Pacemaker Fishing Forum

I reiterate...it's a hypocritical, two-tiered system of usage.

If the gas-powered boat is really for safety (which is ISN'T) then there should be no rowing/crew on that body of water. They should have to operate within the same guidelines as the rest of us.

spellow wrote:

Now, if they don't need that motor boat for safety then I'm not sure why it's out there.

In theory you don't need a lifeguard on duty during swim team practice either, but things happen so they do.

NOVAhunter wrote:

spellow wrote:

Now, if they don't need that motor boat for safety then I'm not sure why it's out there.

In theory you don't need a lifeguard on duty during swim team practice either, but things happen so they do.

If it's purpose is safety then I'm good with it.

There aren't really rules for the coaches on Beaverdam regarding wearing life jackets.  They should wear them if they don't already.  I know that on the Occoquan we all wear a life jacket and carry one life jacket for every rower we are coaching.

BillyBigMouth wrote:

basscrusher wrote:

If the gas-powered boat is really for safety (which is ISN'T)

This is just ignorance.  When was the last time you attended a rowing practice?

This will likely be my last comment on this, as I'm tired of those who can't follow logic.  The comment isn't ignorant...your argument about safety is specious, at best.  My comment is based on years of observation of unsafe and downright HOSTILE rowing practices at Occoquan Res.  The coaches are not following in order to watch for mishaps as their PRIMARY objective.  The PRIMARY objective is to yell commands at the rowers.  Safety is a secondary goal, and one used to hide behind in order to gain an exemption from the associated municipalities.  If safety is the goal...well, fishing boats can capsize as well.  Why is there no gas-powered boat following fishermen around watching out for their safety????????????????

Here's a tutorial in Logic 101, from someone who's built an academic career based on the underpinnings of logical argumentation:

Premise 1: Beaverdam Res., for various reasons, is not suitable for the usage of gas-powered watercraft.
Premise 2: Rowing, as a sport, is dependent upon a coach who must use a gas-powered boat.
Conclusion: Beaverdam Res. is not suitable for rowing as a sport.

advanced analysis: premise 1 is predicated upon several points: A) gas-powered boats would threaten the Reservoir's role as a water-supply (according to Fairfax, not me).  Use of gas motors by ANYONE, fisherman or rowing coach, would have the same deleterious effect, and thus should be prohibited.  Just because the boat is for safety reasons, it still produces the same ecological effects of any gas-powered craft.  The by-products of a gas motor do not change based upon the intentions or role of the pilot.   Point B) Gas-powered craft, by increasing the velocity of watercraft, effectively "shrink" the size of Beaverdam Res.  Accidents are more likely to occur on waters where craft move at a faster rate, in smaller space.  If this is part of the reason for banning gas-powered fishing vessels, the logic holds true for ALL gas-powered watercraft, regardless of the role or purpose of the operator.

Premise 2 is predicated upon the point that rowers need additional safety measures.  This raises several questions not addressed by the rowers: A)  Do fishermen not also need safety measures?  If so, why may they not use gas motors?  B)  If rowing is so unsafe that a county need bend its rules, then is the sport truly safe for that body of water?  C) If the boat is for resue attempts, can it not be held in reserve, to be used "in case of emergency?"  If a fisherman falls in the water, he/she must wait for help from those coming to his/her rescue in a slower, non-gas powered boat.  Why should the rowers not expect the same potential delay in rescue?  Or better yet, why should a fisherman necessarily accept a delay in rescue time simply because his/her sport was deemed less worthy of a timely response?

Ultimately my point is this:  if rowing teams are allowed to use gas motors on Beaverdam, so should everyone else.  If gas-powered motors would "ruin" beaverdam, then ANY use of gas motors would ruin it.  I have not fished on Beaverdam since the rowing teams started up out there.  I can't imagine a 300-acre lake being able to support that much traffic.  And yes, rowing causes exponentially more "traffic" since the boats are always in motion.  Occoquan, in my experience, has trouble sustaining a balance between fishermen and rowing traffic at certain times, and it's 3000 (that's THREE THOUSAND) acres.  Luckily for you, I don't make the rules.  I wish I did.  I'd allow rowers to use their motors...and I'd allow small motors for fishermen in jonboats as well.  And if Fairfax said fishermen get no motors, I'd make that rule apply to everyone as well.  If the sport can't follow the rules set down for everyone else, the sport needs to find another home.