Jump to content

Misty IV

Professional
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    887

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Misty IV

  1. Misty IV
    I contacted my neighbor and these are the links he provided. LORA has some of the best information available on the impacts of BV7. http://www.loranet.org/ http://www.STOPplanBV7.com One thing to keep in mind is that the increased average level of the Lake means that all those streams, creeks, and even river mouths will need active, annual dredging to REMAIN NAVIGABLE. The individuals pushing BV7 (ie. politicians) DON'T CARE and/or ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THIS BASIC THREAT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMIES AND LIVELIHOODS. They live nowhere near the lake and have absolutely NO idea what they are proposing on us, let alone the impending damage to the shoreline and communities should BV7 go through. All they see is a "boost" to their political career. The Leveler/LORA group out around Rochester is the best disseminator of "untainted", sober, anti-BV7 info. Congresswoman Buerkle IS THE ONLY POLITICIAN THAT IS NOT ON THE FENCE RIGHT NOW, OR FOR BV7 OUTRIGHT. BOTH should be contacted by all of us. Buerkle is fighting for her political life and is THE ONLY ONE on our side so far. SHE needs our support. Mexico Bay used to have 100-200 feet of gently sloping "sandy" beach before 1958DD's effects manifested themselves. My family and at least 60 others, have been on our stretch of the shore since the 1920's; i.e. long before development of the St. Lawrence system. Point being that the shoreline WAS BROUGHT TO US, and hundreds of other properties, business and private, by 1958DD. I wasn't around yet for that change of shoreline and my aunts and uncles only remember the battles to save structures through a child's eyes. The "transparency" deficiency comes about because of complexity of these issues and lack of "layman's" terms being out there. The media has not been out front thus far, except on the St. Lawrence where the priorities are decidedly very different. Unfortunately apathy, and the "head-in-the-sand" strategy/attitude of many stakeholders compounds the lack of "public education" out there, and blunts any impact we can have on the debate. Essentially the River people DO NOT have to adapt and repair property due to storm surges coming across the 180 mile fetch of the Lake. All man-made defenses, and natural, have developed over time in response to the existing 1958DD. ANY increase in the "storage" of water on Lake Ontario effects us directly, and the regular exceeding of the current 247.3 ft. level (upper limit) during the Spring storm season has been particularly destructive/damaging to our stretch of shore. What we've seen over the last 30 years has been a regular pattern of the Spring freshet being trapped in the marsh areas inland from the shore. The "trapping" has been done by storm surges pushing cobble and debris into the majority of outlets to the Lake. The "mechanix" of the flushing going on along the Eastern Shore, at least Mexico Bay, is different than what the River deals with. Flooding/high water from the inland/backside of our properties definitely contributes to the mix of problems we face. Blowouts do occur, but the vast majority are caused by manual opening of seasonal barriers; technically not legal (NYSDEC) without permission. The impression many of us have is that the IJC/Frank Bevacqua COMPLETELY minimize or discount the effect(s) of storm surges on top of their "average" Lake level increases. IJC doctrine/attitude was exemplified last month when Congresswoman Buerkle asked Frank Bevacqua who was representing our stakeholder group; his response, "No one". This simple answer says it all from my viewpoint. Not only as taxpaying citizens are we not "at the table", realistically we have been thrown under the bus. The key presently, is the March thru May period of natural runoff/inflow and "manipulations" of the River dams. We are always in the top of, or over the 1958DD range for the worst weather on the Lake each year. Putting regular 4-8 foot storm waves on top of Lake levels, present and future is very discouraging. Further compounding this entire issue is the LACK of Constitutionally (USA & NY) guaranteed protections for personal/private property. There are NO provisions for meaningful Mitigation, nor ANY Compensation monies planned for. There are 100's of properties vulnerable to proposed changes, and the effects personally, Town & County (assessments & tax revenues), and on leisure industry (boating, sports fishing access), will be locally crushing. There are no provisions for increased, regular dredging of outlets to the Lake either. I obtained a good amount of this information from my neighbor at the lake who also resides in Oswego. He has been attending many of the meetings, including managing to get into meetings that were supposed to be "hush-hush" to the public. Imagine the IJC's suprise when a secret meeting was suddenly flooded by citizens asking questions and demanding answers. Below is the Public Information Session Schedule: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 Cornwall, Ontario 7:30 PM Ontario Power Generation Visitors Centre 2500B Second Street West Wednesday, May 16, 2012 Montréal, Québec 7:00 PM Jardin Botanique de Montréal, Auditorium 4101, rue Sherbrooke Est Thursday, May 17, 2012 Sorel Tracy, Québec 7:00 PM Auberge de la Rive 465 chemin de la Rive Tuesday, May 22, 2012 Hamilton, Ontario 7:00 PM Royal Botanical Gardens, Auditorium B 680 Plains Road West Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Belleville, Ontario 7:00 PM The Banquet Centre, Emerald Room 1 Alhambra Square Thursday, May 24, 2012 Kingston, Ontario 7:00 PM City Hall, Memorial Hall 216 Ontario Street Tuesday, May 29, 2012 Massena, New York 7:00 PM Louisville Volunteer Fire Department 14818 State Highway 37 Wednesday, May 30, 2012 Clayton, New York 7:00 PM Clayton Opera House 405 Riverside Drive Thursday, May 31, 2012 Oswego, New York 7:00 PM Campus Center Auditorium SUNY Oswego, 7060 Route 104 Tuesday, June 5, 2012 Olcott, New York 7:00 PM Olcott Fire Company 1691 Lockport-Olcott Road Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Hilton, New York 7:00 PM Quest Elementary School Auditorium 225 West Avenue Thursday, June 7, 2012 Williamson, New York 7:00 PM Williamson High School Auditorium 5891 Route 21
