Recreational Boating Act 2007

976 People Have Sent 14,858 Letters and Emails

Sign the Petition

Some recent comments: these messages are published with permission of the signer.

Total Signers: 976    View More: 10    9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

  1. Fri., Mar. 28, 2008 2:26 PM    link Robert S. | Carmichael, CA

    Let's not talk this thing do death. Negate the court decision, give EPA notice to use discretion on the issue, and codify law to exempt small boats and cruisers under 40 feet length from this onerous mandate. Size matters. It is reasonable to establish size limits to not exempt sea-faring yachts and larger cabin cruisers from the requirement. They can be as guilty of pollution as the large trans-national freighters and cruise liners.

  2. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  3. Thu., Mar. 27, 2008 8:26 PM    link Ivan B. | Johnston, IA

  4. Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 12:49 AM    link Jeffrey B. | Lake Nebagamon, WI

  5. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 10:25 PM    link James C. | Brookings, SD

    I own a fishing boat that is used for pleasure river fishing in South Dakota and this would be a hugh mistake to let this law go as it is now. What possible harm could my small fishing boat cause as far as ballast water discharge. This law wlould affect my boat because we have a live well on board to keep our catch alive that needs to be emptyed at the end of the day. What possible reason could there be to make me buy a $800 permit? Use some common sense here. PLEASE.

  6. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  7. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 7:27 PM    link Michael K. | Fort Pierre, SD

    As a marine dealership owner in Ft. Pierre, South Dakota you must pas this legislation. South Dakota relies on Boating recreation and tourism.

  8. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  9. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 1:21 PM    link Kevin K. | Helena, MT

    This law as appealed will cost the taxpayers of Montana a large sum of money. Those impacted include families who take their children boating or fishing for the first time, families who enjoy outdoor recreation and take advantage of the great resources Montana has to offer. Placing additional costs per family (up to $2,000) will prevent people from enjoying these great experiences. The people of Montana chose to live here because of the natural resources and outdoor opportunities this great state has to offer. This will diminish if we keep adding unnecessary expenses on these activities. Please act accordingly and fight for a ruling that makes sense, one that applies to those who need enforcing (large commercial boating operations).

  10. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  11. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 1:09 PM    link Hank M. | Fritch, TX

    This is beyond ridiculous, this situation should have been addressed before the public was made aware of it. I believe theirs enough voting representation that could be pulled together if this is not acted on quickly to have more reasonable politicians to hold office than are currently in office.

  12. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  13. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 12:54 PM    link tim m. | new castle, PA

  14. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 12:35 PM    link marlon d. | Indianapolis, IN

    dear sir-------i am a senior citizen living in indianapolis in. each summer i take my grandson fishing in a licenced 16ft john boat with a 18hp outboard with a 3star CARB rating. i save my pocket change every day to pay for the necessary permits to use this craft on public waters. i understand the EPA will be mandated to issue permits for discharge water from the outboard cooling system . tis will cost an estimated 800 dollars per boat to accomplish according to EPA estimates. this law was intended to limit discharges from huge ships from foreign lands that empty large ballast tanks into US waters. NOT to harm me and my grandson in our little craft. i cant afford 800 dollar permits. use common sense man. exempt the common man from the unjust law. thank you.

  15. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  16. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 12:27 PM    link David C. | Center Point, IA

    It would be very unfortunate for this ruling to stand and would have a huge negative economic impact on many areas of Iowa and the nation. Many cities rely on recreational boaters to bring thousands/millions of dollars to their communities ever year and this ruling will definately impact the number of people visiting these areas. I urge Congress to act quickly and ensure that recreational boaters will not be affected.

  17. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  18. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 12:10 PM    link David C. | Center Point, IA

  19. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 9:52 AM    link STEVE S. | GLASGOW, MT

    Dear Sen's. Tester and Baucus, Please help pass the Recreational Boating Act 2007. As sportsmen we are getting hammered all the time with more taxes, regulations, ect. Gas prices keep going up. Boat registrations have gone up astronomically. Give us a break! The only water that the sump pumps out of my fishing boat is from a leaking hull! So the water leaks in and is pumped out.

