About a week after taking Singular it feels as though I have a lump in my throat. I’m not sure if this is a side effect so if anybody else has experienced this I’d like to know. Would it help for my to switch to Accolate. Thanks for any info.
Hopefully it isn’t an abcess like the one that just about killed me. No reason for it to be an abcess — mine may have been caused by frostbite — but if should you start having severe choking episodes then get to an ER and have it checked out.
About a week after taking Singular it feels as though I have a lump in my throat. I’m not sure if this is a side effect so if anybody else has experienced this I’d like to know. Would it help for my to switch to Accolate. Thanks for any info.
I just started on Sigulair this past week and after 16 months on Accolate I find it MUCH more effective. No lingering tightness, no consistent light wheezing, its wonderful..almost like Theo again. What are some of the other side effects..(Dr gave me 2 week sample to try) Bill
About a week after taking Singular it feels as though I have a lump in my throat. I’m not sure if this is a side effect so if anybody else has experienced this I’d like to know. Would it help for my to switch to Accolate. Thanks for any info. I have a lump in my throat also. I thought it was from increasing the
Flovent from 8 puffs of 110 to 8 puffs of 220, so I have been cutting back on the Flovent, I haven’t noticed any changes in the lump. I did go to the Dr. and she didn’t see anything abnormal in my throat. Since this is the height of asthma/allergy season here I am reluctant to go off Singulair, I had rash on my arms with Accolate. Let me know what you do, if you stop Singulair and the lump goes away. I hope the lump isn’t anything serious because for now I have decided to learn to live with the it. Pam – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
I found Singulair worked quite well in lessening need forVentolin, but it caused edema, esp. swollen ankles. I kept with it for about 4 months since doctors denied this as a side effect. (Doesn’t seem so strange to me since the generic name is M. Sodium)…
Montelukast Sodium http://www.merck.com/product/usa/singulair/cns/prescribing_info/descr… l has a chemical formula of C35 H35 Cl N Na O3 S, it has a molecular weight of 608.18 Daltons (one Dalton is approximately the weight of one hydrogen atom). Sodium has a molecular weight of 23 Daltons. That means that sodium accounts for 3.78% of the Montelukast total weight (23/608.18=3.78%). There are 10 mg of Montelukast Sodium in a tablet of Singulair, that means there are 0.378 mg of Sodium in a Singulair tablet (10 mg x 3.78%=0.378 mg). There are 7.3 mg of Sodium in a single Bite Size tortilla chip of a popular name brand. I’m not an MD but it is hard for me to imagine that 0.387 mg of Sodium is enough to make one’s ankle swell. Perhaps it is a reaction to the carbohydrate portion of the molecule.
About a week after taking Singular it feels as though I have a lump in my throat. I’m not sure if this is a side effect so if anybody else has experienced this I’d like to know. Would it help for my to switch to Accolate. Thanks for any info.
I found Singulair worked quite well in lessening need forVentolin, but it caused edema, esp. swollen ankles. I kept with it for about 4 months since doctors denied this as a side effect. (Doesn’t seem so strange to me since the generic name is M. Sodium) Finally, I tried going off Singulair twice and each time the swelling went away. I am no longer on Singulair. Accolate did not work for me at all. Unfortunately, I am running out of things to try. Serevent was a disaster. Any other really new drugs or techniques? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – About a week after taking Singular it feels as though I have a lump in my throat. I’m not sure if this is a side effect so if anybody else has experienced this I’d like to know. Would it help for my to switch to Accolate. Thanks for any info.
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Brenda McKaig wrote:
Comments on anything I’ve said in this message would be greatly appreciated, particularily your experience with either or both of the medications I mentioned: singulair and prednisone to treat polyps.
Before you try the prednisone, check your library or bookseller for a copy of "Coping With Prednisone." Some people can have devastating side-effects from prednisone. I know because I’m one of them.
Do you share a similiar story to me, I’d really like to hear from you. reoccuring polyps? unsuccessful surgery to remove polyps? chronic sinus infection? unsuccessful antibiotic treatments? have had, or are facing radical sinus surgery? feeling helpless and hopeless?
I think most of us who are battling chronic sinusitis suffer bouts of feeling helpless and hopeless. And most of us have been through course after course of unsuccessful antibiotic treatments. You are not the only one and you are not alone. We just have to keep putting one foot in fron of the other one and offering encouragement to each other.
If you have polyps, please ask your doctor about avoiding aspirin and all aspirin products to prevent the reoccurance of polyps. Murray Grossan, M.D. http://www.ent-consult.com
Some people can have devastating side-effects from prednisone. I know because I’m one of them.
What kind of devastating side effects? I just started on Prednisone yesterday. My head still feels full and dizzy although the Dr. said this could take a few days. The only other thing is that I’m extremely weak today, especially in the legs and arms. Ellen in IL
Information on prednisone at http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/pred.htm Remember, not all persons react the same. Not all develop the same side effects, and most don’t develop all the possible side effects. Most of the side effects disappear with tapering down to lower dosages or discontinuance. NEVER change prednisone dosage without your physician’s knowledge and agreement.. it can be very serious. Most physicians will try to use as little prednisone as possible if it the drug required for effective treatment. Good luck with your treatment and I hope it is quickly effective.