  2. Misty IV
    I believe that same storm was the one that destroyed the sand dunes at Sandy Pond, as well, at the Jefferson & Oswego County lines.
  3. Misty IV
    My neighbor at the lake and I have been watching this very closely. I will get the actual link from him later today and post it. The other concern here is that ALL the properties along the lakeshore have designed and built their buildings, homes, marinas, etc., around the 1958 plan. A change to the new plan would have those massive waves we see during a gale-force storm coming over break walls, stone rip-rap and literally destroying properties. Preliminary estimates are in the billions EACH year!! We had waves hitting our break wall earlier this spring, and that was with the lake level being down. Imagine raising that level - the water will be in our living rooms, showrooms, parking lots, etc. But, I will get the link and links to additional information this evening and post them here. [ Post made via Android ]
  4. Misty IV
    I'm buying a set of his 4' Single Planer Plus' this season. Saw his products at a show and my crew was begging me to do the upgrade. Gotta keep them happy, too!!
  5. Misty IV
    I agree with mbm on the fixed downrigger bases. I thought about doing the tracks for the 'riggers, but chose not to. I have the Traxtech system on my Islander for the rod holders, net holders, etc, but went with their 6" raised mounts for the Cannons. Very happy with the end result!
  6. Misty IV
    That is one beautiful boat!! As others have said, it looks brand new. Sure she will serve you well for a very long time!
  7. Misty IV
    Beautiful boat!! Best of luck with her!!
  8. Misty IV
    Sticking to the eastern shore. Oswego is already seeing large kings!
  9. Misty IV
    Nice job and congrats on your first King! Plenty more out there to make you smile again!
  10. Misty IV
    Nice report! If the kings are here in these numbers and sizes already, I can't wait for the fall. My crew is already betting someone will find that 45+ pounder before the season is over. Of course, we hope it is one of us!!!
  11. Misty IV
    Nice report. Glad the kings are here!
  12. Misty IV
    Nice job!!!
  13. Misty IV
    I don't have to ask - they offer it without me saying a thing. There are a few guys who want to come out with us this year who have never been trolling. They're creek & pond fishermen. I've already told them the cost of a license and the cost to enter the derbies, tournaments, etc. They've offered to chip-in. Hope they do it without me having to ask. Just seems the right thing to do when on someone else's boat, especially with the cost of fuel these days. My crew and I split the food costs, as well.
  14. Misty IV
    Thanks, Sean. A positive vote for the Carlisles!! I like the looks of them a lot and would prefer going with them. What tires did you have on before the Carlisles that didn't last?
  15. Misty IV
    Not to start a debate here, but need some input on trailer tires, mainly bias vs radial. My tandem axle trailer for the Misty IV is in need of tires. Almost scared to make the 5 hour haul with 2 of the 4 on the trailer now. Still plenty of tread, but the sidewalls are cracking and they just don't look safe. Current size is ST175/80R13. The size is readily available in either bias or radial versions. The Marathons on the trailer are radials. Seems they are made in China now, as are the majority of trailer tires. I found the Carlisle Radial Trail is made in the USA, but haven't seen favorable reviews on them. Research I have done indicates the radials track better and disipate heat better than the bias plies do. For my 5 hour haul in the spring to the lake, about 15-20 runs to the launch (5 miles) and the 5 hour haul home in the spring, will bias plies do fine or should I spend the extra and get radials? I found a set of Kenda Karrier tires with a load range 'D' I am considering, given the added weight on the boat compared to the previous owner. Current tires are 'B'. Thoughts, input, advice??? Thanks!!
  16. Misty IV
    Saw this and, although they're not focusing on water-based turbines, it still emphasizes the impact of wind turbines on the environment. All of us along the lakeshore, residential and business alike, will suffer...marinas, tackle shops, etc. ************************************************************************************** Property value losses near wind turbines greater than previously thought, appraisers say Credit: By Billie Jo Jannen, For East County Magazine, eastcountymagazine.org 30 March 2012 ~~ A real estate appraisal expert who has made a specialty of assessing impacts from nearby wind turbines has announced that he is revising his figures in response to a recent study of over 11,300 transactions near northern New York state turbine arrays. Mike McCann of McCann Appraisal, LLC spoke at a Boulevard wind energy information meeting last winter and said property owners experience an average 25 percent value loss. At the time, he expected properties up to two miles away to experience value changes in response to turbine construction. “I wish to refine my distance of forecast adverse value impacts to include at least three miles, should any 3 MW turbines be proposed by any of the developers in East County,†McCann said. “Furthermore, property value guarantees should extend to this greater range to reflect the nuisance and stigma effect of more powerful turbines on marketing of homes.