Disqus - Latest Comments for alongtimeislander

Re: Dismayed by indifference | Letters - Journal of the San Juan Islands

alongtimeislander — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:36:03 -0000

Not everyone shows their support by going to Memorial Park....some took a moment of silent reflection to say a prayer of thanks.....

Re: Proposition 2 looks like a winner for small businesses | Letters - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 22:18:21 -0000

So we are told to support Plan A or there might be no garbage. Or that the garbage will only be picked up by a contractor. But what we aren't told is that this PLan A can cost you more than you realize. The plan calls for a $100 per parcel fee. Not $100 per owner fee. So anyone who has more than one lot, get ready to pay your $100....and another $100....and another for each and every parcel. How is this even remotely fair?

Fair warning to the Public Works Department---we are tired of waste. We are tired of inefficiency in our waste disposal. We are tired of roads that are not tended too or missing striping in the road or shoulders not mowed because over half a million dollars were spent on upgraded equipment.

Show the citizens you can be fiscally responsible and we'll back a rate change. But until then, everyone I know is voting like me--a big NO for Plan A.

Re: County prosecutor supports Prop. 2 | Letters - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:10:39 -0000

I can not in good conscience support this measure. There are too many unanswered questions. Our current system doesn't work, and a YES vote means throwing more money at a system that has been shown to not work properly. Also not addressed in anything I've read--what happens to the property owner with multiple parcels? A parcel fee means that property owner is going to pay multiple times, even though he may only have one home. And since when do we the tax-payers of San Juan County have to underwrite a private, for-profit business? Currently the tipping fees for individuals is much greater than San Juan Sanitation. Garbage from one user doesn't weigh any more per ton than another, so why should a conscientious homeowner who does separate his garbage and recycling carefully be penalized by paying higher rates?

We need a Plan C!!!! Make the department of Sanitation a separate entity. Not part of Public Works. Then we can see EXACTLY what it costs to run the dump, add some percentage for overhead and improvements, divide that by the projected amount of trash and debris brought in, and voila--there is the rate for EVERYONE! No one is taxed more than the other. No one who doesn't use the dump is charged. Privatizing the dump may be the solution we need. Competition usually results in lower fees to the end-user. The contract can be short-term for the private contractor operating the system, and if it's not working out, a new contractor could come in and make things better.

But requiring mandatory curbside pickup is NOT the answer. Nor is it practical. Many private roads serve dozens of homes. Can you imagine how much trash will be littering our roads when all those homeowners are required to leave their cans miles from their homes???? Line after line of trash cans lining our scenic byways.....

VOTE NO and tell our government we want effective change.....

Re: Why Faster Broadband? Well... consider the case of Cedar Falls - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:13:47 -0000

We were one of the last areas on the island to get DSL, upgrading from 26K to 1.5mbps. And it was amazing how the computer world opened up to us. But now it's slowing down as it encounters streaming video, etc. Please get us at least up to if not beyond the national average!

Re: San Juan County's recycling numbers dip; trash continues to tumble - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:19:31 -0000

Stop being so ecologically minded! You are costing us all more money! OK, I am seriously joking there. I think it is great that people are dumping less because they are getting smarter. Composting their food waste, recycling more, buying in bulk instead of individual containers. Reusing or re-imagining their waste products. And yet the solid waste department sees this as a bad thing? I have yet to understand the logic there, or the logic in charging different rates. My garbage weighs the same per unit as the big guy, yet I'm charged more. My vehicle doesn't visit the dump often (thanks to recycling), so it would seem logical that I have a lower impact on the facilities as well. We need to figure out how much it costs to run the dump per annum, and how much waste is typically generated on an annual basis, add a bit more for upkeep and future planning, divide and voila--there is your fee to dump. Is it me or is that too simple?