Brenda, Not so long ago I was feeling just as hopeless about my situation as you are now. I tried every treatment they had, you name it. Surgery was recommended but it was never explained to me why I needed it except for a deviated septum. I was on my 14th antibiotic course in about a year and my co-worker expressd concern about the over use of the abx. I told him I never heard of anyone who had sucessful sinus surgery and another co-worker overheard and told me his wife had a good outcome. So I asked for the name of her doctor. I went to see him and he sat with me for over an hour and explained why all the other treatments (sprays, abx, allergy shots, etc) had failed and always would without the surgery to unblock the drainage sites and fix the septum. So I went ahead with it, feeling complete confidence in him. While doing the surgery he found many small polyps that never had showed on CT scans, MRIs or nasal endoscopy. I am still recovering and using Nasonex and irrigation. I am about to start allergy shots next week. I was told the nasonex and shots are necessary to slow the regrowth of the polyps (they normally do always recur), and treat the allergies which had thickened all the membranes over many years. If you are anywhere near NYC please e-mail me for the name and location of my doctor. Please don’t give up, keep searching until you find the right doctor for you. Nadine
I saw a new ENT doctor today. My previous two ENT doctors basically gave up on me. I have had a sinus infection for two years now. It won’t go away despite surgery and 13 courses of antibiotics. CT scans and endoscopes show my sinuses are completely infitrated with polps. This new ENT doctor wants me to try the following: prednisone for three days singulair for thirty days I will also be taking my normal medications simultaneously with the new meds which include: nasacort 1 spray twice a day flovent 1 puff twice a day And of course, I’ll continue irrigating everyday and using lots of saline spray and drinking lots of water. I also started allergy shots yesterday which noone has told me I shouldn’t be taking even though I live with an infection every day. So, the bad news is the ENT mentioned he will consider doing that surgery that removes the lining of my sinuses if the prednisone and singulair don’t work. He said this type of surgery is risky because of the proximity to the eyes and brain, and that there may be some not-so-nice effects after of the surgery. I feel like I’m in a no-win situation. If I don’t remove the lining of my sinuses, then I live with an infection everyday which I think has the potential to cause serious damage. If I do remove the lining of my sinuses, the risk is high and the results not very pleasant. Needless to say, I’m depressed. I know I am NOT MY DISEASE but it is HARD to remain positive in light of this new prognosis which represents my third opinion from a specialist. Comments on anything I’ve said in this message would be greatly appreciated, particularily your experience with either or both of the medications I mentioned: singulair and prednisone to treat polyps. Do you share a similiar story to me, I’d really like to hear from you. reoccuring polyps? unsuccessful surgery to remove polyps? chronic sinus infection? unsuccessful antibiotic treatments? have had, or are facing radical sinus surgery? feeling helpless and hopeless? Thank you for listening. Brenda Pickering, Ontario, Canada bmck…@home.com
<Has anyone had this experience? has anyone tried Zyrtec? (also prescribed <today). <thanks My son takes Zyrtec. It has been the most helpful allergy medicine he’s taken to date. He gets good relief within a half hour after taking it. It made him extremely tired for a few weeks, now he doesn’t suffer that symptom. Hulahoops
Singulair has helped my allergies and overall congestion. Can sleep at night. Asthma is under control. Best of all, I use inhaler twice a day and thus avoid inhaler jitters. It has made a big difference in my life and have noticed no side effects. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In the last couple week my sinuses have gone crazy, occaisionally affecting my asthma. I have trouble sleeping with these new antihistamine/decongestants so they create other problems. I saw the pulminologist today and he suggested that I try singulair. I have already tried accolate and had little results. Dr. suggested that there is some evidence that singulair helps allergies/ sinus as well. Has anyone had this experience? has anyone tried Zyrtec? (also prescribed today). thanks
My eight year old son was on Singulair for a while and it helped both his asthma and his sinus troubles. He also has fibromyalgia and has a hard time getting a good nights sleep. On the Singulair he slept 14 to 15 hours a night. I thought of Singulair as a God send. But then he developed a possible side effect. His white blood cell count went down to 2.6. His allergist and the hemotologist had me take him off the Singulair since it is such a new medication. His white count has now come back up so he can’t go back on the Singulair. I wrote to the company about this. All they told me was to discuss it with the doctor. I had written to them that that is what I did and just wanted to make them aware of the possible side effect. It was if they hadn’t really read my letter at all. They said if I gave them my address they would send me some materials. I did so about 3 weeks ago and have yet to receive anything. I just thought I’d make you all aware of this possible side effect again. I have posted about it once or twice before. Janice – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I started Singulair a month ago; it has been very effective for my asthma, allowing me to cut my inhaled steroid in half and improving peak flows; also helps my hay fever (rhinitis), allowing me to reduce my steroid nasal spray. Singulair has neglible side effects in most people; a child’ version is available. Here’s a link on Singulair & Claritin for rhinitis (allergies): http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/61c72.htm Excerpt:
Adverse effects of drugs can be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program, either by your doctor or you. See http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/ MedWatch http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/how.htm How to Report "How to Report Adverse Reactions & Medical Product Problems to the FDA Serious adverse events and product problems should be reported to the FDA either directly or via the manufacturer of the product, as appropriate. Specifically within a user faciity (e.g., hospital, nursing home, etc.) some reporting–deaths and serious injuries that occur with the use of medical devices–is mandated by federal law and regulation while other reporting–adverse events and product problems with medications (i.e., drugs and biologics) and special nutritionals–although considered vital, is strictly voluntary." http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report/consumer/consumer.htm Reporting by Consumers MedWatch is the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) program for health professionals to report serious reactions and