    Steve Schindler
    glasgow MT.

  20. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  21. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 9:14 AM    link James K. | Rochester, MN

    Please apply some common sense to this issue and allow recreational boaters to discharge water back into the same lake/river that water has been taken from.

  22. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  23. Tue., Mar. 25, 2008 8:36 AM    link Mark B. | Kimberly, WI

    Boating is already getting to be an expensive past time what with rising fuel costs, boat launch fees, even the rising price of boats themselves. Please don't make us pay for high priced permits that will prohibit most recreational boaters from using their boats on US waters.

  24. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  25. Mon., Mar. 24, 2008 6:37 PM    link John K. | Lapeer, MI

    The lack of exemption for recreational watercraft which are not equipped with ballast holding tanks will kill all business enterprise associated with recreational boating.

  26. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  27. Mon., Mar. 24, 2008 4:19 PM    link Terry K. | Schaumburg, IL

    You have got to amend this. The country is in enough kaos now with high gas prices, and everything. Now you want to take away people who boat by making is so expensive they will not be able to afford it. Think this through. We need the exemption.

  28. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  29. Mon., Mar. 24, 2008 9:26 AM    link Frank T. | North Tonawanda, NY

  30. Sun., Mar. 23, 2008 11:50 AM    link chad h. | bagley, MN

    If this law passes, I will not be able to afford to use my boat. Please consider that most weekend fisherman will no longer be able to either, this will really effect the fisheries, especially in Minnesota.

  31. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  32. Sat., Mar. 22, 2008 2:20 PM    link Eddie S. | Clinton, MO

    This law should not affect non commercial non ocean going recreational boats an fisherman . It looks like just another un justified & un-needed way of taxing the working people !!!!!!!!!!

  33. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  34. Sat., Mar. 22, 2008 2:03 PM    link Larry B. | Saint James, MO

    Please help pass the Recreational Boating Act 2007. As sportsmen we are getting hammered all the time with more taxes, regulations, ect. Gas prices keep going up. Boat registrations have gone up astronomically. Give us a break! The only water that the sump pumps out of my fishing boat is from a leaking hull! So the water leaks in and is pumped out.

  35. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  36. Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 10:58 PM    link Jeffrey V. | Arligton, WA

    I as a boater and a fisherman feel that the epa should stop ballast water from ocean going ships.Having said that.
    I do not think that as a responsible boater that knows the dangers of transporting invasive weeds and animals that any additional costs or permits should be empossed on the general public.
    I allready carry insurance in the event of a fuel or oil leak.
    Please act on this now.

  37. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  38. Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 7:36 PM    link Eric O. | Red WIng, MN

    In such economic times and with such magbified vison on what government is doing for the people of the US. This bill, exempting the permitting of Rec boats is crucial to one of the largest segments of recreation in the US

    Putting more strain on an already difficult time in the market would only deepen the economic strife with no effect on the actual reason the other bill (foreign ballast release bill) was introduced.

    I have never written such a letter before but feel very strongly in this issue and hope that our state and recreation is taken into consideration when you vote.

    Mr Coleman you may not remember me but we did fish together on the Mississippi and used our photo on your political card. I remember that day well and hope you can look back on it as I have when looking at this bill and its effect on our way of life in Minnesota.

    Feel free to contact me regarding this or other issues pertaining to our resource and visions of it from an "in-Field "perspective.

    Thank You

  39. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  40. Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 9:41 AM    link Clayton S. | Saint Peter, MN

    This is a no brainer people. Do the right thing here for recreational boaters.

  41. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  42. Fri., Mar. 21, 2008 9:23 AM    link Joe J. | Buffalo, MN

  43. Thu., Mar. 20, 2008 7:51 PM    link Joe W. | Brunswick, OH

  44. Wed., Mar. 12, 2008 2:27 PM    link Robert L. | Marcy, NY

    The idea was to stop ocean going ships from contaminating our waters.
    Please vote to NOT require permits for recreational boats.
    Thank you.

  45. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  46. Mon., Mar. 10, 2008 1:02 PM    link Stephen F. | Palmetto, FL

    RE: The Recreational Boating Act of 2007, (H.R 2550 and S.2067)

    Dear Vern Buchanan,

    I am a recreational sailboat owner and a Bradenton Yacht Club member. Recreational boating is a pastime I would like to see continue for generations to come.