Re: Griffin Bay Bookstore presents two men who love movies - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:12:30 -0000

So glad that Andrew is getting his due! As anyone who has worked with him (9 plays), I know first-hand the professionalism Andrew brings to everything he does. He knows what he wants, and everyone who has been in a play with him rises to a higher level as a result. I am honored to call Andrew my friend.

Re: An Elephant Ear Hot Line - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:20:42 -0000

I fell off the elephant ear wagon after 2 years.....and it was delicious!

Re: Whale Museum Lecture on the effects of whale watching boats on migrating whales - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:56:31 -0000

Those who went to the fair or had other things going on sure missed a good lecture. Dr. John (no relation to the musician as far as I know) knows how to put on a good lecture. Lots of information, backed by science, with just the right hint of humor. We are lucky to live in a place where so many talented people come to share their knowledge with us!

Re: Counterpoint: Salmon recovery matters most | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:50:36 -0000

Well stated. Thank you for your thoughtful remarks!

Re: Author of 'State of the Orca' responds to critics | Opinion - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:06:43 -0000

You are correct that my comment was meant to state you are not a practicing marine biologist. I actually have read your website and also read your background. So it is my fault if the other reader thought I meant that you had no background in biology. And like many people on the island, I was also aware that you were with Ken when TWM was started.

Re: Author of 'State of the Orca' distorts, misstates facts | letter - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 15:16:54 -0000

Monika--as you know since you've lived on the west side for a few years, the whale watch guidelines have been an adaptive process. In the late 90s, at the height of the whale watch industry, the guideline was not to be motoring near whales. So boats would shut down ahead of whales and hope that the whales might come by the boat. Then the new guidelines came out and said that boats were to maintain 100 yards, and that there would be a voluntary "no-go zone" corridor along the west side extending from shore to 1/4 mile (except at Lime Kiln, where it would be 1/2 mile). The operators adjusted their operating procedures to accommodate the new rules. Now the law says 200 yards, and most of the operators are abiding by that. I think it says a lot that many of the commercial boats not only abide by the rules, but encourage other boats to do so as well. Yesterday, I saw this behavior in action first hand. Whales were spread all over Swanson Channel, and a private fishing boat was traveling in a direct line towards whales at over 30 knots. 3 commercial whale watch vessels saw the approach, broke off from watching whales, and formed a floating "wall" while giving the 5 horn blast danger warning. The boat shut down just short of running over whales, turned away, and diverted course.

It is also interesting to note that even members of Orca Relief have told me directly that they feel that whale watching vessels, when incorporating strong educational components and following the guidelines are doing more good than harm.

As for the no go zone, I can't see how that could be enforced in the manner we'd expect. We can't get enough enforcement presence to be there for the existing rules, and then you run afoul of shipping rules and regulations, Coast Guard rules, etc. And who do you exclude or include? And then what about treaty fishing? Commercial fishing? Sailing? Kayaking? It's just not practical and I don't believe it would make much difference. The whales feed everywhere

Lastly, I think it is very important that we recognize that when NOAA or any other study comes out and identifies vessel disturbance factors, that we are sure to realize that this includes more than just commercial whale watch boats. Commercial fishing vessels, treaty Indian fishing vessels, private motor vessels, shipping traffic (which can be detected for many miles before they are even in the area of whales), armed forces vessels, government vessels, ferries, tugboats, and yes, even sailing vessels and kayaks are included in the statistics. I think it is also equally important to recognize that the VAST majority of incidents are private boats. And that includes when whale watch operators are present or not. Ken Balcomb said it well, the whales don't really seem to care if boats are there or not. They are highly intelligent and adaptable. I don't know if you were a waterfront owner back in the hayday of commercial fishing, but there would be hundreds (up to 300+) of commercial fishing vessels, streaming out their nets with their tender boats, engines roaring at full bore, nets everywhere. And amongst all this cacophony of noise, there were orcas, plucking salmon out of the nets.

