[HN Gopher] Man who shoveled new channel into Lake Michigan conv...
___________________________________________________________________
Man who shoveled new channel into Lake Michigan convicted
Author : ww520
Score : 67 points
Date : 2024-02-11 23:29 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.msn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.msn.com)
| ungreased0675 wrote:
| After reading the article it's still unclear why what he did was
| bad? I presume some kind of negative ecological effect?
| ww520 wrote:
| I guess they want nature to take its course and to avoid impact
| by human.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| I wish, but it's a little late for that. This decision is
| mostly about which humans get to enjoy which aspect of the
| river.
| rrrix1 wrote:
| Disagree. It's never too late to start doing the right
| thing in matters of mother nature.
|
| In this case, it's taking care of the riparian environment
| near the mouth of a river. It doesn't always have to be
| about human interests.
|
| I looked at the pictures of Platt Beach, and I think the
| NPS chose correctly.
|
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/a2tPE7JRPNCFL9Ys7?g_st=ic
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| > but it's a little late for that
|
| Myopically selfish comment. One can absolutely let nature
| rebound. This one-way fatalism is shield for continuing to
| make bad decisions.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| I'm not stating what _should_ be the case, merely talking
| what _is_ the case as described in the article. The park
| authorities want to make life easier for non-boating park
| visitors, and that means making life harder for park
| visitors with boats.
|
| The fact that most people visiting the park prefer a more
| natural, wilder-seeming environment is great. But
| accommodating them is not the same as a proper
| "rewilding" approach - which would presumably mean
| removing access roads and trails, allowing seasonal
| flooding, avoiding intervention for dangerous-to-human
| wildlife, etc.
| solardev wrote:
| TLDR the Parks Service wanted to stop dredging that river,
| despite having done it for years, because they wanted to shift
| the focus to summertime visitors on foot and keeping the dunes
| more natural.
|
| That disappointed some fishermen who used to be able to
| navigate into the bay with a boat. Tired of having to push
| their boats over the last bit, they dug a channel themselves
| instead.
|
| The NY Times article has more info:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/09/us/michigan-river-nationa...
|
| "Park officials decided to restore the river to its natural
| state in 2016 after an environmental assessment found that the
| sand and gravel dredged from the river mouth interfered with
| dune vegetation and the enjoyment of beachgoers.
|
| According to the assessment, dredging benefited "a small,
| short-term user group compared to the deleterious effects for
| the larger recreational groups during the full summer."
|
| It was a controversial decision, prosecutors said in court
| papers, because in the Platte River's natural, non-dredged
| state, the river mouth became too shallow for boats to pass.
|
| "If you had a boat, it sucked," said Brian Seiferlein, a
| chartered fishing boat guide. "You would need two, three guys
| to push your boat about three-fourths of a mile in ankle-deep
| water.""
|
| The environmental review is here:
| https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MI...
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > Park officials decided to restore the river to its natural
| state in 2016 after an environmental assessment found that
| the sand and gravel dredged from the river mouth interfered
| with dune vegetation and the enjoyment of beachgoers.
|
| The dune vegetation point seems very hand wavey.
|
| The environment impact is rather long but it appears to
| essentially say less human activity and boats may cause less
| disturbance to wildelife. Although this seems to undermine
| the point of it making the beach more accessible to other
| humans. I didnt see any acute or specific harm cited like
| damaging some endangered species or something.
|
| Basically, it sounds like they just plain dont want boats to
| be able to access the lake from the river. It seems like they
| are repurposing the park and hiding behind the wildlife
| assessment.
| solardev wrote:
| (TLDR... this area is subject to a specific kind of
| protection that emphasizes protection over recreation. I
| wanted talk a bit in general about how these things work,
| because it's not super obvious from the outside. I'm not an
| expert in any of this, but my undergrad was in
| environmental science, where we talked a lot about this
| stuff.)
|
| > It seems like they are repurposing the park and hiding
| behind the wildlife assessment.
|
| "Park" here is a bit of an ambiguous term. This area was
| designated a "National Lakeshore" in 1970, which is a lot
| more protection than your typical county park would have.
| In this case the federal government, by act of Congress,
| stepped in and said they wanted to preserve this land for
| the future, unimpaired. https://www.nps.gov/articles/nps-
| designations.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping
| _Bear_Dunes_National_L.... This protection is closer to
| something like Yellowstone or Yosemite than your local
| fishing spot. And apparently its management was always
| contentious: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/s
| lbe/adhi_intro...