    Several months ago, a suit filed in a California federal court set the stage for what may become a very expensive and unnecessary permit requirement for all recreational boaters. The suit, in general terms, was based on a complaint that ballast water discharged from oceangoing vessels caused the spread of damaging invasive living organisms that cause environmental problems, and that the feds should intercede in some way to stop it. The court ruled in favor of the complaint, but did so in a much broader way than was expected, saying that all types of discharge from boats - recreational or commercial - must be regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act permit system. For over 34 years the federal organization has exempted discharge of recreational boats from the Clean Water Act permit system.

    In the fall of 2006, a US District Court cancelled this permit exemption, and if not changed by Congress before Sept. 2008, will require every type and design of watercraft to receive a permit from the EPA In addition to paying for a permit in Florida, if I cross multiple state waters, I and all other boaters will be subject to monitoring by the EPA for deck runoff, grey water, boat washing, bilge water, engine cooling water, and even the use of copper paints.

    The Recreational Boating Act of 2007 (H.R 2550 and S.2067) was introduced this year and will, if passed, reinstate the permit exemption for recreational boats. The reinstatement of the exemption is needed. There already are federal laws restricting the overboard discharge of oil, fuel, garbage and sewage.

    I am asking you to support the Recreational Boating Act of 2007. Thank you in advance for helping protect one of our state’s largest sources of revenue and our beloved pastime.

  47. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  48. Thu., Feb. 28, 2008 1:19 PM    link Terrance F. | bossier city, LA

  49. Wed., Feb. 27, 2008 12:03 PM    link Mary Ellen B. | Webster, NY

  50. Tue., Feb. 26, 2008 2:35 PM    link Christine M. | Lansing, MI

    I am very interested in protecting our waterways for myself and future residents. Voting NO on the 2007 Recreational Boater's Act will not accomplish that. Nowhere in the wording of the bill does it say that receipts from these fee's (Tax) will be used to clean up and protect America's waterways - in fact it doesn't say what the money will be used for at all! All voting NO will accomplish is costing boaters more to enjoy the pastime they love and will likely further erode our dwindling tourist/boating industry dollars in Michigan; an already economically depressed state.

    Please support Senator Martinez’ companion bill that would exempt recreational boaters from needing to secure extra permits for silly things like deck runoff that came from our Great Lake to begin with. Do this for the sake of our state’s economy. Other measures can be passed to actually protect our environment. For example we could actually make Grand Rapids stop dumping thousands of gallons of human waste into the Grand River which flows into Lake Michigan.

    Thank you for your consideration. Remember "we the people" are watching.

  51. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  52. Mon., Feb. 25, 2008 6:11 PM    link Maurice C. | Voorhees, NJ

    I would appreciate it if you would support the repeal of this "Special EPA Permit" relating to gray water discharge. It will be impossible for me to fit a treatment system in my sailboat for the cooling water from my engine. I always use a pump out station for my septic and never dump anything overboard.

    While I am in a position to afford a permit many boaters cannot afford one.

    Thank You,

    Maurice J. Colontonio
    President
    Tab Paper Recycling, Inc.

  53. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  54. Sun., Feb. 24, 2008 10:31 AM    link Scott H. | Centennial, CO

    Please support the “Recreational Boating Act of 2007” which restores the exemption for pleasure boats to EPA regulations covering commercial shipping’s ballast water discharge in U.S. waters. Unless this 34-year-old EPA exemption – which was thrown out by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sept. 2006 – is reinstated, 18 million recreational boats will be required to have expensive EPA permits by September, 2008.

    The cost of these permits will have the effect of stopping the use of most recreational boats and will kill an industry, throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and will keep boat owners from enjoying their leisure time, to say nothing of denying them their property rights.

    The EPA, environment groups, NMMA, and all boaters support the “Recreational Boating Act of 2007.”

    Thank you for your support of this Act.