The single most important factor in ensuring the long-term survivability of SRKWs is salmon salmon salmon. Period. That's what we need to focus most on. And as a marine naturalist, that is one of the important lessons I teach. One of many. But I appreciate your comments.

Re: Author of 'State of the Orca' responds to critics | Opinion - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 02:31:45 -0000

Not true--many people who are speaking out are not part of the whale watch industry. And it is not a fact that whale watch boats are harming whales. What does it say when even Ken Balcomb says the boats are not the issue? And that the vast majority of incidents recorded involving boats are private boats, not whale watch operators?

There are really 4 factors affecting the orca population:
1. Salmon salmon salmon--population is 10% of what it used to be. Cause: destruction of spawning habitat.
2. Pollution--PCBs and DDT are causing whales to have major issues. Washington state even recently outlawed PBDEs (fire retardant) after young orcas showed alarming levels showing up in their tissues.
3. Often overlooked is the fact that we lost 49 orcas to the captures. Most of them were young females. But the population is still feeling the effects from this as you can only imagine how many orcas were never born to the SRKW population. So we still feel this effect today.
4. The effects of vessels (all vessels from kayaks to shipping traffic) are still under study. No one can truly know the effects at this point. Orcas are highly adaptable and extremely intelligent. What does it say when there used to be 300-500 commercial boats on the west side, all with their engines running and boats moving nets and hauling gear, and there amongst the boats would be orcas swimming along, pulling salmon out of the nets? I find it ludicrous that Orca Relief and its' supporters suggest that whale watching boats and ONLY whale watching boats are killing orcas. Not a fact at all as suggested by anotherislander. It is hype plain and simple. Enough is enough.

Re: Can we share the sea? Reaction of those on the water to new federal rules - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 02:22:37 -0000

Sitting from shore and trying to judge distance is haphazard at best. I was sitting at the West Side Preserve (known as the Land Bank to everyone else), and I noticed a boat I knew well and it appeared to be fairly close. Knowing how careful the captain of that boat is, I called him on the cellphone, and asked him to use his rangefinder to see how far it was. Two other people were with me, both experienced whale watchers, and we all guessed between 100-150 yards. Wow were we wrong. The rangefinder pegged the whales at 235 yards. Judging distance on the water is hard--and judging from shore over water is even harder without proper equipment.

As for Monica Harrington's comments about not being able to report from shore---anyone can call a report in. If you don't know how, call The Whale Museum and they can help you too. That's too bad that the rangers at Lime Kiln weren't aware of that. Or you can look on a copy of the Be Whale Wise Guidelines--the 800 number is right there.

As for lumping all boats into one group, as Ken Balcomb says, that's just ridiculous. It's like saying everyone who drives a car speeds and tries to run over pedestrians and bikes. Not true either. I know some commercial whale watch operators who are extremely sensitive and go out of their way to be extra careful around orcas (or any other cetaceans for that matter).

The bottom line is this and is undisputable: humans destroyed the breeding grounds for salmon to provide ourselves with cheap energy; we clear-cut forests to feed our lumber/paper needs and that resulted in spawning streams becoming unusable for spawning. We captured salmon like it was going out of style. That is what needs to be fixed immediately. No salmon=no Southern Residents.

But discourse is good. I'm glad that more of the truth is coming out in the rebuttals to the tripe being disseminated by Orca Relief. Thanks to everyone who has weighed in--I know for some it was hard, but knowing some of your backgrounds, I am glad to have your comments here!!!!

Re: Body of 20-year-old drowning victim recovered from Lawson's pond - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:24:33 -0000

I've known Landis for many years, and he always struck me as a very nice young man. He always had time to chat for a minute and was polite even when I knew he had other things to do besides talking to a friend of his dad. Our prayers go out to his family and his friends.

