Having read Mr. Steiner’s rebuttal to my response to his original letter, I am once again questioning the veracity of some of his statements.
Firstly, I have made no “generalized statements about boaters and their attitudes.” I merely iterated the incidents (and potential incidents) that I personally have witnessed on various parts of the Shuswap river. If, as Mr. Steiner suggests, “Most motorized users are conscientious, responsible people who care every bit as much about the environment, wildlife and their neighbours as anyone else,” then why are those people to whom he refers not the ones we constantly and consistently see on the river?
I think that Mr. Steiner needs to give us concrete examples of that conscientious and responsible behaviour. I, for one, would need an explanation of how noise, wake, physically disturbed wildlife, erosion and speed equate with his claim.
Incidentally, Mr. Steiner, on the rare occasion that I do witness the operator of a motorized craft behaving in a manner such as you claim, I am the first person to commend them on their sensible approach to sharing the river.
Unfortunately, I am unable to do that regularly because those boat-owners that you describe seem to frequent a different portion of the Shuswap River than I do.
Mr. Steiner claims that he does not, “condone disrespectful or dangerous driving” and decries the lack of enforcement of, “laws already in place.”
The people who swim, canoe, kayak, paddleboard, picnic and just generally hang out at the river (because it’s peaceful sometimes) are not in need of an education about river use. They do not have a negative impact on their neighbours, wildlife or the environment. If, as Mr. Steiner has claimed previously, there needs to be education on the responsible usage of the Shuswap (or any other) river, perhaps the focus of that education should be boaters with motors.
Mark Levey
Enderby