  55. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  56. Wed., Feb. 20, 2008 1:08 PM    link Dylan S. | Strongsville, OH

    We are struggling with the current economic decomposition of our area and this issue will have a negative financial impact to recreational boaters consequently, impacting the area's overall economic health.

  57. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  58. Wed., Feb. 20, 2008 1:01 PM    link Dylan S. | Strongsville, OH

    This will negatively impact the recreational boating industry. We are struggling with the current economic decomposition of our area and should address every issue that impacts our economic health.

  59. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  60. Wed., Feb. 20, 2008 12:49 PM    link Dylan S. | Strongsville, OH

    This is needed for reduction of the economic decomposition in our area.

  61. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  62. Wed., Feb. 20, 2008 11:08 AM    link Ronny E. | Strongsville, OH

    The boating community does not need additional restrictions and added costs. The cost of fuel will be hard enough on boaters this summer. Just how are you going to enforce this ballast discharge law and what will it cost ? We the people voted you to into congress now we expect you to respect our opinions and pass bill H.R. 2550, The Recreational Boating Act of 2007.

    P/C Dr Ronny K. Eriksson, SN
    SEO Berea Power Squadron

  63. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  64. Thu., Feb. 14, 2008 10:15 AM    link Ronald F. | Charleston, SC

  65. Wed., Feb. 13, 2008 10:00 AM    link James G. | Auburn, MA

    I live in Mass low income small 13ft boat for me my wife and daughter this is the only recreational hobby we can afford up here, if the exemption for our boat falls we will not be able to afford to have this boat anymore, or all the other's in this country who cant afford an increase of up to $800 for a permit. This would be a consideral hardship on all of us, these are just my thought's I hope congress does the wright thing for all of us as we cant afford a new increase when everything is so expensive now...................Thanks Jim

  66. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  67. Wed., Feb. 13, 2008 2:51 AM    link william s. | Myrtle Beach, SC

  68. Tue., Feb. 5, 2008 9:14 PM    link John S. | Manhattan, IL

    As a hard working american, I feel that I should not be TAXED on my recreation, this Recreational Boating Act 2007 is nothing more than a TAX, I already pay far too much tax on fuel and other items. Its time for common sense to take command of the environment. We can not control our borders yet we look to unfairly tax and burden our citizens.

  69. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  70. Tue., Feb. 5, 2008 12:01 PM    link Ron N. | Linwood, KS

    Rep. Boyda
    We keep our boat at Lake Perry Yacht Marina, located in Jefferson county which is also part of you'r district we eat fish caught out of the lake, and swim in the lake almost every weekend during the summer. We are more concerned about mercury pollution than bilg water discharges. Thank you for your time. And thank you also for beating Ryun.


    Ron and Janis Newton
    Linwood, Kansas.

  71. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  72. Mon., Feb. 4, 2008 8:24 PM    link Garry F. | Harrison Township, MI

    Please make every effort to make the necessary changes to protect the unintended victim in this situation - the pleasure boater. It seems to be an easy fix, hopefully our law makers can see that this is taken care of. We are fortunate to be able to enjoy our Great Lakes, and most of us have made sacrifices in other areas of our lives to be able to financially afford this great hobby. With the sky rocketing gas prices, this extra tax could push a lot of us out of boating. Taking our dollars with us.

  73. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  74. Mon., Feb. 4, 2008 6:57 PM    link Paul B. | Stuart, FL

  75. Thu., Jan. 31, 2008 4:16 AM    link Richard C. | Valley Stream, NY

  76. Wed., Jan. 30, 2008 6:31 PM    link julie m. | lenoir city, TN

  77. Wed., Jan. 30, 2008 2:34 PM    link Erich S. | East Wareham, MA

    It is my inderstanding that Senator Barbara Boxer has already commited to sponsoring legislation to correct this problem but has not done this yet. Your assistance in this matter is recommended.

  78. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  79. Tue., Jan. 29, 2008 6:01 PM    link Hans B. | Loudon, TN

    This would negatively impact the great recreational opportunity we enjoy on our lakes and river system and will likely reduce state revenues generated by the boating community.

  80. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  81. Sat., Jan. 26, 2008 9:27 PM    link Bill W. | Westlake, OH

    Please considertaking action to keep this from happening. Most of our boats never leave local waters. The exemption should stay in place. My wife and I have supported and voted for you gentlemen to represent us, we would appreciate your support in this matter.

