Our Oceans are Under Attack

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by brian eiland, May 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 690
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    By Capt Paul Watson
    Why did Al Gore's film Inconvenient Truth not mention the inconvenient truth that the slaughter industry creates more greenhouse gases than the automobile industry?
    The Greenpeace ships serve meat and fish to their crews everyday. The World Wildlife Fund does not say a word about the threat that meat eating poses for the survival of wildlife, the habitat destroyed, the wild competitors for land eliminated, or the predators destroyed to save their precious livestock.
    When I was a Sierra Club director for three years, everyone looked amused when I brought up the issue of vegetarianism. At each of our Board meeting dinners, the Directors were served meat and only after much prodding and complaining did the couple of vegetarian directors manage to get a vegetarian option. At our meeting in Montana we were served Buffalo and antelope, lobsters in Boston, crabs in Charleston, steak in Albuquerque etc. But what else can we expect from a "conservation" group that endorses trophy hunting.
    As far as I know and I may be wrong, but my organization, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is the only conservation organization in the world that endorses and practises vegetarianism. My ships do not serve meat or fish ever, nor do we serve dairy products. We've had a strictly vegan menu for years and no one has died of scurvy or malnutrition.
    The price we pay for this is to be accused by other conservation organizations of being animal rights. Like it's a bad word. They say it with the same disdain that Americans used to utter the word communist in the Fifties.
    The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not an animal rights organization. We are exclusively involved in interventions against illegal activities that threaten and exploit marine wildlife and habitat. We are involved in ocean wildlife conservation activities.
    Yet because we operate our ships as vegan vessels, other groups, and now the media dismiss us as an animal rights organization.
    Now first of all I don't see being accused of as an animal rights organization to be an insult. PETA was co-founded by one of my crew-members and many of my volunteers come from the animal rights movement. But it is not accurate to refer to Sea Shepherd as animal rights when our organization pushes a strict conservation enforcement policy.
    And secondly we do not promote veganism on our ships because of animal rights. We promote veganism as a means of practising what we preach which is ocean conservation.
    This is a solid conservation connection between eating meat and the destruction of life in our oceans.
    And the truth is that you can't practise solid and constructive conservation work without promoting veganism and/or vegetarianism as something that promotes the conservation of resources.
  2. Petros
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,936
    Likes: 148, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1593
    Location: Arlington, WA-USA

    Petros Senior Member

    there is something wonderful about eating meat: you stay healthy and live a long life.

    eating vegan leaves you short of essential nutrients, leaves you unhealthy and with a short and unhappy existence.