†The current study, released in July of 2011 by the Economic Financial Studies School of Business at Clarkson University, cites losses of up to 45 percent on properties located within 0.10 miles of new wind turbine facilities. This has prompted him to revise his loss figure upward to a maximum of 40 percent and expected adverse impacts out to three miles, with effects becoming less extreme with distance. “The Clarkson study clearly shows value impacts out to three miles … and clearly shows the closer the turbine, the greater the impact,†McCann said. A Department of Energy-funded study originally released in 2009 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, often cited by wind proponents, says property value impacts are negligible and that effect of what is known as “wind farm anticipation stigma†goes away after the turbines are built. The Berkeley results are divided into sale values for pre-announcement, post-announcement and post-construction time periods. The study may be flawed, however, as it leaves out some of the very properties that might provide the most telling results, McCann said. In the study footnotes, Berkeley authors specified that land without homes, properties of over 25 acres, homes where the sale price was thought to deviate too far from the norm and 34 repeat sales were excluded from the study. A co-author of the study, SDSU Economic Department Chairman Mark Thayer, defended the exclusions as appropriate from a statistical standpoint and said he feels the Clarkson study supports the Berkeley conclusion that negative value impacts go away after the projects are built. The Clarkson study is based mainly on pre-construction figures, Thayer said: “There is no impact. Property values do not go down near turbines.†However, real estate appraisers, which are closely regulated by the federal government, base their calculations on “comps,†or nearby sales of comparative properties. A licensed appraiser would not have the luxury of leaving out the properties omitted by Berkeley, McCann said, so the older study does not offer a realistic assessment of the value loss that would be suffered by neighbors of turbine arrays. Statistically appropriate or not, those sales would not be excluded from an appraisal. “The fallacy of the Berkeley study is the assumption that value impacts must somehow be statistically significant against a data background of sales located 5 to 10 miles from turbines,†McCann said. “Had they focused on the 1/10th-mile to 3-mile range, I expect their findings would be significant to the homeowners who are losing 15 to 40 percent of their home equity and value.†Neither of the studies consider time-on-market, McCann said, adding, “And what about the homes that don’t sell at all?†The latter do not show up on studies because there are no transaction records for them. The size of the turbines being built is also a factor in McCann’s announcement, as almost all the data available is on older installations that contain smaller turbines. Increasingly, 3-megawatt machines are appearing on the landscape with concomitant increases in visibility and sound pressure. Sound is a “disamenity†often mentioned by wind farm neighbors, some of whom have abandoned their homes altogether because of the constant noise. McCann is a proponent for property value guarantees in communities that are heavily impacted by wind turbine projects. Both the Boulevard and Jacumba planning groups have asked for property value guarantees as a condition for permitting large projects, as well as evidence-supported setbacks and protections in the noise ordinance to include low frequency and sub-audible effects. Both wind developers and the county have, so far, resisted addressing either. Among the numerous energy projects proposed for the Boulevard area is Tule Wind, a 137-turbine project slated to be built along McCain Valley Road by Iberdrola Renewables. The turbines will range in size from 2MW to 2.5MW. Asked why, if they are so confident of no impacts, wind developers wouldn’t offer value guarantees, Tule Wind project manager Jeffrey Durocher said the terms of some proposed guarantee programs are just too subjective. Some proposals “… give the homeowner leeway to claim that any value loss is attributable to the presence of turbines, despite the possible effects of other factors,†Durocher said. “It’s very difficult to get agreement among the various parties on what causes the value loss. To do that for a number of homes for an unspecified distance is pretty unmanageable,†Durocher said.
  17. Misty IV
    This is the driving force behind fastrak having it. They were waiting until the tanks were empty to begin carrying it, and that should be within the next 60 days. Older carbed 350's with expensive 4 barrel carbs dont care for ethanol either. And, many of the older 4.3L Chevy-based engines in boats use a 2-bbl carburetor, like mine. There are plenty of carburetor-fed boats on the water these days. Not to mention all the older outboards that still use carburetors. I know it is just a matter of time before we all start seeing issues. I carry a few fuel/water seperator filters onboard and do change them throughout the season, just to be safe.
  18. Misty IV