problems with medical products such as drugs and medical devices. A reaction is considered serious if the product caused death, a life-threatening situation, admission to a hospital or a longer than expected hospital stay, a permanent disability, a birth defect, or the need for medical or surgical care to prevent permanent damage. If you think you or someone in your family has experienced a serious reaction to a medical product, you are encouraged to take the reporting form (PDF format) to your doctor. Your doctor can provide clinical information based on your medical record that can help us evaluate your report. However, we understand that for a variety of reasons, you may not wish to have the form filled out by your doctor, or, your doctor may choose not to complete the form. Your doctor is NOT required to report to the FDA. In these situations, you may use the instructions (PDF format) and fill out the form yourself. You will receive a letter from FDA after we receive your report. However, you will be personally contacted only if we need additional information. Please be aware that your name as the reporter, even if you are reporting a reaction that happened to you personally may be released to the manufacturer of the product. If you do not want your name released, be sure to check box E5 on the form. If you would prefer to report your adverse experience by telephone, or if you have a complaint about a medical product, please call the FDA Office of Emergency Operations at (301) 443-1240. If you have additional questions about the medical product which caused your problem, or if you need additional MedWatch reporting forms, please call the FDA Office of Consumer Affairs at (800) 532-4440 " Ellis – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My eight year old son was on Singulair for a while and it helped both his asthma and his sinus troubles. He also has fibromyalgia and has a hard time getting a good nights sleep. On the Singulair he slept 14 to 15 hours a night. I thought of Singulair as a God send. But then he developed a possible side effect. His white blood cell count went down to 2.6. His allergist and the hemotologist had me take him off the Singulair since it is such a new medication. His white count has now come back up so he can’t go back on the Singulair. I wrote to the company about this. All they told me was to discuss it with the doctor. I had written to them that that is what I did and just wanted to make them aware of the possible side effect. It was if they hadn’t really read my letter at all. They said if I gave them my address they would send me some materials. I did so about 3 weeks ago and have yet to receive anything. Janice I started Singulair a month ago; it has been very effective for my asthma, allowing me to cut my inhaled steroid in half and improving peak flows; also helps my hay fever (rhinitis), allowing me to reduce my steroid nasal spray. Singulair has neglible side effects in most people; a child’ version is available. Here’s a link on Singulair & Claritin for rhinitis (allergies): http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/61c72.htm
In the last couple week my sinuses have gone crazy, occaisionally affecting my asthma. I have trouble sleeping with these new antihistamine/decongestants so they create other problems. I saw the pulminologist today and he suggested that I try singulair. I have already tried accolate and had little results. Dr. suggested that there is some evidence that singulair helps allergies/ sinus as well. Has anyone had this experience? has anyone tried Zyrtec? (also prescribed today).
I started Singulair a month ago; it has been very effective for my asthma, allowing me to cut my inhaled steroid in half and improving peak flows; also helps my hay fever (rhinitis), allowing me to reduce my steroid nasal spray. Singulair has neglible side effects in most people; a child’ version is available. Here’s a link on Singulair & Claritin for rhinitis (allergies): http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/61c72.htm Excerpt: "AAAAI MEETING: Singulair And Loratadine Reduce Hay Fever Symptoms WASHINGTON, MD — March 16, 1998 — The results of an investigational study presented yesterday at the 54th annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology showed that Singulair(R) (montelukast sodium) administered with the antihistamine loratadine significantly reduced symptoms in patients who suffered from seasonal allergic rhinitis, commonly known as hay fever. In this investigational study, Singulair and loratadine, when used alone, each decreased daytime nasal symptoms (stuffy, runny, itchy nose and sneezing) by 16 percent. When taken together, Singulair and loratadine decreased nasal symptoms by 28 percent. There was a 12 percent reduction in daytime nasal symptoms with placebo. Loratadine (marketed by Schering-Plough as Claritin(R)) is indicated for the relief of nasal and non-nasal symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis." All contents Copyright (c) 1998 PSL Consulting Group Inc. All rights reserved. Ellis
In the last couple week my sinuses have gone crazy, occaisionally affecting my asthma. I have trouble sleeping with these new antihistamine/decongestants so they create other problems. I saw the pulminologist today and he suggested that I try singulair. I have already tried accolate and had little results. Dr. suggested that there is some evidence that singulair helps allergies/ sinus as well. Has anyone had this experience? has anyone tried Zyrtec? (also prescribed today). thanks
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After this I tried Celexa, Effexor and Zoloft. Each helped for a week or two and then the irritability and aggression began to steadily increase until it became urgent that I stop the drug. Hi Louise, I had feelings and thoughts of aggression for a few weeks after starting to raise the Zoloft dose to high levels. What I did was take a little bit of Benadryl, about a few grains from a broken store-brand capsule, to settle the agitation. Eventually after a few days of the Benadryl the agitation stopped and never came back again. I also started raising the dose very gradually. I have a family history of bipolar (called manic depressive back then), and my pdoc concluded that I should NEVER take any more SSRIs because I have the biological tendency to become manic from them. Are you sure you are manic on them permanently? Some of us get manic on them for a while, but only for a while. I was euphorically hypomanic from Zoloft for four months, with some jitters thrown in. Eventually all that left. How long were you on any of the SSRIs? So, does anyone know whether the Klonopin would prevent the irritable, agitated and aggressive symptoms that I always get after a few weeks on an SSRI? Would it be worth trying an SSRI now that I am solidly on Klonopin or is it likely that the same thing will happen? Well, I took Benadryl for a few days to calm down the agitation. It wasn’t much–just a few grains once or twice a day–not enough to make one sleepy. It worked for me. It is used to help those who go through akathisia/ agressiveness when having starting SSRIs. It may or may not work for you.