    Eating vegan will reduce the world's population due to malnutrition. If that is your idea to "save" the planet, than I would find more human way than to slow starve to dealth the world's population. Besides that, the world would be overrun with wildanimals, either starving or eating each other. So we would have to shoot them to reduce their suffering. We might as well save that step and just use them for food, where they are treated humanly and do not suffer, as the would if left in the wild.
  3. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 690
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    Call me an extremist. Say that I'm a hippy, vegan, vegetarian, fanatical, idealist. Tell me that these views are unrealistic and going to destroy the lives of countless farmers. Tell me this is just crazy. Make a joke about it.
    It's hard to talk about eating animals without getting defensive, angry, sad and judgmental. I feel it. You feel it. So let's all, you and me both, take a step back, take a deep breath and look at what is really going on here.
    Fact: Livestock production is destroying the earth.
    If you need a reason to change your diet that's more than the unbearable torturing of animals, then here it is: 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock production. Compare that to the 13 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide that come from transport. Holy ****, right?
    To produce animal products, up to 10 times more land is needed than to produce vegetable products. It takes about six to seven kilograms of feed to create just one kilogram of meat. How inefficient is this? Land is being ploughed down and destroyed just to create space to grow grains to feed animals. Did you know this?
    Fact: Animals are being tortured so that you can eat steak, drink milk, have bacon and eat cheese.
    Piglets are castrated after birth and have their tails cropped without anesthetic. Egg producing hens have their sensitive beaks clipped and are moved around on factory belts like playthings. Chickens and turkeys often become crippled under their own weight, selectively bred to grow fatter than is naturally possible.
    Dairy cows are stripped of their newborns, forced to give milk even when they have infected, sore udders. Even the organic, free-range proclamations are so often a tragic myth. In many cases, the only difference between factory farmed organic meat and dairy is the lack of hormones and antibiotics. It's not all green pastures and happy living for most. How does this make you feel?
    Fact: Cats, dogs, pigs, goats, chickens -- they're all animals and they're all sentient beings.
    Why is there so much uproar when domestic animal abuse is uncovered but barely any attention is paid to the horror that is breeding sows, kept in cages too small to turn around or even greet their new babies?
    Dare I say it: eating a pork chop is the same as eating your cat. All animals' lives matter and when someone says, "I love animals" while eating a hamburger, there's just too much disassociation there for me to bear.
    Deep breath. Non-judgment.
    Fact: You don't need meat and dairy to be strong and healthy.
    What you've grown up believing is a myth. In fact, a plant-based diet can give you everything you need and more. The important thing to note is that it's not simply about taking away the steak and eating what's left.
    Being vegetarian or vegan means learning about food. It's a chance to get creative, to try new things and to make empowered decisions about what you choose to consume. With a plant-based diet, you'll be reducing your risk of obesity, heart disease, high cholesterol, colon cancer and a slew of other health-related problems. You'll poop more often and I'm willing to wager life will be sweeter.
    Fact: It might be hard to change but you can do it.
    You're capable of so much and if you choose, you can change the way you consume food. You're boundlessly compassionate and empathetic and you're not interested in being a part of a torture chain/ planet destruction scheme. I believe this about you.
    With knowledge comes power.
    I know life is hard enough. There's so much to think about and manage and so many things we work hard for and feel like we deserve. But what happens when getting what you want comes with a great big bad toll? Is it worth it then to turn a blind eye?
  4. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,827
    Likes: 384, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    You said it. Who am I to argue with such a confession?

    Why do you not take your vegan BS to another thread as has been requested by the OP?
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Hunting is respectable and not easy. Without planning and preparation, it's unlikely a hunter will even see any quarry. Animal senses (sight and smell) are much more acute than mine. My advantage is mind.
    The only thing primitive about hunting skills, is it's antiquity and together with making fire, the first technology. Domesticating animals, the second tier of technology. Farming the third.
    I enjoy practicing, mastering, and improving upon hunter/gatherer skills. I enjoy hunting with a dog companion. I like gardening. I also enjoy using a sextant, a barometer, hygrometer, and chronometer.
    These time honored activities connect me with prior human generations and generates respect for their lives and accomplishments.
    My parents were part of the "GREAT" generation that took us from the horse to the moon in one life span. Humans are an admirable species deserving respect.

    Morality? I'm Christian. Man was given dominion over the animals and permitted to name them, indicating ownership. But pass on traditional morality, and let's examine some modern definitions.

    "Main articles: Animal consciousness, Animal cognition, Animal welfare, Animal rights and Pain in animals

    In the philosophies of animal welfare and rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-welfare advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled, at a minimum, to protection from unnecessary suffering, though animal-rights advocates may differ on what rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience. Sentiocentrism describes the theory that sentient individuals are the center of moral concern.

    The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled enlightenment beliefs in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals:
    He wrote:
    The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?[3]

    In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies (unless the distinction is factual, in which case the appeal is just one logical fallacy, petitio principii). Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which animal-rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.

    Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that, "All sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others."[4]

    Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.

    In 1997 the concept of animal sentience was written into the basic law of the European Union. The legally-binding protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognizes that animals are "sentient beings", and requires the EU and its member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals".

    The laws of several states include certain invertebrates such as cephalopods (octopuses, squids) and decapod crustaceans (lobsters, crabs) in the scope of animal protection laws, implying that these animals are also judged capable of experiencing pain and suffering.[5]

    David Pearce is a British philosopher of the negative utilitarian school of ethics. He is most famous for his avocation of the idea that there exists a strong ethical imperative for humans to work towards the abolition of suffering in all sentient beings."

    I certainly don't condone torturing animals OR humans.
    But one hugely important basic concept is missing from this conversation. Responsibility!
    The same sort of thinking tries to excuse human criminals as merely products of their genes or the fault of their formative years cultural influences. Nope!
    Freedom of choice carries responsibility for ones choices.
    Do animal predators (such as the endangered Florida panther and bear) hunt by choice? By instinct? Or necessity? Responsibility carries the connotation of guilt for error. If animals survive by instinct and necessity, they are innocent of any guilt.