    More bad news released yesterday: *********************************************************************** Updated March 30, 2012, 3:07 a.m. ET Feds, 5 states to push for Great Lakes wind farms Associated Press TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — The Obama administration and five states have reached an agreement to speed up approval of offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, which have been delayed by cost concerns and public opposition. Under the deal, which administration officials disclosed to The Associated Press ahead of an announcement scheduled for Friday, state and federal agencies will craft a blueprint for speeding regulatory review of proposed wind farms without sacrificing environmental and safety standards. The Great Lakes have no offshore wind turbines, although a Cleveland partnership announced plans last year for a demonstration project that would place five to seven turbines in Lake Erie about 7 miles north of the city, generating 20-30 megawatts of electricity. Offshore wind projects have been proposed elsewhere in the region, including Michigan and New York, stirring fierce debate. Critics say they would ruin spectacular vistas, lower shoreline property values and harm birds and fish. New York Power Authority trustees last September abandoned a plan for private companies to place up to 200 turbines, each about 450 feet high, in Lakes Erie and Ontario. The Canadian province of Ontario in February 2011 ordered a moratorium on wind energy development in its Great Lakes waters to allow more study of environmental issues. Supporters describe the lakes' winds as a vast, untapped source of clean energy and economic growth. "This agreement among federal agencies and Great Lakes states is a smart, practical way to encourage the development of homegrown energy that will create jobs, power homes and reduce pollution in American communities," said Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Administration officials said the region's offshore winds could generate more than 700 gigawatts — one-fifth of all potential wind energy nationwide. Each gigawatt of offshore wind could power 300,000 homes while reducing demand for electricity from coal, which emits greenhouse gases and other pollutants, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. Public resistance and logistical problems would pose formidable obstacles to approaching those levels. Yet harnessing only a small portion of the Great Lakes' offshore wind could generate thousands of jobs, officials said. Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania signed the agreement. The other three states with Great Lakes coastlines — Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin — declined invitations but could join the partnership later, an administration official said. The agreement is modeled after another between the federal government and Eastern states designed to support wind energy production in the Atlantic and encourage investment in new offshore wind technology. "This agreement will enable states to work together to ensure that any proposed offshore wind projects are reviewed in a consistent manner, and that the various state and federal agencies involved collaborate and coordinate their reviews," Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said developing offshore wind energy would "promote economic development and create jobs, while reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources." Among 10 federal agencies taking part are the Pentagon, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Developers would need state and federal approval to establish offshore wind farms. State governments own the Great Lakes bottomlands within U.S. territory, while a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required to erect the turbines and all 10 federal agencies would review the plans.
  19. Misty IV
    Wow, had me fooled!!! Good one!!
  20. Misty IV
    Recieved this link last night about recent wind turbine failures on Lake Erie... http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012303309898
  21. Misty IV
    Took my USCG Auxiliary course when I was 13 with my dad. He made anyone who would be operating his boat or any boat in the family take the course. Well worth the time, IMO. [ Post made via Android ]
  22. Misty IV
    It all depends on the beauty of the fish and how it relates to my previous catches. I try to always "up it" a notch from previous catches. The first King I ever had put on my wall weighed 33lbs. At the time I caught it, I was still trolling out of my old 18' Starcraft center console and the cooler I had was the largest I could fit inside the boat. The King didn't fit inside the cooler, so that was one thing which made me want to put it on my wall. People walk into our lakehouse living room and that King greets them. I'm still waiting for that 40+lber to make it inside the boat, though...
  23. Misty IV
    My Cannons came with 10AWG in the original wire harness. I run them each through their own re-settable circuit breaker with 8AWG wire from the deep-cycle battery which is dedicated to the electronics.
  24. Misty IV

    Batteries

    Misty IV replied to dickey's topic in This Old Boat

    When I bought my Islander back in 2005 (used), there was a DieHard starting battery in it and it is still going strong. I have since added an Interstate deep-cycle for all my electronics (4) years ago, and it takes a beating with all the electronics onboard...still going strong. I have Interstates in my car and truck and have been extremely happy with their performance.
  25. Misty IV
    I'm just throwing this out there because I don't know and am curious. I found out that Salmon Country in Mexico and (2) marinas in Pulaski sell ValvTect fuels. Has anyone tried buying fuel for their truck at a marina? Do they allow it or do most marinas only sell it for your boat? I have seen that non-ethanol fuels do increase gas mileage, and was thinking that while fueling-up the boat that perhaps I'd try filling up the truck, as well. Anyone ever tried this with successful results? I'd hope the marina doesn't care one way or the other - they're making a sale....
×
×
  • Create New...