I was never on an SSRI for more than a month or two because my I and my pdoc and my therapist became fearful that my anger and irritation were so intense that I would lose control and they felt I should get off of them. I guess I was wondering whether the Klonopin would be like the Benedryl. Louise — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ::Two people I was very close to have passed away in the last ::6 months and another is moving far away in about 6 weeks. ::The moving has thrown me over the line and I am becoming ::more and chronically depressed, hopeless and it’s getting ::real hard to function in the mornings. <gently snipped Dear Louise, Sorry about all the loss in your life. (((((Louise))))) You seem so sensitive to lots of medication. Have you thought about getting some therapy to help deal with your feelings of loss? It could help you a lot. Healing thoughts being sent your way. Jackie ~*~If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude~*~ ~~ Maya Angelou quote
I’m sorry, I should have said that I am in therapy. In fact, in January, my therapist of 10 years suddenly had a stroke and died – that is one of the "losses". I have started with someone else….but it’s not the same and I don’t know if it ever will be. Louise — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
::I’m sorry, I should have said that I am in therapy. In ::fact, in January, my therapist of 10 years suddenly had a ::stroke and died – that is one of the "losses". I’m so sorry (((((Louise))))) Jackie ~*~Life is not the way it’s supposed to be. It’s the way it is. The way you deal with it is what makes the difference~*~ ~~ Virginia Satir — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
Over the last 10+ years, I’ve tried several SSRIs to treat a chronic low level, lifelong depression. I have also suffered from a lot of anxiety and panic attacks and have usually been thought to have an "agitated depression" when I’ve sought psychiatric help. The only ADs that ever helped were the ones that put me to sleep and made me just able to function, but not "live", because I’d rather be sleeping, almost no matter what. That was Luvox. But when the dose of Luvox was raised, I didn’t become more sleepy, I became more agitated, argumentative and intolerably irritable. I was on the verge of destruction – myself and others. After this I tried Celexa, Effexor and Zoloft. Each helped for a week or two and then the irritability and aggression began to steadily increase until it became urgent that I stop the drug. I have a family history of bipolar (called manic depressive back then), and my pdoc concluded that I should NEVER take any more SSRIs because I have the biological tendency to become manic from them. I used Lamictal for several years with minimal success. I need to take lots of benzos to counter the panic attacks and eventually began getting them in a variety of ways because the pdoc didn’t want me to take them every day (ativan mostly). Then I stopped the lamictal and felt better, as I suspected I would. I was off all medication except for ativan prn for about 8 months. Then, last May (06), there were some serious changes in my life and I became extremely anxious. I went to see a new pdoc who suggested that we focus on the panic attacks and the anxiety and see what happens. I am now taking 2mg Klonopin daily and it has definitely helped to level me out and yet, to leave me able to feel and think clearly and have good judgment. It has provided a lot of relief with minimal side effects. I don’t really care that it might be addictive. Two people I was very close to have passed away in the last 6 months and another is moving far away in about 6 weeks. The moving has thrown me over the line and I am becoming more and chronically depressed, hopeless and it’s getting real hard to function in the mornings. Seroquel was suggested but I refused it because of its potential to cause diabetes. This is a disease I dread and I will not take a drug that makes it happen to some people and they don’t know why! So, does anyone know whether the Klonopin would prevent the irritable, agitated and aggressive symptoms that I always get after a few weeks on an SSRI? Would it be worth trying an SSRI now that I am solidly on Klonopin or is it likely that the same thing will happen? Thanks for reading this long post and for any experiences and/or suggestions you have. Louise — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Over the last 10+ years, I’ve tried several SSRIs to treat a chronic low level, lifelong depression. I have also suffered from a lot of anxiety and panic attacks and have usually been thought to have an "agitated depression" when I’ve sought psychiatric help. The only ADs that ever helped were the ones that put me to sleep and made me just able to function, but not "live", because I’d rather be sleeping, almost no matter what. That was Luvox. But when the dose of Luvox was raised, I didn’t become more sleepy, I became more agitated, argumentative and intolerably irritable. I was on the verge of destruction – myself and others. After this I tried Celexa, Effexor and Zoloft. Each helped for a week or two and then the irritability and aggression began to steadily increase until it became urgent that I stop the drug. I have a family history of bipolar (called manic depressive back then), and my pdoc concluded that I should NEVER take any more SSRIs because I have the biological tendency to become manic from them. I used Lamictal for several years with minimal success. I need to take lots of benzos to counter the panic attacks and eventually began getting them in a variety of ways because the pdoc didn’t want me to take them every day (ativan mostly). Then I stopped the lamictal and felt better, as I suspected I would. I was off all medication except for ativan prn for about 8 months. Then, last May (06), there were some serious changes in my life and I became extremely anxious. I went to see a new pdoc who suggested that we focus on the panic attacks and the anxiety and see what happens. I am now taking 2mg Klonopin daily and it has definitely helped to level me out and yet, to leave me able to feel and think clearly and have good judgment. It has provided a lot of relief with minimal side effects. I don’t really care that it might be addictive. Two people I was very close to have passed away in the last 6 months and another is moving far away in about 6 weeks. The moving has thrown me over the line and I am becoming more and chronically depressed, hopeless and it’s getting real hard to function in the mornings. Seroquel was suggested but I refused it because of its potential to cause diabetes. This is a disease I dread and I will not take a drug that makes it happen to some people and they don’t know why! So, does anyone know whether the Klonopin would prevent the irritable, agitated and aggressive symptoms that I always get after a few weeks on an SSRI?
