Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Sonny, Feb 7, 2009.
Jerry I think your attitude sucks. If this gets me banned then so be it.
Johnnyrockfish, explain to me how my attitude sucks? I'm a big boy, I can take a punch. I'm being honest here. Only thing I could apologize for was calling Jan a Guru in a smartass way. But that's it.
BTW Johnny, I only said I'd close it if it became politically based or a bunch of newbies signed up just to post on this thread. Plain and simple. If it has merit, I'll leave it be.
Let's just say I'm not a big fan of authority figures, especially those who say things online that they would never say to someone in person. If you re-read your posts on this thread and look at your tone you'll see what I mean. Or maybe not.
dude, he WOULD say it to you in person, and he's not a little guy either!:rofl:
settle down, you're running hot. happens to all of us once in awhile...some days it's so hard not to hit that enter button.
Yeah, you're right Spey. Not bad advice for a Spaz.
Re: the thread itself - I wasn't arguing with Jerry's points since he knows the area better than me, just the tone. Keep an eye on WSDOT.
Over and Out.
s'OK, bro. :thumb:
The poll works just fine for me. Feel free to suggest some new ones. I laughed out loud at the one suggestion about butt mites, etc, etc.
I have already stated the poll was an afterthought after I posted the forum. Obviously I am a bit biased, however this is not the only environmental cause I support nor is it the only message board I write on. I spend an awful lot of time fishing between Burley and Minter and all of Henderson Bay so I will do what I can to keep things the way they are in the water.
Jerry, I take no offense to your passion and would gladly fish with anyone on this board, but I would appreciate and expect anyone to respect the waterways first. Any impact in the lagoon cannot benefit the fishery.
Ok, not a problem Sonny. I just am looking at the overall big picture with the area. I know of little creeks out there most don't, since at one time or another I've literally have passed them. Private watersheds, etc.
And yes, what you see is what you get. I'm as me on here as I am in reallife. So trust me, if I'll say it here, I'll say it in reallife. Anyone who's fished with me knows that. Plus, anyone that knows me, knows I'll give the shirt off my back for them. I'm not afraid to stand up for a cause, as long as it has it's merits.
But my big thing was looking at the planned change. I can see why the WSDOT chose it's route. Literally making a straight away. You already have to travel up Purdy drive, instead of turning onto Tyee to cross the spit, they run you up a couple more blocks to 144th St. That's a straight shot up to Lake Kathryn. So instead of winding up that damned hill, you run straight.
I just don't like the other plans. You are putting more pressure on the lagoon the committee says it loves so much (running up 66th Ave along Cenex to the Pierce/Kitsap line). Adding all the toxins and such Jan was complaining about. Instead, you'd be doing it up MORE of the waterway all the way to the head of the lagoon. Plus, adding more traffic down 118th Ave, which like I said is the major road that Minter Creek snakes along. Which IS a salmon rearing stream and has a major oyster operation at it's mouth. So you have to see my point, noone investigated the impact there.
Sorry if I came off "authorotative". I'm just stating the facts.
And Sonny, I'm blessed, I fished a TON of private beaches most people can't access from Henderson Bay down to Devils Head back up into the private beaches near Joemma Beach and up around Herron Island. That's the benefit of being a UPS driver out there. Kept my 7wt in my package car at all times. Sucked taking a permanent route in the business district of Gig Harbor. Can't fish on my breaks anymore.
Fishing 200 days per year vs a new bridge (wherever they end up locating it) designed with all of the required environmental review and ESA/DOT/WDFW/Tribal/USFWS requirements. If I were a Burley Lagoon fish advocate and I had to choose between them, I'd might actually choose the bridge over the 200 days of fishing pressure.
Nice to see that we don't all agree on everything. If we did it would be a whole lot less interesting around here.
As someone who daily drives the Purdy spit from Home into Tacoma and back, this thread struck such a nerve with me that I had to register and respond.
First of all - the current bridge is dangerous, decrepit, and ugly. Now, as far as 'ugly' is concerned, I don't personally think that 'attractive' bridges are a necessity, nor that 'ugly' minimizes function. However, coupled with decrepit and dangerous, the options for keeping it are slight.
Secondly - More people are moving onto the Key Pen. That's just the way it is. It's a wonderful area with good access to a large city via the Narrows bridges - more people moving to Key Pen is just a fact associated with the improved access. Now, obviously, the Key Pen folks could attempt a whole "Bainbridge Island" ploy and act like a bunch of corncobs - however, that's not what the majority of Key Pen folks are like. Sure, we all worry about more and more people moving out here, ruining the whole reason we moved out here in the first place - but to bemoan others moving here to enjoy the reasons we moved out here is a bit hypocritical.
Thirdly - There have been no environmental studies done on the proposed bridge. For all the hype that Sonny and Jan have stated, the fact remains that everything that they said will happen is just conjecture. This is not a slam - what they are concerned with might happen (and then again, it might never happen...) but as of right now, there is no data to support what they say will happen.
