Comment Log Display

This sure sounds like another heavy handed attempt by the
government to over zealously try to attain goals that are not
realistic, pragmatic or possible in the time frame given.  If the
technology is not available to update boats safely and financially
within reason, then the rule needs to be revisited. In the scheme
of things, I believe the offset of emissions for this sector would
be very small compared to the loss of jobs, revenue and access to
our environment.  Furthermore, we feel that the next step would be
to restrict vessels owned by private citizens like myself.  I have
a boat and it is a large, important part of my life.  If I could
not use it due to a rule change that made it non-useable and
worthless overnight, I don't know what I would do! Pretty soon no
one can access the marine environment but the government or the
very rich.  Please rework this proposed rule to incorporate some
transitional technology that will not kill off a whole industry and
way of life.  I also understand that the cost of building any new,
larger (65'+) fishing boats for charter operations is not
economically feasible in todays world. So Replacement boats will
not be built due to cost and what the market will support.  I use
my boat mostly for Scuba diving and underwater photography and
share my adventures with friends and family.  I spend a good chunk
of my income supporting this hobby/ lifestyle and again could not
stand it to stay in California if it was regulated away.  
Sincerely, Jim McKeeman