|
| In other words, Congress specifically tasked the NPS to
| _preserve_ this area, which is a specific designation that
| is meant to emphasize natural resource preservation over
| recreational usage. There are other land designations too,
| both higher like wilderness (MUCH more protected) and lower
| (like most USFS and BLM land, which can be managed for
| resource extraction alongside recreation, with limited
| conservation).
|
| Probably the area shouldn't have ever been dredged for
| recreation, if they were to follow the true spirit of the
| law. But NPS personnel and values have changed over time
| too, as well as our science, and over time it probably has
| become more protective than in the past (like we don't feed
| the bears in Yosemite anymore).
|
| Most of Lake Michigan doesn't have this sort of
| designation; it was only a few scenic spots that Congress
| wanted to protect (most recently, Indiana's dunes were
| added a few years ago).
|
| > The environment impact is rather long but it appears to
| essentially say less human activity and boats may cause
| less disturbance to wildelife. Although this seems to
| undermine the point of it making the beach more accessible
| to other humans. I didnt see any acute or specific harm
| cited like damaging some endangered species or something.
|
| PDF pages 28 and 29 summarizes the impacts and tries to
| weigh the pros and cons of various "alternatives". An
| "alternative" here is just an "option", i.e., a bunch of
| what-if scenarios. Alternative 2 is what they proposed, and
| what was ultimately chosen (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/do
| cument.cfm?documentID=83442). But the public comments on
| that page are worth reading too, with anglers and other
| community members wanting more access, more boat launches,
| giving the land back to the state, etc.
|
| This project ultimately resulted in a "FONSI", a "Finding
| of No Significant Impact", which means the agency thought
| that it wasn't a big enough deal to warrant a full
| investigation. The environmental assessment they did was
| just a preliminary review; if they had found significant
| impacts, it would've turned into a much longer
| investigation, like this 382-page environmental impact
| statement for another seashore (https://parkplanning.nps.go
| v/document.cfm?parkID=358&project...).
|
| By contrast, even at 30-some pages, this is a pretty
| typical EA. The agency has to be relatively thorough and
| check a bunch of boxes, or they can risk getting sued by
| environmental watchdogs, local activists, property owners &
| developers, etc.
|
| Aaaaaaaaanyway, I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing
| here. I don't have a dog in this race and I don't know all
| the facts, I just wanted to somewhat briefly explain the
| long and convoluted process that is NEPA (the National
| Environmental Policy Act), which is a super important piece
| of law that the government is absolutely terrible at
| explaining or marketing. Even this overview flowchart is
| super complicated, and the actual process is waaaaaay more
| complex: https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nepa/revisions/include
| s/docs/NEP...
|
| For example, each stage of this process usually has a
| public comment period, which is the "official" way for the
| public to provide its input on projects. Sometimes they get
| a lot of attention, but other times they fly totally under
| the radar. I wish the government were more invested in
| publicizing these things and getting the public to be aware
| of them (such as mandatory notifications via email or
| social media or SMS or whatever). But even when the public
| does provide feedback, the agency isn't really obligated to
| agree with them, merely to acknowledge and respond to them.
| In this case, the public comments I linked to above
| explicitly requested more boat launches, other dredging
| options, etc., and the NPS explained its rationales about
| why it didn't do those things, why those things are out of
| scope for its proposed projects, etc.
|
| It's a lot of red tape and bureaucratic language that
| basically boils down to "Thanks for your comment. We're
| going to do this anyway." And that, IMO, is a separate
| failure of the current law: there is not really an avenue
| for direct democratic participation in these processes. You
| can scream at them all you want but ultimately it's not
| your call. And that's how we end up with vigilante
| fishermen who take matters into their own hands.
|
| NEPA was a groundbreaking law in its day that helped
| protect a lot of our public lands that otherwise would've
| been irreparably harmed or destroyed outright. But it's
| also 50+ years old now and probably in need of some
| updating and streamlining and more opportunities for public
| participation. But that's the sort of unsexy infrastructure
| and resource discussion that most hotshot politicians don't
| want to focus on, instead arguing about the latest hot-
| button culture war issues.
|
| Man, I wish people invested as much emotion into these
| things as, say, bathrooms or movie casting. By and large
| people just ignore our public lands management until
| something suddenly changes that they don't like (even
| though it's often been planned for years if not decades,
| again, usually completely under the radar just because the
| governments are so bad at marketing and publicizing).
| anon84873628 wrote:
| I wonder why they don't have a boat launch directly into the
| lake.