Klonopin isn’t a mood stabilizer, so my guess is that it wouldn’t prevent a mood swing to hypomania/mania. Our resident psychiatrist Margrove might be able to suggest a good med combo. Bupropion (Wellbutrin) is used for depression in bipolars cause it is thought it is less likely than other antidepressants to result in a mood swing . Chip — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
::Two people I was very close to have passed away in the last ::6 months and another is moving far away in about 6 weeks. ::The moving has thrown me over the line and I am becoming ::more and chronically depressed, hopeless and it’s getting ::real hard to function in the mornings. <gently snipped Dear Louise, Sorry about all the loss in your life. (((((Louise))))) You seem so sensitive to lots of medication. Have you thought about getting some therapy to help deal with your feelings of loss? It could help you a lot. Healing thoughts being sent your way. Jackie ~*~If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude~*~ ~~ Maya Angelou quote — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
After this I tried Celexa, Effexor and Zoloft. Each helped for a week or two and then the irritability and aggression began to steadily increase until it became urgent that I stop the drug.
Hi Louise, I had feelings and thoughts of aggression for a few weeks after starting to raise the Zoloft dose to high levels. What I did was take a little bit of Benadryl, about a few grains from a broken store-brand capsule, to settle the agitation. Eventually after a few days of the Benadryl the agitation stopped and never came back again. I also started raising the dose very gradually. I have a family history of bipolar (called manic depressive back then), and my pdoc concluded that I should NEVER take any more SSRIs because I have the biological tendency to become manic from them.
Are you sure you are manic on them permanently? Some of us get manic on them for a while, but only for a while. I was euphorically hypomanic from Zoloft for four months, with some jitters thrown in. Eventually all that left. How long were you on any of the SSRIs? So, does anyone know whether the Klonopin would prevent the irritable, agitated and aggressive symptoms that I always get after a few weeks on an SSRI? Would it be worth trying an SSRI now that I am solidly on Klonopin or is it likely that the same thing will happen?
Well, I took Benadryl for a few days to calm down the agitation. It wasn’t much–just a few grains once or twice a day–not enough to make one sleepy. It worked for me. It is used to help those who go through akathisia/ agressiveness when having starting SSRIs. It may or may not work for you. — The charter is available at: http://readystump.algebra.com/~asapm
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My anxiety/panic attacks are actually a lot better than they use to be. My depression isn’t as intense as it was say a couple of months ago either. Right now, my biggest problem seems to be obsessive thoughts that I cannot get out of my mind. For example, I called a lady friend of mine night before last and she still hasn’t called me back. She normally calls be back shortly after I call her. This evening I have gotten myself all worked up about her not calling, thinking that she doesn’t like me anymore or is mad at me about something. Does anyone else experience this obsessive type of thinking? Is it part of anxiety or is it possibly a deeper problem? Take care and happy Easter. Yes. A thought goes through my mind and it circulates and intensifies and it becomes very hard to get rid of. At times the thoughts are very positive obsessions (now that the Zoloft is lifting the depression); other times they are negative obsessions. It could be part of anxiety or depression IMO. The Zoloft has merely transferred them more often to the "positive zone." Of course, you constantly have to work to break those negative cycles. Don’t simmer on anything but positive obsessions.
Hello Marie, Thanks for your reply. Obsessing about things is a big problem with me. It seems everyday I am obsessing about some new thought or worry. I have been really bad for this for about six years now. Sometimes I’ll get so worked up I’ll be just beside myself and don’t know what to do. When I get like this Seroquel PRN seems to be really helpful. Anyways, thanks again for your reply. Take care. Chris Hecker
Hello group, I have been struggling with anxiety pretty much my entire adult life. In addition to anxiety I also suffer from depression, possibly bi-polar. The meds that I am curently on are Effexor XR- 150 mg Seroquel – 50 mg HS Inderal (to counteract shaking caused by my meds) 40 mg Lithium carbonate – 600 mg HS My anxiety/panic attacks are actually a lot better than they use to be. My depression isn’t as intense as it was say a couple of months ago either. Right now, my biggest problem seems to be obsessive thoughts that I cannot get out of my mind. For example, I called a lady friend of mine night before last and she still hasn’t called me back. She normally calls be back shortly after I call her. This evening I have gotten myself all worked up about her not calling, thinking that she doesn’t like me anymore or is mad at me about something. Does anyone else experience this obsessive type of thinking? Is it part of anxiety or is it possibly a deeper problem? Take care and happy Easter. Chris H. Internet Security 101 – http://www.internetsecurity101.net
My anxiety/panic attacks are actually a lot better than they use to be. My depression isn’t as intense as it was say a couple of months ago either. Right now, my biggest problem seems to be obsessive thoughts that I cannot get out of my mind. For example, I called a lady friend of mine night before last and she still hasn’t called me back. She normally calls be back shortly after I call her. This evening I have gotten myself all worked up about her not calling, thinking that she doesn’t like me anymore or is mad at me about something. Does anyone else experience this obsessive type of thinking? Is it part of anxiety or is it possibly a deeper problem? Take care and happy Easter.
Yes. A thought goes through my mind and it circulates and intensifies and it becomes very hard to get rid of. At times the thoughts are very positive obsessions (now that the Zoloft is lifting the depression); other times they are negative obsessions. It could be part of anxiety or depression IMO. The Zoloft has merely transferred them more often to the "positive zone." Of course, you constantly have to work to break those negative cycles. Don’t simmer on anything but positive obsessions.
Well, I have been on 10mg of Paxil for a couple of weeks and at least I am sleeping better and my anxiety is not rearing its ugly head. However, these tremors seem to be staying with me. And when I moved up from 10-20 mgs a couple of days ago they got worse. Is that probably a side effect? I am thinking of going back down to 10 but wanted your opinions if it has happened to you…..