    Brings us back around to man's guilt regarding treatment of animals.
    Humans do reason and have freedom of choice. Therefore can not be innocent and must be responsible.
    I am.
    I have invested the time, expense and effort to train myself to be a marksman. While I can reliably hit a target half a mile away, I don't shoot game at those ranges. I use skill, planning, knowledge, and reasoning to bring me and my unsuspecting quarry close together for a definite one shot immediate kill. Other predators seldom kill as quickly.
    I hunt for a purpose, I eat what I kill. I'm not hunting trophies for my walls. Do I have less rights to hunt than other predators simply because I have options like eating vegan? No!
    I have MORE rights than mindless animals, because I DO operate from reasoned choice and am responsible for my actions.
    Should humans suffer while animals are protected from suffering? Solve human suffering first. They are more than sentient. Humans are sapient! Probably ALONE sapient!

    So are humans masters of the planet earth? Of course they are.
    So let's get back to discussing how to manage OUR planet more wisely.
    Trying to be herbivores solves nothing and is an unnatural state.
    A successful hunt is very satisfying to the spirit, the body, and the tongue and tummy. And good wildlife management.
    Use as human food is better than animals dying of starvation or illness and eaten by scavengers.
    Everything dies eventually.
    Including our sun and planet.
  6. raysugar
    Joined: Oct 2014
    Posts: 7
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Italy

    raysugar Junior Member

    I suggest you read "The China Study" Author T. Colin Campbell. It should give you a better knowledge about the topic.
  7. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 690
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    Thank you for that information


    Dr. Campbell responds to Weston Price Foundation criticisms of his bestseller, The China Study; talks about vitamins and the vegan diet; discusses his views on fish. For more info debunking the Weston Price Foundation, see: http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fu...

  8. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Thanks. I'm looking for a download.
    It appears in synopsis close to one of my favorite topics, nutrition and disease consequences.
    At risk of boring you, but pertinent to vegetarian arguments by Myark, is minerals available in diet.
    Our bodies require 60 different ESSENTIAL minerals in our daily diet.
    Lack of copper reduces tissue elasticity, resulting in hardening of arteries, aneurism, (heart attack and stroke) and wrinkles. I am grateful wrinkles don't hurt!
    Lack of chromium and vanadium causes diabetes and can be reversed by consuming these minerals.
    Stomach ulcers are caused by lack of bismuth in the diet, and cured by it's inclusion. Ect, ect, ect. for the other 57 essential minerals. Everybody knows iron is essential for healthy red blood cells.

    Plants create sugars, starches, and vitamin compounds from water, CO2 and sunlight, but cannot create minerals.
    Either the minerals pre-exist in the soil or do not.
    When plants die in situ, the minerals they absorbed return to the same soil.
    When plants are harvested and shipped to market, the minerals are being shipped away. The soil is eventually depleted of minerals.
    In the 1930s congress issued a bulletin that American farm lands were depleted of minerals. Imagine how long land has been mineral depleted in China?
    So the farmed vegetables and grains fed to humans and livestock are mineral deficient.
    Veganism isn't a healthy option when farming the same old tired wornout minerals long depleted land.

    Wildlife forages in undisturbed wildernes areas and ingests mineral rich herbage and mast in a range of locales. Different mineral soils. Therefore meat of game animals is mineral enriched.

    Look at pet food labels describing the essential mineral content for your pet's health. Then look at baby formulae products. See any essential minerals? Feeding pets wiser than infants?

    Eating mineral supplement pills won't help. Your digestive tract isn't designed to digest rocks, even powdered reformed rocks. You need minerals in colloidal form (juice) as found naturally in plants raised in mineralized soils.

    Seawater has a multitude of minerals so fish contain them also.
    I hunt and fish and am a strong healthy old man, thanks to minerals in my diet.
    End of sermon.. :D
  9. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 690
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    Published on Aug 22, 2014

    What If The World Went Vegan Tomorrow?


    what would happen if the whole world went vegan tomorrow? i respond to this common question about veganism. if the world went vegan, what would happen to all the food animals? what about population control? wouldn’t we be overrun with animals?

