Clear all "New" markers Turn on extra data

Thread View Frames View Board View

Forum: RaftZone
Re: Judge Dismisses Case Against Park Service rich.p New
Re: So What Does it Really Mean, Blanche??? rich.p New
Re: I have a question about the 50/50 launch allocation Gordo New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Re: I respectfully disagree that this is not the proper venue for this discussion, this is exactly what RZ was created for Gordo New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Date: Dec 02 2007, 0:31 GMT
From: Pinecricker

	...I don't think you could possibly shed any more negative light on your organization than you already have. After reading some of your points of view expressed here, I can only conclude that there is no possible way you can be representing private boater interests on the Grand Canyon. In fact, it would almost appear (to me anyway) as if GCPBA some kind of shell organization that actually represents commercial boating interests in the canyon? Sort of like when an oil company starts up an "environmental" lobby to confuse the issuess and deflect criticism.

Add Message

<No Subject> rich.p New

<No Subject> Pinecricker New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Lots to comment on: Here's the agreement TomMartin New

Here We Go Again rich.p New

Agreement good for at least 6 more years TomMartin New

My appologies TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Rank and File vote on the arbitration TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Union example TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

wilderness and access TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Some facts: TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

I am a lawyer and I read the decision and I don't think you are mirage New

<No Subject> rich.p New

I stand by my statement. <NT> mirage New

4 way agreement missed out 17 other groups TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Simplisity and the Pill TomMartin New

Quick Follow-up rich.p New

Question for Tom Gordo New

National Park, Wilderness and River Traffic TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

You can't side step the facts TomMartin New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Wilderness designation itself would not prevent motors from being grandfathered Gordo New

That's for Congress to decide TomMartin New

Is the issue the motors themselves or the fact that most motorized traffic is commercial? Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

It's Both TomMartin New

A couple more questions for you Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

That is similar to the verbiage used for motor use in the Main Salmon Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

I don't know if you missed it Gordo New

<No Subject> rich.p New

Motors are still allowed in the Everglades too, unfortunately. <NT> Pinecricker New

Add Message