Fishman wrote….. Well, I have been on 10mg of Paxil for a couple of weeks and at least I am sleeping better and my anxiety is not rearing its ugly head. However, these tremors seem to be staying with me. And when I moved up from 10-20 mgs a couple of days ago they got worse. Is that probably a side effect? I am thinking of going back down to 10 but wanted your opinions if it has happened to you…..
Hi Fishman, Paxil can cause or excerbate tremors. Being your tremors are getting worse, I think it is important you discuss this with your doctor so he can advise you on what to do. Take care 
Jackie
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, I have been on 10mg of Paxil for a couple of weeks and at least I am sleeping better and my anxiety is not rearing its ugly head. However, these tremors seem to be staying with me. And when I moved up from 10-20 mgs a couple of days ago they got worse. Is that probably a side effect? I am thinking of going back down to 10 but wanted your opinions if it has happened to you…..
time to change medications-tremors can happen from any medication but are not a good sign nor one you want to tolerate-ask your doc about switching to celexa or luvox or effexor and if they persist get a neuro opinion and or switch to a different class of drugs altogether like serzone, doxepine, or imipramine LM
he said that there’s no way that an SSRI could be dangerous in causing this neurological effect.
they can be quite dangerous in this regard as can any med. The tca’s are a derivitive of the phenothiazine compounds so initially some tremor is expected and does go away for most people-the ssri’s are a different ball game and when they excert neuronal go signals when they by rights shouldn’t they are reacting in a way that may create damage that may be ireversible if pushed too far-but your pointabout "feeling" jittery or like your trembling is different then essential tremor. Tardive dyskinesias can be permanent so a doc had best be notified and you get examined LM
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Fishman" says… Well, I have been on 10mg of Paxil for a couple of weeks and at least I am sleeping better and my anxiety is not rearing its ugly head. However, these tremors seem to be staying with me. And when I moved up from 10-20 mgs a couple of days ago they got worse. Is that probably a side effect? I am thinking of going back down to 10 but wanted your opinions if it has happened to you….. There can be confusion with the word "jitters" and "tremors." If it’s jitters (more a feeling of nervousness, and thus, a feeling of bouncing against the walls), that would most likely be from the dose increase. Going back to 10 mg should relieve that, and discuss with your doctor about increasing in 5 mg increments, rather than 10 mg. Tremor is neurological, and it’s recommended that if this occurs, that your doctor be advised at once. There’s a rather simple test for tremor, which is placing a piece of paper on the back of your hand, while holding your hand still. It should be noticeable if there’s a tremor (quite different than nervousness or jitters), but the motion (at least to a trained eye). BUT, I had this minor tremor with Celexa (and the insert said to contact doc in case of tremor), and my doctor said to forget about it. It was very slight, and he said that there’s no way that an SSRI could be dangerous in causing this neurological effect. I’m not sure who’s right, but it vanished in time. In either case, I’d suggest calling your doctor, and explaining what (or which) you’re feeling. You’re not alone… — Sloopy:)
A *slight* tremor doesn
Hi Sophie, When I went on Zoloft for the first time, two years ago, I didn’t have any side-effects at all!! I had another doctor at that time. Now, the new doctor gave me the 50mg. I told her I remembered starting with a lower dose last time, but she said, no, 50 mg are the normal starting dose.
To bad we couldn`t make her take 50mgs of Zoloft and see if she likes it<EG!! Since my memory is generally very bad these days, I didn’t want to insist. Later, when the side-effects got so bad, I asked her again if I shouldn’t have started with a lower dose… she said no again.
I hate hearing this!! So many people are afraid to take anti-depressants because of bad experiences like this. You should have started at 12.5mgs or 25mgs, and weaned slowly. I also asked her if I couldn’t go up to the 100 mg a little slower then just doubling the dose. She said that wouldn’t have any effect at all. –
Well, the other day I went through my drawers and discovered a lonely left-over Zoloft tablet from two years ago, 25mg… Well, this teaches me to trust my own mind, however impaired it may be through depression and AD.. and not to believe everything my doc tells me. Thanks for your information!
Your welcome. I feel bad that you had to go through something like this. I am glad you realize that the fault lays with your doctor and not the Zoloft. Take care and good luck. Jackie "Am I right side up or upside down? Is this real or am I dreaming?"
Hi Jackie, When I went on Zoloft for the first time, two years ago, I didn’t have any side-effects at all!! I had another doctor at that time. Now, the new doctor gave me the 50mg.
Is she a GP or a psychiatrist? I told her I remembered starting with a lower dose last time, but she said, no, 50 mg are the normal starting dose.
12,5 mgs sounds more like it. Since my memory is generally very bad these days, I didn’t want to insist. Later, when the side-effects got so bad, I asked her again if I shouldn’t have started with a lower dose… she said no again.
Sweet, caring doc you have there…. I also asked her if I couldn’t go up to the 100 mg a little slower then just doubling the dose. She said that wouldn’t have any effect at all. –
Good grief….she doesn’t know the first thing about oanic and medication. Well, the other day I went through my drawers and discovered a lonely left-over Zoloft tablet from two years ago, 25mg… Well, this teaches me to trust my own mind, however impaired it may be through depression and AD.. and not to believe everything my doc tells me. Thanks for your information!