| solardev wrote:
| As another poster mentioned
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341176), there are
| a couple other boat launches about 20 minutes away, to the
| north and south of the project site.
|
| In the environmental assessment (https://parkplanning.nps.g
| ov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MI...), Alternative 3
| explored the possibility of adding another boat launch and
| parking area. This is discussed in detail from PDF pages
| 22-25.
|
| A similar alternative, building a boat launch past the
| former dredging area, was also considered but dismissed
| because currents would likely submerge it within a few
| years. A few other sites were also looked at, but
| ultimately they went with not building any new ones.
|
| The NPS's subsequent response to public comments (https://p
| arkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MI...)
| discusses these further on PDF pages 19-20. My summary of
| the NPS's response is basically that anglers make up a
| little less than 1% of area visitation, and their main
| mandate is preservation of the natural resources.
|
| > Regarding the ecological health of Lake Michigan, the
| mission of the NPS does include preserving and enhancing
| ecological health and processes within the National
| Lakeshore. However, maximizing angler opportunities in an
| effort to increase state licensing fees is not an
| efficient, or appropriate, way for the NPS to attempt to
| achieve this.
|
| They were also asked why they didn't build more parking,
| grant the land back to the state, allow the state to take
| over dredging, etc.
|
| It's worth a read if you're interested.
|
| -------------
|
| I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the NPS's
| stances here, FWIW. Just wanted to show more of the NEPA
| process (the National Environmental Policy Act, which is
| what makes the NPS have to go through all these
| environmental reviews and public comments). These public
| comments are the official way for members of the public to
| respond and critique the federal government's (including
| the NPS's) planned management efforts.
|
| Of course, sometimes that doesn't work out, and, uh,
| vigilante land managers volunteer their shovels...
| PM_me_your_math wrote:
| Rivers change their natural state constantly. What the guy or
| group did shouldn't be criminal insomuch as it only takes one
| storm to cut a new channel. I take issue with government
| putting the lives of little birds and mounds of dirt over the
| lives of its citizens and their livelihoods.
| db48x wrote:
| Yea, but remember that it is a public park. It's not that
| guy's property to mess with.
| solardev wrote:
| IMO a criminal charge does seem a bit heavy-handed for
| this. They should've just made him shovel it all back, lol;
| that would've been punishment enough.
| db48x wrote:
| It's less about the ecology and more about who has the right to
| make modifications in a public park. Usually, whoever creates
| the park (whether it's a city, county, township, state, or the
| federal government) puts someone in charge of the maintenance
| of the park. Even if they're doing a bad job it's usually
| considered a bad idea for visitors, even locals as in this
| case, to take matters into their own hands. Certainly if every
| visitor started digging things up or cutting down trees then
| there wouldn't be much left of the park.
| rkagerer wrote:
| If he owned the property where this was done (or at least as
| close as you can own to the water mark) would it have made a
| difference?
| TapWaterBandit wrote:
| Legally, probably. I don't know the laws around
| environmental protection in that area so there may still
| have been a violation but it appears he was convicted here
| for violation of property rights as this is public land.
| But this whole situation is more about the property rights
| and how the lake here will be used for recreation rather
| than ecological concerns if I'm reading correctly.
| justinjlynn wrote:
| Boils down to: if they want to make an example out of
| you, they will find some way to do so.
| topherclay wrote:
| What do you mean by this? If they just wanted to make an
| example out of him then he gave them a very easy way to
| "find" to do so, considering we are observing it via
| satellite maps.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Oh you know, the big bad government just going after The
| Small Guy (oddly the one who openly flaunted laws)
| pkulak wrote:
| Water gets really complicated, legally, going back to the
| Romans. Water being on your property doesn't really mean
| much. Imagine if you were allowed to buy 100 feet next to a
| river and damn it, for example.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| > _damn it_
|
| Curses and hexes are not prohibited by the law. If you
| want to damn a river, damn it. You don't even need to buy
| the land first.
| pkulak wrote:
| lol, touche
| advael wrote:
| This has become my favorite comment on hn
| dylan604 wrote:
| But it may open you to excommunication from the religious
| power in your area. Using hexes and curses might get you
| burned at the stake
| spacecadet wrote:
| Yeah! curse the water and the locals show up with torches
| and pitchforks, dont ask how I know...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| On a related note:
|
| to those who say "it's better to light one candle than to
| curse the darkness" I say "Damn the darkness!"