    Vegan Sex, My Love Life & Other Inappropriate Things | Q&A
  10. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 435
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Welcome to BD.net, and welcome to this thread.

    I was quite impressed with The China Study when it first came out. For those not interested in reading the book, here are some of its highlights.

    Unfortunately, in spite of Dr. Colin's excellent pedigree (PhD in nutrition, biochemistry, and microbiology from Cornell U), he appears to have cut some corners in his data analysis of Chinese diets. This thread probably isn't the right place to get into a long-winded discussion of what Dr Colin did or didn't do, but here are some links for those interested in reading more.

    The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?

    The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response

    “Forks Over Knives”: Is the Science Legit? (A Review and Critique)

    One Year Later: The China Study, Revisited and Re-Bashed

    meta link to critiques by the same author

    by another author
    The Truth About the China Study

    Just because Dr Colin used flawed methodologies in his analysis should not be construed to support the idea that all of his ideas are incorrect. Only that you should not use his conclusions to support a vegetarian diet.
  11. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 435
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Yob, I'm surprised that a person who plans to live to age 200 considers themselves an 'old man' at age 66! However, if you should reach that remarkable age, I suspect you will find your opportunities to hunt, forage and fish greatly reduced compared to the present.

    Population controls 'will not solve environment issues' | BBC
  12. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    What would happen to the earth if humans suddenly died out?
    Cycles would continue as they always have. Including global warming, cooling, catastrophic storms and climate change.

    The preference on MY part, being human, is we NOT eradicate ourselves.
    Short of an act of God or an asteroid strike, or our sun going nova, only man's stupidity worries me as a posible extinction event.
    And not from human induced climate change and CO2. Ridiculous!

    Wisdom and good judgment are learned from experience, not imagination or speculation.

    We can and should learn from history. Both what DIDN'T work and what does. Respect former generations for what they accomplished. Don't foolishly undo what you couldn't create.
    First prove you are smarter than grandpa before you destroy what he built.
    But don't repeat his mistakes.

    Socialism and all forms of collectivism have proven disastrous. Individualism works marvels. Horse to the moon in a life span!

    Eating wild game and fish is healthy. Overfarming, like overfishing, proved disastrous many times.
    Bless the wisdom of our forefathers for setting aside lands for wildlife in this nation!

    Oversimplification of complex problems and hasty decisions always leads to error. Costly error.
    The world is as it is because previous generations were successful... mostly.
    It's easier to destroy than create. Don't do the easy thing.
    Seek to improve not reverse.
    First learn how to improve.
    Too many people? We need to halt all immigration to the USA. NOW!
    We would promptly be in neutral or negative population growth in this country.
    If other countries unwisely choose to breed themselves into extinction, then choice and responsibility and consequence go hand in hand.
    We have no power over them or real responsibility for them.
    We can only offer humane help, advice, example, but not sanctuary.
    We are NOT required to crash and burn with them, or absorb their excesses.

    "Population growth is influenced by three factors: mortality (the death rate, which has been steadily decreasing in the U.S.2), birth rates or fertility (children per woman) and net immigration (immigration minus emigration).29 Unlike in developing countries, fertility (children per woman) is no longer the significant contributor to U.S. population growth. In fact, overall U.S. fertility is slightly less than replacement level and has not exceeded replacement level since 1972.11 "

    I'm only old by insurance standards.
    I'm still adolescent in my vigor. Ask my 14 years younger than me, wife. :D

    Attached Files:

  13. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 435
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Too many wild generalizations to comment on all of them, but to pick out a few.

    Here is a list of the 10 'Happiest Countries' in the world. Although none of them are pure Socialist, most of them have a far more socialist government and social structure than we do in the US.

    1. Denmark
    2. Norway
    3. Switzerland
    4. Netherlands
    5. Sweden
    6. Canada
    7. Finland
    8. Austria
    9. Iceland
    10. Australia

    Some would also note that in that same lifespan we've trashed the Earth in a previously unimaginable way. :(

    Long gone are the days when everyone can 'live off the land', even if they wanted to. If there were a sudden, catastrophic breakdown in our current food supply, everybody and his brother would be out hunting and fishing. It wouldn't take more than a few weeks for all the game to be hunted to extinction even in very rural locations, to say nothing of heavily populated areas.
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Aren't those Scandinavian countries some of the biggest overfishers?
    In ALL the socialist countries past and present, how much of our modern technologies responsible for ease and comfort, quality of life were invented there?