Sack the doc! Sophie
Philip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Sophie, You don`t have to go right to 100mgs….you could wean slowly to that dose, that is up to you though. You could go to 75mgs, or even 62.5mgs by cutting the tablet, you would stay at that dose for a week then either increase in 25mg increments, or 12.5mg increments until you reached the 100mgs. For many people a slow weaning process helps to minimize the side-effects. Alot of the side-effects you describe are normal, even the increase in anxiety, perhaps you didn`t wean to 50mgs, you just started at 50mgs? That could explain the hard time you had. Increase in anxiety can be helped by getting a script for a benzo, nausea can be helped by taking the Zoloft on a full stomach. Insomnia can be helped by taking the Zoloft in the AM. Fatigue should dissipate over time. Good luck. Jackie Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Hi Jackie, When I went on Zoloft for the first time, two years ago, I didn’t have any side-effects at all!! I had another doctor at that time. Now, the new doctor gave me the 50mg. I told her I remembered starting with a lower dose last time, but she said, no, 50 mg are the normal starting dose. Since my memory is generally very bad these days, I didn’t want to insist. Later, when the side-effects got so bad, I asked her again if I shouldn’t have started with a lower dose… she said no again. I also asked her if I couldn’t go up to the 100 mg a little slower then just doubling the dose. She said that wouldn’t have any effect at all. – Well, the other day I went through my drawers and discovered a lonely left-over Zoloft tablet from two years ago, 25mg… Well, this teaches me to trust my own mind, however impaired it may be through depression and AD.. and not to believe everything my doc tells me. Thanks for your information! Sophie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Sophie, You don`t have to go right to 100mgs….you could wean slowly to that dose, that is up to you though. You could go to 75mgs, or even 62.5mgs by cutting the tablet, you would stay at that dose for a week then either increase in 25mg increments, or 12.5mg increments until you reached the 100mgs. For many people a slow weaning process helps to minimize the side-effects. Alot of the side-effects you describe are normal, even the increase in anxiety, perhaps you didn`t wean to 50mgs, you just started at 50mgs? That could explain the hard time you had. Increase in anxiety can be helped by getting a script for a benzo, nausea can be helped by taking the Zoloft on a full stomach. Insomnia can be helped by taking the Zoloft in the AM. Fatigue should dissipate over time. Good luck. Jackie
Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
writes – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi all, I have a question about Zoloft and Valerian. I just moved, I left my boyfriend of 4 years and moved in with two roommates. They are absolutely sweet and all the changes in my life are for the better, but still I find my anxiety skyrocketing!! It is as bad a I never thought it would be… I am on 50 mg of Zoloft and I don’t really want to increase the dose (I don’t even know if it would help at all, since it works mainly against depression, not the anxiety itself, if I understand this correctly?), so I thought I’d try some Valerian to get me through the day and help me sleep. Do any of you have any information on SSRIs and Valerian? I seem to recall somebody saying one shouldn’t mix them… but on the other hand I always thought Valerian is a relatively harmless herb… some feedback would be greatly appreciated, Sophie Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
I tried Valerian some time ago, and I can’t say that I was very impressed personally. If you use the herb form to make an infusion, it makes your kitchen smell like something died in there, and of course it gives you no way of knowing what kind of dose you are taking. I also tried the tablet form, and found that it made me feel like hell the next day. As always, YMMV . — Jon Guite When replying by email, please remove the trailing x from my return address
Thanks for your kind replies….. actually, it is a side-effect problem. When I started on Zoloft I was sick for over a week – not only did my anxiety increase, but I was tired at the same time, insomnia and most of all nausea.. I lost quite a bit of weight, which was nice, still I am not too keen on repeating this experience… but what you say sounds convincing, so I think I’ll try the 100 mg. Maybe it’ll work as well for me as for you… thanks again!! Sophie
Hi Sophie, You don`t have to go right to 100mgs….you could wean slowly to that dose, that is up to you though. You could go to 75mgs, or even 62.5mgs by cutting the tablet, you would stay at that dose for a week then either increase in 25mg increments, or 12.5mg increments until you reached the 100mgs. For many people a slow weaning process helps to minimize the side-effects. Alot of the side-effects you describe are normal, even the increase in anxiety, perhaps you didn`t wean to 50mgs, you just started at 50mgs? That could explain the hard time you had. Increase in anxiety can be helped by getting a script for a benzo, nausea can be helped by taking the Zoloft on a full stomach. Insomnia can be helped by taking the Zoloft in the AM. Fatigue should dissipate over time. Good luck. Jackie
I have a question about Zoloft and Valerian. I just moved, I left my boyfriend of 4 years and moved in with two roommates. They are absolutely sweet and all the changes in my life are for the better, but still I find my anxiety skyrocketing!! It is as bad a I never thought it would be… I am on 50 mg of Zoloft and I don’t really want to increase the dose (I don’t even know if it would help at all, since it works mainly against depression, not the anxiety itself, if I understand this correctly?), so I thought I’d try some Valerian to get me through the day and help me sleep. Do any of you have any information on SSRIs and Valerian? I seem to recall somebody saying one shouldn’t mix them… but on the other hand I always thought Valerian is a relatively harmless herb… some feedback would be greatly appreciated,
Hi Sophie, You have had some major life changes recently no wonder you anxiety is still skyrocketing. I am not sure about mixing Zoloft and Valerian, I would call your doctor and ask, many times herbs and meds don`t mix. I think your best bet is to increase the Zoloft, you can go as high as 200mgs, 50mgs might not be enough. Zoloft is effective for anxiety disorders as well as depression. You might be pleasantly surprised at what a increase might do for you. You could also ask your doctor for a benzo for your anxiety, many people take both a AD and a benzo. Take care. Jackie "Am I right side up or upside down? Is this real or am I dreaming?"