  82. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  83. Sat., Jan. 26, 2008 3:46 PM    link ARTHUR M. | CENTER MORICHES, NY

    BALLAST TANKS IN A RECREATIONAL BOATS.COME ON PEOPLE.LETS BE AWARE OF THIS TYPE OF BOATING. DO NOT INCLUDE RECREATIONAL BOATERS IN WITH FREIGHTERS AND TANKERS. THE TIMES ARE TOUGH ENOUGH WITH FUEL PRICES AND INSURANCE. STOP THE TAX. WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO STRIP AWAY THIS GREAT COUNTRY WITH MORE TAXES.BOATING IS A LARGE PORTION OF THE ECONOMY ON LONG ISLAND.THANK YOU

  84. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  85. Sat., Jan. 26, 2008 2:04 PM    link Thaddeus L. | Dearborn Hts, MI

    As a life long citizen and boater of Michigan, I have experienced first hand the changes caused by the dumping of ballast water from ocean going vessels in the Great Lakes. The EPA has failed to protect our waters, and now these same regulations that have not been followed, will be enforced to penalize recreational boaters. As elected officials to Washington, when is something going to be done to properly protect our waters?

  86. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  87. Sat., Jan. 26, 2008 8:07 AM    link Gary R. | Norwalk, OH

    This permit is ridiculous and will only serve as a "tax" on boaters. It will not be enforced as the permit suggests. Ballast water discharge from pleasure boats is NOT harmful to the environment as ocean-going freighters and tankers are.
    Please act. Do not let this Recreational Boating Act pass.
    Thank you.

  88. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  89. Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 10:31 PM    link Larry P. | Starke, FL

  90. Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 6:13 PM    link Terry A. | Milton florida, FL

    Over the past 4 years I have had to park two of my vehicles thanks to the EPA and their rules on gas emissions . I am not a wealthy person and the laws coming down from the EPA effect me directly. I dont have a shofer driven lemo as some of the fat cats who make up all these stupid rules do . I had to buy a boat that was damaged in hurricane Ivan and spend a lot of money on it to get it sea worhty and I sure as hell dont want some fat cat to condeme it for me cus Ill tell you like it is I CANT AFFORD A 800.00 fee to use it. So pls think abt us poor folks out here in the voting world and buy the way we will vote agn. Tks for your service to the country.

  91. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  92. Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 3:09 PM    link Gary M. | Southlake, TX

    I have been an active boater for 50 years & always supported environmentally correct boating. This permit requirement is not necessary and the expense will drive my family out of boating.

    We have always had a holding tank on our boat and we pump it at authorized pump out facilities.

  93. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  94. Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 10:54 AM    link Elizabeth J R. | Pioneer, CA

    I urge you to support S. 2067 and H.R. 2550. Please do not let these bills die.

  95. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  96. Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 8:53 AM    link andy g. | granite bay, CA

    If any fees should be adjusted it should be to the Ocean going freighters which have polluted our Delta with foreign species of fish and mussels with their discharge of ballast water here. To penalize the recreational boater is just another penalty placed upon the wrong group.

  97. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  98. Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 8:19 AM    link Jeffrey W. | Tallahassee, FL

    I enjoy boating with my family and it creates lasting memories for me and my kids. However boating is becomming very expensive and adding even more regulation and fees to be paid may just put me on the sideline. From what I understand, the EPA regulations were for oceanic freighters and is probably very good for controlling pollution and bringing in organisms from other parts of the world. I however boat very near the shore and don't have a rusty oil filled bilge that I continually pump out for ballast changes. Please help the small recreational boater keep boating in the family.

  99. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  100. Fri., Jan. 25, 2008 1:48 AM    link Gordon L. | Rocklin, CA

    How on earth could you expect small boat owners who use their boats for recreational purposes and fishing to pay another "tax" on their investment, in addittion to the higher fuel prices now being paid. These boats do not even carry "bilge water" or "ballast.

    Please do your part to enact new legislation to protect the recreational boater from the new EPA requirements, or extend the exemption which was working before it expired.