    Obviously you don't hunt or know about hunting, or you wouldn't make such statements.
    The only thing most of those cityslicker novice hunters will kill is themselves and each other. And the bloodbath battle survivors die of starvation in a couple or three weeks.

    Want to learn to appreciate hunting skills without killing?
    Grab a camera and take wildlife photos in the wilderness, not in public parks where the wildlife is accustomed to people.
    Let me know how many closeup photos you get. :D
    Not fortunate lucky fleeting snapshots of a startled fleeing animal, but closeup of stalked specific vulnerable game!
    Animals instinctively know when they're being hunted! Very wary in those circumstances.
    You must understand the individual animals habits, learned from scouting in advance, and then outsmart him.
    Fortunately, we have minds and CAN outsmart our quarry.
    To scout, you need to know how to track. And read sign. And understand the animals needs and drives.
    And know the terrain and resources. And MORE skills and knowledge too numerous to explain here.
    Things like moving through woods and brush silently and invisibly. avoiding being smelled! Much more.
    And a camera is a bazooka of a weapon. Captures a wide area.
    Not like placing a kill shot through obstructing brush and tree branches.

  15. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 435
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Irrelevant. You said that "Socialism and all forms of collectivism have proven disastrous." Clearly, that is false, as is much of what you say.

    Patent applications, per country, per capita.

    The Scandinavian countries are well represented. And Japan, another country with strong socialistic leanings, is by far the leader. So, again, you are wrong. Starting to see a pattern?

    1 Japan 2,836.05 per 1 million people 2004
    2 South Korea 2,184.32 per 1 million people 2004
    3 United States 630.02 per 1 million people 2004
    4 Germany 585.69 per 1 million people 2004
    5 Australia 425.79 per 1 million people 2004
    6 New Zealand 388.78 per 1 million people 2004
    7 Finland 383.31 per 1 million people 2004
    8 Denmark 341.22 per 1 million people 2004

    9 United Kingdom 314.47 per 1 million people 2004
    10 Sweden 306.05 per 1 million people 2004
    11 Norway 282.96 per 1 million people 2001

    12 Switzerland 250.8 per 1 million people 2002
    13 Austria 240.38 per 1 million people 2004
    14 France 235.12 per 1 million people 2004
    15 Monaco 216.05 per 1 million people 2004
    16 Israel 198.66 per 1 million people 2003
    17 Iceland 196.86 per 1 million people 2003
    18 Ireland 193.44 per 1 million people 2004
    19 Slovenia 163.75 per 1 million people 2004
    20 Russia 159.5 per 1 million people 2004
    21 South Africa 141.85 per 1 million people 1995
    22 Italy 138.32 per 1 million people 2000
    23 Netherlands 134.32 per 1 million people 2004
    24 Canada 124.22 per 1 million people 2003

    No argument from me that hunting requires a high degree of skill. But most hunters abide by the laws of the land and only hunt during hunting season, and only take permitted quotas. If our normal commercial food supplies were suddenly cut off, do you really expect me to believe that you would only hunt during hunting season, and only take the bag limits? I don't think so!!! Multiply your efforts to put food on the table for your family by all the tens of thousands of skilled hunters, plus all the millions of desperate non-so-skilled hunters who have all those legal or illegal guns stashed away, and beside the human blood-bath you correctly predict, there will also be a wholesale slaughter of animals. Then what? You think all those animals you killed today are suddenly going to reproduce overnight so you can go out and kill them again for food next week. Get real.

    This photograph was taken last winter 100 yards from where I live.
    I've seen bear much closer to my house, but didn't have a camera at the time.

    [edit to add]
    Turkeys crossing my yard last autumn

    Snowy owl last April, about 15 miles from home. Eat your heart out, Harry Potter
Similar Threads
  1. rwatson
  2. ticomique
  3. Mr. Andersen
  4. Rurudyne
  5. sdowney717
  6. sdowney717
  7. oceancruiser
  8. El_Guero
  9. BPL
  10. Frosty
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.