Protecting the sea grass...?

[Keith W]

I don't know if anybody else has noticed this yet.

Shark Point Chickee was built the way it was, and located where it was, with the primary purpose of protecting sea grasses, according to what we've been told regarding the state and federal permitting restrictions that the NPS was obliged to abide by.

Now, take a look at the aerial image dated 12/23/2010 in Google Earth:

Are those prop scars surrounding the chickee? If they are, how much damage has been done to sea grass directly as a result of these permitting restrictions? How does this damage compare to what might be caused by building the chickee at a reasonably safe height?

What is wrong with this picture?

[Kim Gass]

Looks like prop scars to me and the height of the chickee might be most attractive to fishing boats; more than paddlers.  Now how to move past the "ranting " stage. Looks like improper planning on the NPS side.

[Keith W]

I don't blame the NPS. They are subject to the state and federal bureaucracies that rule the permitting process.

[Swamp Hunter]

"What is wrong with this picture?"

The shadow? The average distance to our sun is 92900000 miles ( thats149476000 kilometers). Putting the sun distance/chickee height ratio in perspective, does it really matter how high it is in comparison to the distant light source?  I did a little test on my table with a lamp. I moved my coffee cup up and down the same ratio of a millimeter to my overhead light source. Now I am not well educated but I couldnt see any noticable difference.

The only thing I could think of is as the sun comes at different angles, it may actually shine under the chickee.

[Juan Estevez]

I saw it in your other site and I fully agree with you "too much government" I posted this picture from the Keys in another thread, a powerboat causes more damage in a day than 100 paddlers in 10 years.