can't tell all you BSA'ers what to do, but here's what I'm
> going to do. When it's windy and LL looks good (and the water's down
> it's launchable at Gott or the south), I'm going. If I get acitation, I'm
> fine with challenging it in the courts. Maybe Betsy could help get alittle
> publicity to that court action? If any of you choose to do the sameand get
> a citation, I'll help you prevent it from going to court or with the courtarise
> fight if it comes to that. However, if/when confrontations with Todd
> that may lead to citation, WE ALL need to behave with civility, andrespect
> for Todd as a person, speak calmly and reasonably, try to influence himwith
> rational maturity, and not escalate the incident into some other offensew:st="on"> Canyon County
> that leads to poor reputation of our community or worse is a clear offense
> that gets us all kicked off for some other reason (hostility, security,
> vandalism, etc.). We don't want to be seen like just another
> gang.one if
> My goal is to achieve our goals ( 1- lift the ban, 2- inclusion in the new
> process) without utilizing a lawyer...and to also deal with any citations
> without a lawyer. However, at some point it could be wise to retain
> we're serious about preserving our interests at LL, and may need toconfront
> the topic of collective funding.
> Jim, you could help by telling me the name of the Portland FWS manager you
> contacted sometime back.
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Jim VanDerHeyden <j...@...> wrote:
> > I 'm lost in the responses to reply, so I will just create a new
> > I 'm not sure which year it was, 06, 07... when there was the
> > at Gotts Point with the ranger and the kite boarders! That got aw:st="on"> Nampa
> > little bit ugly.... and then the area was closed shortly after. Not
> > because of Kiting but from the amount of vandalism from the
> > gangs.Or. In the conversation I found out that, parasailing
> > After hearing about this I did some research on my own that I believe
> > I posted at the time, can't remember now. I talked with the manager @
> > the Dear Flat office and was directed to the regional supervisor in
> > Portland ,
> > (pulling a waterskier behind a boat with a parasail) on the lake wasprohibits
> > banned shortly after it was popularized some time ago, because it
> > violated "Federal Air Space". There is a federal law that
> > anything from flying in the air over a federal wildlife refuge, and I
> > believe this
> read more »
This message is via your subscription to the Google Groups
"Boise Sailors Association" group.
To post: BoiseSailors@...
To unsubscribe: BoiseSailors-unsubscribe@...
Group stuff: http://groups.google.com/group/BoiseSailors
Sailing stuff: http://fortboise.org/windsurfing/