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Nope. Just because you own land doesn't mean you can do
| whatever you want with it. _Especially_ with wetlands.
| Ecologically, they are extremely important and usually
| fragile.
| db48x wrote:
| I'm no lawyer, but I bet it would at least require a
| permit. The county would review it, make you do studies to
| see if it would be bad. It'd take years, and nobody would
| be able to prove that it would hurt the ecology of the
| river, or inconvenience any downstream users, so it would
| be a judgement call. The county would deny your permit
| application for no good reason, and you'd have to go to
| court over it. After years of motions, rulings, and
| appeals, it would end up in the Supreme Court where they
| would rule that the EPA can't veto this particular project
| because the river doesn't cross state lines and the EPA was
| only given permission by Congress to regulate those
| waterways which are shared between states. It would take
| another year before the permit was actually approved. After
| all, what is a government for except to get in a man's way?
| autoexec wrote:
| Or it'd go the same way it does for just about every
| person doing something on own their land. It might
| involve a permit but would most likely would not involve
| the supreme court and everybody would be just fine as
| evidenced by the huge number of people who have already
| built things on their land/water and the vast majority of
| people would be better off for it and grateful that
| there's some kind of oversight to make sure that people
| aren't doing something that will fuck up the things we
| all use/depend on.
|
| Even if someone is lucky enough to own land with a river
| running through it I'm pretty glad that _somebody_ will
| "get in a man's way" if that man decides to do something
| like dump heavy metals into the river with abandon or dam
| it up without any consideration for those further
| downstream. I'm also glad that the somebody doing the job
| is ultimately working for the public and that voters who
| can decide to increase/decrease the amount of oversight
| as needed. The majority of the US population feels that
| the government isn't doing enough to protect the
| environment.
| skissane wrote:
| > I'm no lawyer, but I bet it would at least require a
| permit
|
| In May last year, SCOTUS significantly narrowed the
| definition of "waters of the United States" - https://en.
| m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Pro... - so
| some of these cases which would have required a federal
| permit (EPA or Army Corps of Engineers) may no longer
| require one.
|
| Whether a state/county/municipal permit is required is a
| completely separate question - it is a matter of state
| and local law, which varies from state to state and
| locality to locality
| db48x wrote:
| I was being facetious, of course. Most permit
| applications do not end up in court cases, let alone in
| the Supreme Court. But that is the very case I was
| referring to.
|
| However, that case did not narrow the definition of the
| phrase "waters of the United States" at all. No, it
| merely prevented the EPA from widening it over time. Keep
| in mind that the Sackett's property does not actually
| contain a wetland or navigable waterway; it just has a
| ditch that occasionally channels rainwater away from
| their lawn. This returns us to the definition that the
| EPA decided on in the 1970s and 1980s.
| skissane wrote:
| > However, that case did not narrow the definition of the
| phrase "waters of the United States" at all. No, it
| merely prevented the EPA from widening it over time.
|
| SpaceX had requested a wetland reclamation permit from
| USACE for expansion of their launch site in Texas; in
| 2022 (a year before SCOTUS decided this case) they
| withdrew the application [0], exactly why is unclear, but
| it seems they concluded that bureaucratic process was
| unlikely to produce the result they wanted. Possibly,
| under this decision, the wetland (tidal flats actually)
| they wanted to reclaim is no longer "waters of the United
| States", in which case they might be able to go ahead
| without the permit. If that's the case, then in practice
| the definition really has been narrowed
|
| [0] https://www.tpr.org/environment/2022-04-07/army-
| corps-of-eng...
| defrost wrote:
| As a general rule human notions of "efficiency" that lead to
| straightening water channels, draining wetlands, clearing
| mangroves, replacing river basins with concrete, etc have
| downsides that can often be severe down the track a few
| decades.
|
| Every specific case is a bit different, of course.
|
| That said, removing a meander can improve boat navigation, but
| it reduces total water contact with shore line interface,
| filtering effect of weeds, opportunities for water way animal
| breeding locations, increases flow rates, etc.
|
| The downsides can be loss of habitat and species, more polluted
| water, faster water in flood times leading to stronger gouging
| effects, banks bursting etc.
|
| Wetland habitats clean and filter water, near the ocean and
| large lakes they reduce storm surges, etc.
|
| Where rivers drain into oceans or lakes with different water
| properties (oceans have higher salt levels) banking at the
| river mouth reduces backwash from the larger body up into the
| river and preserves the distinct water types which can benefit
| fish species, water based plants and animals, etc.
|
| It's a swings and roundabouts problem domain.
