click here (http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=2789)
Lone Wolf
03-29-2006, 20:08
No Biggie. They ain't the first and won't be the last.
No Biggie. They ain't the first and won't be the last.
:D next big story lonewolf admits he has the hots for hillary clinton
the sexiest women alive:cool: neo
Frolicking Dinosaurs
03-29-2006, 20:48
They will no doubt report on how rosy fresh we all smell, our pristine speech and our impeccable manners.
They will no doubt report on how rosy fresh we all smell, our pristine speech and our impeccable manners.
Actually, it sounded like they were taking a break from journalism.
THey haven't updated their journal since 17 March. I hope the bears didn't eat them.
THey haven't updated their journal since 17 March. I hope the bears didn't eat them.
I was wondering about that myself. Journalists not updating their journal? If something bad didn't happen to them, they could lose their journalist title, no? :-?
mindlessmariachi
03-30-2006, 23:46
More power to 'em. I always like to read what others write about their trail experiences. Though full disclosure in order; I come from the dark side. I used to be a journalist and wrote a series of stories about my thru-hike in 02 for the travel section of the Boston Herald. It was fun to hear a year later at trail days that the clippings had turned up in a shelter in virginia!
anyway, this one line grabbed me: "Reshetiloff, who is taking a PDA and foldup keyboard in her pack, promises updates from the trail." I wonder if the PDA and foldup keyboard will make it out of Georgia?
Update on the journalists from BayJournal.com (http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=2816)
From time to time, people criticize the Bay Journal for having too much “doom and gloom.” Certainly,” some say, “with everything going on, the Bay has to be in better condition than it appears in these pages.”
Sadly, it’s not.
In fact, one of the most dire descriptions of the Bay’s condition was just published. It is the Bay Program’s new report on “Ecosystem Health,” one of two new documents that replaces its “State of the Bay” reports which were criticized by the Government Accountability Office last November for being too rosy.
No one will mistake the new report (See “Ecosystem Health’ report paints sorry picture of Chesapeake” in this issue.) for being rosy.
The gloomiest news is on page 8 of the report, which uses a mixture of real-world water quality monitoring (for nontidal rivers) and model estimates (for areas draining to tidal waters) to estimate the actual amount of nitrogen entering the Bay.
It’s the first time I’ve seen such estimates, and they are striking. There is no meaningful—if any—trend. But surprisingly, it shows that the average nitrogen “load” entering the Bay each year is about 350 million pounds. That’s almost 200 million pounds more than the cleanup goal.
Just for reference, the 1985 baseline for measuring nitrogen (based on model estimates) is 338 million pounds.
Certainly, some of the lack of progress is the result of several wet years that flushed large amounts of nutrients off the land and into the Chesapeake. Indeed, some data suggest that since 1985, when adjusted for flow, nutrient concentrations have declined.
Unfortunately, the same data show that, in recent years, those downward trends have halted and begun increasing in many places. (See “Sampling of Bay’s rivers yields surprises (http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=2625),” October 2005.)
That’s not what was supposed to happen. For years, the lack of clear progress was often attributed to lag time—the slow journey that nitrogen often takes through groundwater. As a result, the full impact of nitrogen reductions can be delayed for years.
Guess what? It’s years later. Instead of those actions showing up, the trends in many rivers are heading in the wrong direction. Either many of the actions claimed a decade ago were never implemented, were not effective, or are being overcome by growth or other factors.
“Seems to me,” commented one scientist who recently looked at the same data, “that this is so important we should have a task force of the best and brightest trying to figure out what is going on.”
Certainly, the overall strategy of seeking big nutrient reductions is sound. But if the tactics used to achieve that strategy are not as effective as thought, or are not being targeted in the right places—or if new sources of nutrients are not being fully accounted for—then the gloom may continue. It is not a rosy picture.
A new watch on the water
Other evidence of the poor state of the Bay and its tributaries doesn’t require a report. It’s evident, as Scott Faber reports this month, in the rise of waterkeepers around the Bay.
Waterkeepers are known for their sometimes hard-edged approach to clean water advocacy, often resorting to lawsuits. Only a few years ago, there were none in the region; they are now patrolling a dozen local rivers.
I know that for some watershed groups, the decision about whether to hire a waterkeeper had stirred internal debate over the best method to restore and protect their waterways.
The steady rise in the number of waterkeepers speaks volumes about the direction that debate is going—and the level of dissatisfaction brewing with many at the grassroots level over the current state of progress.
The trek continues...
By late April, Bay Naturalist columnist Kathy Reshetiloff and husband, Greg, had covered more than 200 miles on their Appalachian Trail hike.
In their on-line diary, they have reported about hiking through tunnels of rhododendron and mountain laurel, which was like an enchanted forest. There have been spectacular views—and rain. And about eight hours of hiking a day.
You can catch up with them at www.trailjournals.com/reshetiloff (http://www.trailjournals.com/reshetiloff).