    My next vote for an elected official, as well as the votes of every voter I can reach by internet or other means, may depend upon your actions....or inaction.

  101. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  102. Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 10:12 PM    link Richard V H. | Cullman, AL

    jeez what are you trying to do....Shut down another industry by taxing them out of existance?

    When are you going to learn to stay out of business and the economy?

    Dick Hopkins
    Cullman AL.

  103. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  104. Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 9:55 PM    link Tim O. | Port Neches, TX

    With the large number of recreational boaters in and around our area, I can only hope you will help with this pressing issue.

  105. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  106. Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 7:54 PM    link Steve P. | Sylvania, OH

    Using our waterways is getting expensive enough. We don't need this crazy new tax. Please vote to keep the regulation away from recreational boaters.

  107. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  108. Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 7:10 PM    link Rikard H. | Elkton, MD

    Not renewing this exemption bill will seriously hurt recreational boating!!

    It misses the intended purpose by a MILE!

  109. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  110. Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 11:24 AM    link richard m. | warwick, RI

    This new law permitting recreational boaters for discharge is rediculous! This is goverment regulations run amuck, never intended for pleasure boaters. Please amend this law for the millions of boaters!!!!!

  111. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  112. Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 9:40 AM    link William W. | Winchester, OH

    I have previously contacted you about this issue. While I appreciate the polite responses I received, I notice none of you have co-sponsored H.R.2550 in the House or S.2067 in the senate. You may not personally boat or care to boat; however, I'm sure you know how much money is spent on recreational boating in this country. I hope you will take the time to look into these bills and support them.

  113. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  114. Thu., Jan. 24, 2008 12:19 AM    link Paul C. | Florence, SC

    I would never discharge my waste water or other from my small boat. It's absurd to inflict legislation on recreational boaters. We are, as a rule, more concientious about our behaviour and functions of our boats than most commercial vessels!

  115. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  116. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 10:20 PM    link Kevin M. | Charleston, IL

    The Honorable Mr Johnson, The Honorable Mr. Obama, The Honorable Mr. Durbin,

    Hopefully you see the fallacy of this court finding.

    The law was never intended to reach the recreational boater, but yet here it is.

    Please do the right thing and take care of this problem as we know you can and will.

    Thank you for your help in this matter as we are sure you see how ridiculous this is.

  117. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  118. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 10:19 PM    link Kevin M. | Charleston, IL

    The Honorable Mr Johnson, the Honorable Mr. Obama, The Honorable Mr. Durbin,

    Hopefully you see the fallacy of this court finding.

    The law was never intended to reach the recreational boater, but yet here it is.

    Please do the right thing and take care of this problem as we know you can and will.

    Thank you for your help in this matter as we are sure you see how ridiculous this is.

  119. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  120. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 9:01 PM    link Anthony R. | S. Portland, ME

    Thank you Congressman Allen for responding to my earlier letter. I know I can count on your support.
    To Senators Snowe and Collins.....you represent a boating state. This legislation will directly affect thousands of your constituents, not only boat owners direcly, but those that make a living in support of the boating industry. I am disappointed that I received no reponse to my earlier letter from either of you on this matter.

  121. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  122. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 9:01 PM    link Anthony R. | S. Portland, ME

    Thank you Congressman Allen for responding to my earlier letter. I know I can count on your support.
    To Senators Snowe and Collins.....you represent a boating state. This legislation will directly affect thousands of your constituents, not only boat owners direcly, but those that make a living in support of the boating industry. I am disappointed that I received no reponse to my earlier letter from either of you on this matter.

  123. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  124. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 7:16 PM    link Stan B. | Bergenfield, NJ

  125. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 6:53 PM    link j. thomas s. | Abington, MA

    Please realize that we are not all corporate wealthy boat owners.........just hard working TAXPAYERS in an increasingly welfare based society.....dont make us pay more to enjoy our passion of free time with our hard woking family members on the water.Thanks

  126. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  127. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 6:28 PM    link Paul K. | Osage Beach, MO

  128. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 5:53 PM    link Martin P. | New Smyrna beach, FL

  129. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 5:30 PM    link Timothy B. | Winchester, VA

  130. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 4:45 PM    link George S. | Santa Barbara, CA

  131. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:52 PM    link Thomas S. | Willingboro, NJ

  132. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:29 PM    link Donald K. | Darien, CT

    I have been an avid boater for those 34 years and would love to pass on the tradition to my children and their friends. This will significantly hurt the boating industry.