| bomewish wrote:
| I love HN.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I love how LA just paved its river, and then questions why
| there's so much run off. Like, where did you expect the water
| to go when you've paved everything?
|
| My city got tired of the river flooding the downtown area, so
| decided to reroute the river. Of course, they made it much
| straighter than it would naturally form. So nearly a century
| later, they started to go back and add in bends and areas for
| the water to pool in areas. It has done a lot in a positive
| direction.
| nimbius wrote:
| the US at the start of the 20th century was sort of a shit-
| wreck of works projects to impose manifest destiny on
| whatever part of nature that happened to irk us that day.
| the LA river is what it is today for the same reason anzo
| borrego has no more natural water, the salton sea is a
| boiling chemical pit, and the east coast was a toxic dump
| up until the nineties with things like the love canal
| projects.
|
| The river flooded in 1938, tearing out bridges and
| trestles. It killed more than 100 people, trapped movie
| stars on their San Fernando Valley ranches, and forced a
| three-day delay in the Oscars. The water tore away the
| Warner Brothers studio's prop department.
|
| That flood wrote the real river's death warrant. It was the
| Depression; L.A. needed jobs, not a killer river. The river
| was timbered and troughed and cemented over, mile after
| mile. Only in parts of its 51-mile bed would it assert
| itself and remain persistently unpaveable: for about three
| miles around Atwater Village, and along more than two miles
| at the broad reach of the Sepulveda dam wildlife area.
|
| It took 20 years and 3.5 million barrels of cement, and now
| we have a paved river as a testament to the hubris of man.
| fwiw, it did not solve the floods this year.
| bglazer wrote:
| This is very well written and the last paragraph really
| drives home what a disaster this is
| card_zero wrote:
| Seem needlessly harsh to humans, is there some less
| hubristic animal? The other animals don't even know the
| word, and they'd pave over rivers too if they even were
| capable of having bad ideas, I mean it's not like beavers
| or termites are exercising wise restraint.
| defrost wrote:
| Beavers are arguably beneficial to the bigger picture in
| their area, they don't make concreate waterways, they
| make large shallow lakes with lots of boggy areas.
|
| Hellish for humans to walk about and navigate, sure.
|
| Very good for temperature stabilisations, wetland life,
| water retention in areas that would otherwise drain and
| dry out, etc.
| card_zero wrote:
| Definitely, beavers are excellent, but not on purpose.
| When we say "human hubris" we're thinking of ourselves as
| bad for being able to think of things. Bacteria, by
| comparison, cause less havoc, but that's because their
| activities are limited by what's evolutionarily adaptive.
| They caused a mass extinction once, but that was a couple
| of billion years ago. None of the other creatures are
| being deliberately _good_. Neither are humans, on the
| whole, but at least it troubles our minds sometimes.
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| Also arguably bad in some places they're edging out the
| locals (South America) or contributing to greenhouse gas
| emissions (the warming Arctic), if you believe in
| "invasive species" (some people don't)
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| > and they'd pave over rivers too if they even were
| capable of having bad ideas
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
| akira2501 wrote:
| > to impose manifest destiny on whatever part of nature
| that happened to irk us that day.
|
| To use available technology and information of the day in
| an attempt to improve outcomes for millions of people.
|
| > It killed more than 100 people
|
| I guess that doesn't "irk" some people. I suppose they've
| adopted a mindset that the dead somehow "deserved" it for
| some imagined choice they made, or that humanity as a
| whole "deserves" to be doomed.
|
| > as a testament to the hubris of man
|
| Engineering is an act of compromise. One that has mostly
| worked in our favor. You can either give up because we
| are incapable of perfection or you can dig in and try to
| make the next incremental improvement.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-02-08/live
| s-s...
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Given how much water ended up in the ocean instead of
| downtown, I think it did a damn good job.
| metabagel wrote:
| I don't know about Los Angeles, but in Orange County our
| concrete flood channels occasionally fill up with water.
| When that happens, I feel like maybe they weren't such a
| bad solution after all.
|
| They are terrible, but I think the alternative was
| probably not to build in places like Huntington Beach
| (population 200,000).
| metabagel wrote:
| The L.A. River was paved before WW2.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-01/why-
| we-t...
|
| For some time now, Los Angeles and Orange County have been
| in the process of adding soil and plants to the bottoms of
| the concrete channels.
|
| Here's the website for the L.A. river revitalization.