There are a lot of concerns that have been brought up, but the simple fact of the matter is - activity causes impact. Whether that activity is a new bridge, a re-route around the lagoon, or even leaving the existing bridge up until it crumbles into dust; the activity associated with the Purdy Spit will have impact. Obviously, from what I read from Jan, the concern is with how much impact the proposed solution will have on the lagoon.
So, let's say that the solution is to leave the existing bridge in place. With more and more traffic sitting in line at the Purdy light, it is more likely to have de-icing and petroleum byproducts drip and wash into the lagoon from running (but idle) vehicles than it is from having them moving. In other words, Jan, your argument regarding a new bridge adding more contaminants from a new bridge, is specious. More cars, sitting longer and longer at the Purdy light, will add more contaminant per given area than it would to keep those cars moving. Doubt what I am saying? Look at any stop-and-go intersection vs. a free-moving piece of roadway.
So, the argument then becomes, let's remove the bridge and re-route around Lake Kathryn. Obviously, removing the bridge will have an impact (however, short term). But, laying down asphalt to provide for 15 years of traffic growth will seriously impact both the lagoon and Lake Kathryn. The Purdy creek, which has significantly less discharge than does the tidal wash out of the Purdy spit, will be environmentally impacted by the Lake Kathryn route. Because of the low discharge rate of Purdy creek, pollution has less of a chance to wash out of Purdy Creek than it does if it enters the lagoon over the creek. This is not to even mention the impact a route through Lake Kathryn will have on Horseshoe Lake or Minter Creek - which is a significant nursery to Sound fisheries, also. Why is this so? because there is more asphalt (more miles) than there would be to lay extra asphalt using the most direct way over the Spit. All those extra miles, means that cars are burning extra petroleum; the exhaust of which is going to run downhill - directly into Burley Lagoon.
While we might wish for a world where activity doesn't have impact, that isn't reality - and to refuse to face reality is a child's dream. The rest of us adults out here grow weary of those of you who try and implement your childish fantasies. Quit trying to sway the world with your psuedo-science (which is really nothing more than feel-good quackery...) Common sense doesn't match up with your ramblings. The fact of the matter is, a new bridge over Purdy Spit will have about the same environmental impact in the short term , but less of an environmental impact over the long-term, than a re-route around the lagoon.
I vote for a new bridge. (oh, and no butt mites...
Are there any updates on this issue?
Mike, I personally think it was all hype over nothing really. Funny, since this thread was put up, I now HAVE the route that surrounds this whole area. I deliver the whole inlet (Goodrich and Purdy Drives), Lake Kathryn, Wauna, Purdy, etc. I've yet to hear any new news about the bridge. I still am one that would LOVE them to straighten that road out and make it shoot straight up 144th. Those are DANGEROUS turns going up the Purdy spit on 302. And that bridge needs to be widened if anything. Two big vehicles (like my UPS truck), we have to bend our mirrors in our we will hit (and that's with our lugnuts rubbing the bridge). So something needs to be done one way or another. But think it's been a dead case for now.
Nice to see that we are all talking fishing here. As someone who has no vested interest in the area, I'll drop a few words, anyway. Tomorrow is conjecture. Next week is conjecture, next month is... The facts are as you see them personally. I had two aunts and uncles and their seven boys who grew up on Burley Lagoon. They all went to and graduated from Peninsula HS. I spent many summers on that water, learning to fish and row a boat. I haven't fished it much in later years because I have other places I'd rather fish. The septics have always been a problem. The PCB's aside, the area has always been sensitive. The mud is deep and contaminated with all kinds of stuff and the state and residents have done little in the past 50 years about it. So they want to build another, wider, safer bridge to cross the area. That doesn't mean it's going to be a toll bridge or that more people will move there because there is a newer bridge. The place looks pretty much the same as it did in 1960save normal growth. When they took the toll off the Narrows it was predicted that hundreds of thousands of people would pick up stakes and move there. Didn't happen. Yes, Gig Harbor has grown but any place with a nice environment is bound to grow over a fifty year period. We have a greater population than we did in 1960, everywhere. Let's just get it over with so we can get back to fishing. Clean up your septic systems. Stop complaining about population growth. We're all responsible so let progress take its toll but let's do it right.
I also drive 302 every day to work.....The bridge needs to be replaced-upgraded.
Based on what I've read in these posts we can expect a soultion around 2020 with
construction begining 2045. I'll be haunting the barn by then. Maybe we will have a cure for the butt mite problem by then?
I don't drive over the bridge but the other way - up 144th. Based on traffic in that area it would be slick to see a ramp off of 16 that would just feed to the KP and bypass the Lagoon. The Burley Lagoon would be a lot more peaceful place then. The down side is that the bikini barista might go out of business.
We can't let that happen!!!!
Let us hope that part makes it into the EIS
LOL. Say it this way, it wouldn't. I know customers who PURPOSELY go out of thier way to get coffee there. So, doubt it'll happen. Plus, half the boys at PHS go there on thier break to get coffee. I wonder why?