  133. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  134. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:28 PM    link Donald K. | Darien, CT

    I have been an avid boater for the those 34 years and would love to pass on the tradition to my children and their firneds. This will significantly hurt the boating industry.

  135. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  136. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:26 PM    link William L. | Elwood, NJ

    Please have this bill amended so people like myself that have a recreational boat are not effected. The high cost of gas has already seriously hurt the recreational boating public. I feel this additional EPA permit fee will make continued operation of my boat cost prohibitive. Thank you.

  137. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  138. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:24 PM    link Loyd M. | Park Hill, OK

    Please help us defeat this law thet wasn't meant to effect recreational boaters

  139. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  140. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:18 PM    link Michael L. | Stevensville, MD

  141. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:07 PM    link Rob S. | Lake Stevens, WA

    Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, and Fellow Representatives,

    As an avid boater in the Pacific Northwest, I highly value the natural beauty of our waters and the quality time spent on our boats with our family and friends. We realize that our natural resources are fragile and precious, and we also acknowledge the impact that our activities have on this ecology.

    However; It is equally important that we spend our efforts wisely and protect both this ecosystem and the industry which depends on it. Adding further additional and unnecessary costs to traditionally an already costly pastime, will affect how or even if we continue to go boating. Failure to enact this legislation will certainly have an adverse affect on the industries which are supported by those passionate about boating and recreation.

    I fully support your efforts to get the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 passed... and will vote accordingly.

    Thank you for your representation.

    Rob Spencer
    Lake Stevens, WA

  142. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  143. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:06 PM    link Rob S. | Lake Stevens, WA

    Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, and Fellow Representatives,

    As an avid boater in the Pacific Northwest, I highly value the natural beauty of our waters and the quality time spent on our boats with our family and friends. We realize that our natural resources are fragile and precious, and we also acknowledge the impact that our activities have on this ecology.

    However; It is equally important that we spend our efforts wisely and protect both this ecosystem and the industry which depends on it. Adding further additional and unnecessary costs to traditionally an already costly pastime, will affect how or even if we continue to go boating. Failure to enact this legislation will certainly have an adverse affect on the industries which are supported by those passionate about boating and recreation.

    I fully support your efforts to get the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 passed... and will vote accordingly.

    Thank you for your representation.

    Mike Hood
    Lake Stevens, WA

  144. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  145. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 3:01 PM    link kefton s. | Palmetto, FL

  146. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 2:51 PM    link Douglas B. | Feasterville, PA

    Unless Congress acts soon, the nation's 13 million recreational boat owners will need a costly EPA permit to operate their boat, or risk being out of compliance with federal law. Please take care of this issue before it is too late.

    Douglas J. Braun

  147. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  148. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 2:39 PM    link Todd O. | Marysville, WA

    Ms. Cantwell and Ms Murray, and Representatives,
    We here in the Pacific NW value our waters and the time spent on our boats with our family. This issue will cost more money for us to do both. As all of you know our natural resources are fragile and precious. So is our time with our familes. Adding additional and unprecedented costs to traditionally an already costly pastime, will affect how or if we continue to go boating and will certainly have an adverse affect on the industries which are supported by those pationate about boating and recreation.

    Todd Olason
    Marysville, WA

  149. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  150. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 2:33 PM    link Shannon W. | Port Orchard, WA

  151. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 2:19 PM    link Russell B. | Toluca Lake, CA

  152. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 2:12 PM    link Douglas C. | Port Orchard, WA

    Unless Congress acts soon, the nation's 13 million recreational boat owners will need a costly EPA permit to operate their boat, or risk being out of compliance with federal law. As absurd as this seems, it is a serious threat to recreational boating, says the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). Please vote on this measure and keep our recreational boating under the exemption.