Re: Author of 'State of the Orca' responds to critics | Opinion - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 16:31:59 -0000

Malby4---to answer your question--NO, Mark is not a marine biologist. And some of his statements would lead one to believe that some of the research he quotes and events he mentions were recent phenomenon. And yes, he uses a lot of inflammatory wording (violently attacking) to make it appear that whale watch operators are twisting their long-handled mustaches while sitting on piles of money at the expense of the orca whales. I know many local operators who are extremely conscientious about how they operate around whales. They do a lot of education both on the water and along the shoreline. They volunteer for projects such as beach clean-ups, volunteer with The Whale Museum, and other NGOs (non-governmental organizations). Many company naturalists regularly attend lectures by local researchers getting the latest data on the whales, and they share that with people.

About the only thing Mark Anderson said in both his original posting and rebuttal that is true is---we need more salmon here. But that will only happen when humans stop interfering with the streams and rivers that the salmon need to spawn; and that we limit the commercial harvesting of salmon for a few years to allow more adults to return to spawning rivers; and that we put a complete halt to "open" salmon fish farms that pollute and cause more problems than they solve.

And as SJI111 said in their reply----it's not the commercial boats that are the problem--it's the private boats. The commercial operators are required to be aware of the guidelines, and I have watched from shore and the last few years the operators have been much better. You'll see them lined up at the 1/4 mile buffer along the west side while private boats and kayaks are inside the buffer right on whales (and I've watched countless private fishing boats zooming to their special fishin' hole right over whales). But Mark isn't asking for them to be excluded. Only commercial boats.

It's refreshing to see that people are calling Mark Anderson out on his statements. As one writer wrote, it's been too long that no one has replied (maybe they figured that if they ignored him,he'd go away).

Re: Author of 'State of the Orca' responds to critics | Opinion - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 19:50:50 -0000

Again, errors abound. Is it any wonder that Anderson and Orca Relief have such little credibility? 18 calves have been born recently--as stated by another author--6 females, 8 males, and 4 unknown at this time. So that's pretty close to even as far as birth rates of males versus females. Yet Anderson continues to mis-state the actual facts to fit his suppositions.

And yet again, the work done by NOAA and NMFS does not once specifically isolate whale watching vessels as harming the whales. Instead it states vessels. Motorized vessels during the study period included whale watch vessels, private motor vessels, sailing vessels, kayaks, commercial fishing vessels, marine shipping traffic, government-related vessels (including but not limited to Naval vessels, Coast Guard, enforcement vessels), and other vessels engaged in commerce.

Also, Anderson fails to mention that some of the studies he quotes are from pre-standoff periods. In other words, in the 90s and early 2000s, whale watch vessels, along with all other vessels would shut down and not adjust for the whales projected pathways. With the 100 yard and subsequent 200 yard rule now in place, a new study to determine metabolic rates would be advisable.

And again, no proof of "orca blinding" has been presented or research even been done yet since the implementation of the new 200 yard buffer. Anderson creatively uses words to infer that the research confirms his conclusions, but does not prove it.

Anderson shows his clear bias by suggesting that eliminating commercial whale watch vessels, which as a class of vessels on the water attribute the LEAST in regards to violations of the regulations in favor of allowing the class of vessels with the LARGEST portion of violations (private boats) shows clearly and demonstrably that Anderson has an agenda not for the whale, but against whale watch operators.

Instead of these unfounded rants, it would be nice to see Anderson and Orca Relief try to work to find a real solution. In talking to those in the know, not once has he tried to work with everyone to find a real solution. He is borrowing credibility here by trying to affiliate himself and his organization with People For Puget Sound, The Whale Museum, and others (but curiously not mentioning one of the most preeminent research groups here, The Center for Whale Research).

It's time that islanders had their eyes opened indeed--to the truth and not the hype generated by Orca Relief. For too long the falsehoods of Orca Relief leader Mark Anderson have gone unanswered--and now the people are speaking up.

Re: The 'State of the Orca' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 03:48:33 -0000

Mark--how on Earth can you stand behind a published editorial such as this when every single "fact" you list is in fact erroneous? Your credibility is well, nil. Again.

