Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - View Single Post - Save the Harbor!!! Save our Fishing Grounds!!

quick decision · 02-18-2006, 10:44 AM

I am writing this letter to let you know that many people in your state are very opposed to the house bill 4500. These are some of the reasons.

IT WILL DESTROY CRITICAL HABITAT, WHICH WE SHOULD PROTECT.

IT WILL RESTRICT ACCESS TO OUR PARK FOREVER.

IT WON’T DECREASE LNG TANKER TRAFFIC INTO BOSTON HARBOR, OR PUT A STOP TO ANY OTHER PROPOSED LNG FACILITY IN THE REGION.

IT’S BAD IDEA TO PUT AN LNG TERMINAL IN A STATE OR NATIONAL PARK.

• Since 1986, we have spent more than $4.5 billion dollars on the Boston Harbor Clean-up, and millions more on the creation of the Boston Harbor Islands National Park. It’s simply wrong to squander these public investments for the private gain of one out of state company.

• Outer Brewster and the adjacent shallow bays are among the most popular and productive waters in the Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area for recreational boating, sailing, diving, fishing and lobstering. This proposal would restrict access to this part of our Park forever.

• Outer Brewster is the seasonal home to many threatened and protected species of sea and shore birds, as well as to the parks only colony of seals. The AES proposal would destroy this critical habitat.

• With more than a dozen proposals to locate LNG facilities in the Northeast United States and Canadian Maritimes already under review, there are clearly other ways to meet the region’s energy needs, including renewable energy and increased efficiency. Until there is a region-wide programmatic study of LNG siting and the alternatives, we simply will not know how much gas we really need.

• This proposal simply won’t decrease tanker traffic to Everett, or put a stop to other pending LNG terminal proposals in the region. In fact, it will result in a significant increase in LNG traffic into the Boston Harbor region.

• HR 4500 is inconsistent with state and federal law. If we don’t stop this proposal now, legal impediments to the proposed transfer are likely to result in both State and Federal legal challenges, embroiling us in a controversy that could take years to resolve

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.

your name

02-18-2006, 10:44 AM	#9
quick decision Registered User iTrader: (1) Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: weymouth Posts: 1,360 Blog Entries: 1	bill 4500 I am writing this letter to let you know that many people in your state are very opposed to the house bill 4500. These are some of the reasons. IT WILL DESTROY CRITICAL HABITAT, WHICH WE SHOULD PROTECT. IT WILL RESTRICT ACCESS TO OUR PARK FOREVER. IT WON’T DECREASE LNG TANKER TRAFFIC INTO BOSTON HARBOR, OR PUT A STOP TO ANY OTHER PROPOSED LNG FACILITY IN THE REGION. IT’S BAD IDEA TO PUT AN LNG TERMINAL IN A STATE OR NATIONAL PARK. • Since 1986, we have spent more than $4.5 billion dollars on the Boston Harbor Clean-up, and millions more on the creation of the Boston Harbor Islands National Park. It’s simply wrong to squander these public investments for the private gain of one out of state company. • Outer Brewster and the adjacent shallow bays are among the most popular and productive waters in the Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area for recreational boating, sailing, diving, fishing and lobstering. This proposal would restrict access to this part of our Park forever. • Outer Brewster is the seasonal home to many threatened and protected species of sea and shore birds, as well as to the parks only colony of seals. The AES proposal would destroy this critical habitat. • With more than a dozen proposals to locate LNG facilities in the Northeast United States and Canadian Maritimes already under review, there are clearly other ways to meet the region’s energy needs, including renewable energy and increased efficiency. Until there is a region-wide programmatic study of LNG siting and the alternatives, we simply will not know how much gas we really need. • This proposal simply won’t decrease tanker traffic to Everett, or put a stop to other pending LNG terminal proposals in the region. In fact, it will result in a significant increase in LNG traffic into the Boston Harbor region. • HR 4500 is inconsistent with state and federal law. If we don’t stop this proposal now, legal impediments to the proposed transfer are likely to result in both State and Federal legal challenges, embroiling us in a controversy that could take years to resolve THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. your name
	thats why they call it fishing not catching