    Sincerely,
    Doug Cook

  153. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  154. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 2:08 PM    link Robert P. | Apollo Beach, FL

    Ridiculous of you letting this pass. Get some balls and repeal this or quit!!!!

  155. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  156. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 1:59 PM    link Michael J. | Spring, TX

    Please act quickly to remedy this situation!!!

  157. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  158. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 1:28 PM    link Matthew F. | Harper Woods, MI

  159. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 1:28 PM    link Larry N. | Vancouver, WA

    By supporting the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 (H.R. 2550, S. 2067) you can help to reinstate the permit exemption for recreational boaters for complying with commercial EPA ballast water regulations, which disappeared in a 2006 federal court ruling on a case about commercial ship ballast water discharges.

    Recreational boating and the relative vessel designs do not equate to the ballast water problems stemming from ocean-going freighters and tankers. As common sense would dictate, the court obviously strayed beyond the intent of the original litigation and has resulted in their discombobulated 2006 decision. Unless you fix this soon, family boaters (voters) will now face costly and complex commercial regulations in order to legally operate their boats. If you are really serious about the environment, picture what millions of boats donated to landfills across the country might do as a result of your inaction. Thank you.

  160. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  161. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 1:27 PM    link William K. | Denville, NJ

    ATTN: NJ US Senators and US Representatives.

    Please take immediate action to prevent this requirement that will adversely affect recreational
    boating.

    Thank You

    William A. Kolbe
    9 Bowers Place
    Denville NJ 07834

  162. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  163. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 1:24 PM    link David H. | Groton Long Point, CT

    There is absolutely NO NEED for me to be paying for compliance issues that have NOTHING to do with my kind of recreational boat - namely a 24 foot sport cruiser that has no ballast system whatsoever! If you want to ensure extra compliance with clean boating issues in addition to whatever activities States with recreational waters may choose to take, you could require that businesses who sell fuel to boaters report any obvious (visual w/o on board inspection) fuel pollution to responsible authorities. They are in the position to capture the boat's identification characteristics and hull registration information without direct confrontation with the boater.


    The affected boater could then be notified to report for an inspection to avoid potential additional action or fines for pollution/environmental issues that could be affecting our waterways. This could be accomplished without undue involvement of the fuel dealer who might be influenced by avoiding conflict with his boating customer. As long as a boater corrects a problem area, there need be no litigation or potential ill will while it would promote potentially cleaner waters.

    Sincerely,
    David K. Helmold
    10 Prospect Street
    Groton Long Point, CT 06340
    (860) 536-0489

  164. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  165. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 1:20 PM    link Jeff V. | Marina Del Rey, CA

    Just another way to take away our rights, and take our money !!!!!!!!

  166. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  167. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 1:13 PM    link Jane V. | Fairport, NY

    If the goal is to completely ruin recreational boating for the masses, this is the way to do it! I don't know if you are involved in recreational boating, but as a representative of the average American, you must see the travesty of this possible ruling. The average boater, who does not discharge ballast into any body of water, should not be made to purchase a permit of any cost to cover ballast discharge. It is an outrage to charge an exorbitant permit fee to a consumer who does not even fit the category.
    You have been elected to office to represent your constituants. Please do so and write legislation to prevent the average boater from being raked across the coals. Do not allow our pastime to be taken from under our noses by a broad reaching legislation that does apply to the average boater.

  168. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  169. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 12:52 PM    link William B. | Mt. Sinai, NY

    Too much gov't. legislation and taxation already exists.
    I urge you to act accordingly on this legislation.
    Thank You.

  170. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  171. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 12:50 PM    link William B. | Mt. Sinai, NY

    Too much gov't. legislation and taxation already exists.
    I urge you to act accordingly on this legislation.
    Thank You.

  172. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

  173. Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 12:48 PM    link William B. | Mt. Sinai, NY

    Too much gov't. legislation and taxation already exists.
    I urge you to vote NO to this absurdity !!!!!!!!!!!
    Thank You.

  174. This comment has been reported to the site manager. It will be reviewed and removed if inappropriate. Thank you!

Total Signers: 976    View More: 10    9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Sign the Petition

Petition created by BoatTEST.com

Powered by Rally Congress    Have questions or feedback?