|
| https://lariver.org/
| NPC82 wrote:
| If endangered piping plovers of the Great Lakes are similar to
| the enangered Snowy Plovers in California, the sand build up is
| pretty important for their nesting. Dredging sand in general is
| usually pretty bad unless it's part of a project to remove
| recent mining runoff (these days strictly controlled by the
| EPA...unless defunded)
|
| https://www.greatlakespipingplover.org/
|
| Disclaimer: I'm just an amateur birder.
| jws wrote:
| I'm not sure "bad" is required.
|
| As a person responsible for maintaining a harbor in Lake
| Michigan, I am allowed to move 1 cubic yard of material a year,
| by hand, with a shovel (last time I checked, the rules change).
| Anything else requires a detailed permitting process with lots
| of limitations on what is even possible.
|
| You are looking at a body of rules built up to prevent draining
| large wetlands without permission, destroying your neighbors
| waterfront, dredging huge plumes of PCB contaminated sediment
| into the active water zones, wiping out a regional spawning
| bed, or casting an intermittent shadow on a patch of lake bed
| of the great state of _redacted_. This is administered by a
| staff who will be held accountable for unforeseen damage and
| has limited resources.
|
| So you do the paperwork, wait for your permits, only work
| during the weeks of the year when work is allowed, and try to
| generally make do with less than you wanted.
| roamerz wrote:
| > As a person responsible for maintaining a harbor in Lake
| Michigan, I am allowed to move 1 cubic yard of material a
| year, by hand, with a shovel
|
| looking at the picture he could have made a smaller channel
| moving the legal limit letting the water enlarge it over
| time.
| themadturk wrote:
| Yes, but was the fellow considered a harbor maintainer? I
| don't know what this constitutes, but there's nothing in
| the story to indicate he had any such designation.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I believe I've found the spot shown in the article:
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/sSscNRFzYBg9Wmbb7 The satellite view
| matches the photos.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Here's a timelapse album:
| https://ibb.co/album/RTzjwW?sort=name_asc
|
| For some reason historical satellite photos are available in
| Google Earth Pro (which is free) but not on maps.google.com or
| earth.google.com
| db48x wrote:
| Good find. I believe that the "new channel" restored it to
| something like what it looked like in 2015, if I understand
| the descriptions correctly.
| zer0x4d wrote:
| >For some reason
|
| When you're talking about Google products, fragmentation
| comes built-in as expected. There is no reason for 3 versions
| of maps to exist within Google ecosystem but I don't think
| they really care
| infotropy wrote:
| 4, don't forget Waze
| iggldiggl wrote:
| And conversely Google Earth Pro can view street view imagery,
| too, but _only_ the current version - historic street view is
| only available via Google Maps through the browser.
| troydavis wrote:
| Some of this may be Google shipping its executive incentives
| (as in "Don't ship the org chart").
|
| Another example: Google Street View is available on the web -
| unless you use an iPhone and enter the address directly on
| maps.google.com instead of google.com. On the maps hostname
| with an iPhone, clicking the Street View preview just shows a
| nag screen that it's only available in the Google Maps app.
| That's not true, so I assume that app installs is some
| group's KPI.
| karmicthreat wrote:
| There were other boat launches in Frankfort and Empire they could
| have used, maybe 20 minutes away. That river is not very
| traversable as it has a weir on it.
| lainga wrote:
| "The Park Service no longer dredges the Platte River. As a
| result, sediment and sand build up, reducing the ability to get
| boats to Lake Michigan."
|
| I didn't get whether this was before or after the channel was
| dug, and whether there was any causation
| glitchc wrote:
| They should have just added wheels to the boat [1].
|
| [1] https://www.instructables.com/Portage-cart-for-canoes-and-
| ka...
| dusted wrote:
| come on, any change in the environment that can happen by one guy
| with a shovel over a few days, could happen by any random weather
| event anyway, that could have happened by the wind blowing just
| the right way..
| db48x wrote:
| Agreed, but remember that we're talking about a public park.
| It's not that one guy's personal property.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| Does that mean I should be allowed to cut all the trees I don't
| like down in my local park?
| BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 wrote:
| I did a lot of canoeing on the Lk Superior north east coast.
| Where rivers discharge, and there's sand the lake pushes up the
| sand against the river discharge and it's common for the outlet
| to be considerably displaced along the shore.
|
| Michipicoten beach is a high long sand bar with a strong flow
| where the river enters the lake. It's a neat surfing spot in a
| canoe or kayak.
| binary132 wrote:
| This seems like something my 8y/o son would do.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-12 23:02 UTC)