Re: Whale watch operators respond to Anderson's 'State of the Orca' | Opinion - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:20:34 -0000

Nicely said Monika! It's about time we hear the real truth and not the constant distortions by Orca Relief! Fact trumps emotion every time.

Re: 'Denied': state Corrections rejects Level 3 sex offender's request to move to San Juan Island - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:58:55 -0000

This placement was fraught with problems from the get-go. Good on the State Corrections Board to realize their mistake and prevent this move!!!!

Re: School Board and superintendent deserve support | Letters - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 02:54:03 -0000

If Gary does move on to another school, I wish him and his family all the best. In reviewing the last few months, the whole Board vs. Principal & Board vs. Community has resulted in a lose-lose. We are losing what seemed to be a great principal who was involved with his students, invested in his staff and school. But we've also lost that sense of trust in our school board. I hope that in whatever iteration the school board takes after the elections this fall, that it can move forward in a spirit of cooperation with those most affected by its' decisions--the school, the staff, the students, and their parents. We have a lot of talented folks working hard to get our kids the best education possible and we don't need a Board operating in a manner that fosters distrust in those it serves. We need a sense of stability--we don't need to keep changing the players around if something is working.

Since it appears at this point that there is not going to be a resolution of the matter that maintains Gary as principal, I suppose we need to move on and do something quick so the kids don't suffer. But that doesn't mean we need to sacrifice quality for speed. Let's do it right the first time and stick with the decision...

Re: Dog struck, killed by car; handgun heisted; DUI's aplenty: San Juan County Sheriff's Log - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:16:15 -0000

How depressing. There isn't a person alive that isn't aware of how STUPID it is to drive while impaired, and yet it still happens. If you drive after drinking, you are gambling with your life and the life of every other driver on the road. Don't be stupid--have a friend or a cab drive you home. How many islanders do we have to lose before we finally get tough with drunk drivers? Why aren't we cracking down harder on these idiots? Take away their cars and sell them in auction. Revoke licenses. Make 'em wear a sign and stand on the corner so they can be publicly humiliated! As a person who has NEVER driven drunk, I just don't understand the mindset of a drunk driver..... I'm just sayin...

Re: Recall supporters lose sight of 'bigger picture' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:03:26 -0000

interesting how 4 teachers were allowed to see the information in question... so I guess I was right after all....

Re: Recall supporters lose sight of 'bigger picture' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:06:42 -0000

Hmmm....for some reason my response to you has disappeared, so I will repost. To quote you Islandmom1, "you don't know what YOU don't know" either. If the School Board were to appoint an oversight committee, the members of that committee would be acting as agents or subagents of the Board. As such, and in conjunction with a completed and legally binding non-disclosure agreement (NGA), they COULD indeed be privy to all the details of the process that went into the decision to ask Principal Pflueger for his resignation. Just as the Board and the Superintendent are allowed to look at the information, this oversight committee could then report back the community at large whether a proper course of action has taken place (and this could be done without releasing one shred of information to the community at large.) Problem solved and we could all move on.

Re: Recall supporters lose sight of 'bigger picture' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:23:35 -0000

Elected officials, whether they are paid or not, must be willing to justify their actions to their constituents. So yes, every islander has the right to question the decisions of this Board. I applaud that they are serving for no pay, but that doesn't mean I can't call them to task when their decisions run counter to the beliefs of the community and school they serve. And to quote you, "you don't know what you don't know." The Board can indeed create an oversight committee. If structured properly, it can convene within the laws of jurisprudence and still maintain client (Principal Pflueger) confidentiality.

And yes, I GUARANTEE you that this fall will have multiple candidates running for school board.

Re: Recall supporters lose sight of 'bigger picture' | Guest Column - Journal of the San Juans

alongtimeislander — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:18:03 -0000

OH, and if there is an oversight committee formed, I'll gladly and freely volunteer my time!