Thanks for your kind replies….. actually, it is a side-effect problem. When I started on Zoloft I was sick for over a week – not only did my anxiety increase, but I was tired at the same time, insomnia and most of all nausea.. I lost quite a bit of weight, which was nice, still I am not too keen on repeating this experience… but what you say sounds convincing, so I think I’ll try the 100 mg. Maybe it’ll work as well for me as for you… thanks again!! Sophie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sophie – Actually, unless you have a particulary side-effect problem, I would highly recommend upping your Zoloft dose…My anxiety was not affected at all at 50 mg, but at 100 mg – it is almost entirely gone! Like night and day…And you can take up to 200 mg/day if it’s needed… It took some time, but it was worth it…Anyway, Zoloft is recommended for panic and anxiety, so give it a try…I think you’d be better off taking one med anyway (not really sure why you don’t want to increase the dose unless it’s a side-effect thing) than mixing meds… Hope this helps…Not sure about Valerian…I took some Kava and it helped a little, but you shouldn’t take it with Xanax (which I also started taking with the Zoloft)…Valerian was also suggested to me as far as herbs…Not sure of any interactions here… Email me anytime if you want…You sound like you are in the same boat as me with a series of life changes leading to terrible anxiety…I am much better with 100 mg Zoloft…I think you could be too… Best, — Charles Phipps
Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Hi all, I have a question about Zoloft and Valerian. I just moved, I left my boyfriend of 4 years and moved in with two roommates. They are absolutely sweet and all the changes in my life are for the better, but still I find my anxiety skyrocketing!! It is as bad a I never thought it would be… I am on 50 mg of Zoloft and I don’t really want to increase the dose (I don’t even know if it would help at all, since it works mainly against depression, not the anxiety itself, if I understand this correctly?), so I thought I’d try some Valerian to get me through the day and help me sleep. Do any of you have any information on SSRIs and Valerian? I seem to recall somebody saying one shouldn’t mix them… but on the other hand I always thought Valerian is a relatively harmless herb… some feedback would be greatly appreciated, Sophie Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all, I have a question about Zoloft and Valerian. I just moved, I left my boyfriend of 4 years and moved in with two roommates. They are absolutely sweet and all the changes in my life are for the better, but still I find my anxiety skyrocketing!! It is as bad a I never thought it would be… I am on 50 mg of Zoloft and I don’t really want to increase the dose (I don’t even know if it would help at all, since it works mainly against depression, not the anxiety itself, if I understand this correctly?), so I thought I’d try some Valerian to get me through the day and help me sleep. Do any of you have any information on SSRIs and Valerian? I seem to recall somebody saying one shouldn’t mix them… but on the other hand I always thought Valerian is a relatively harmless herb… some feedback would be greatly appreciated, Sophie
Sophie – Actually, unless you have a particulary side-effect problem, I would highly recommend upping your Zoloft dose…My anxiety was not affected at all at 50 mg, but at 100 mg – it is almost entirely gone! Like night and day…And you can take up to 200 mg/day if it’s needed… It took some time, but it was worth it…Anyway, Zoloft is recommended for panic and anxiety, so give it a try…I think you’d be better off taking one med anyway (not really sure why you don’t want to increase the dose unless it’s a side-effect thing) than mixing meds… Hope this helps…Not sure about Valerian…I took some Kava and it helped a little, but you shouldn’t take it with Xanax (which I also started taking with the Zoloft)…Valerian was also suggested to me as far as herbs…Not sure of any interactions here… Email me anytime if you want…You sound like you are in the same boat as me with a series of life changes leading to terrible anxiety…I am much better with 100 mg Zoloft…I think you could be too… Best, — Charles Phipps
I just learned about this medication and am wondering if any of you here are taking it now. — Laura Goodwin "Pain is fleeting, glory is forever. Remember: scars are sexy."
I just learned about this medication and am wondering if any of you here are taking it now.
I’m not taking it, but IIRC, it’s an SSRI like med (it’s not precisely like Prozac, Zoloft, or Paxil, but it does inhibit reuptake of seratonin at (presumably different) selected sites) and it’s supposed to be more ‘energizing’ than the other SSRIs. (That is, the side effects tend not to be sleepiness or fatigue; they tend to be anxiety, etc.) — Everything I needed to know in life I learned in kindergarten. Like: There is great power in both creation and destruction, but creation focuses power, and destruction disperses it. This is the superiority of creation.
Hi, LaLaura: I take adderal and effexor. The effexor helps with my motivation and mood swings. The adderal helps my thought process and energy level. But I think that the effexor has an impact on my energy level too. A friend of mine has been taking effexor at 37.5mg three times a day (I take same dose twice a day) and his blood pressure went up. His ADD dr. is monitoring the blood pressure now before determining whether it’s the effexor raising the pressure, and if it’s not the effexor, then he’ll prescribe a higher dose of effexor. This friend of mine can’t seem to get anything done, and his motivation level even on effexor three times a day is really not good. However, this is probably because he has underlying emotional issues that he’s not dealing with……As for me, I’m doing really well on the dosage I’m taking. …..There’s so much stuff to do, to think about, to assemble. Oh no, Mr. Bill, I’ve turned into my stuff!!!
Have been taking Effexor for 3+ years. It has been the best of all of the antidepressants for me. None of the SSRIs worked, the Tricyclics had horrendous side effects, and Serzone also had some strange side effects. I started taking it in conjuction with Ritalin, but now take Effexor and Adderall. I do remember that the first few days Effexor was a little rough on my stomach, but those symptoms subsided within a week. Good luck, Lloyd – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just learned about this medication and am wondering if any of you here are taking it now. — Laura Goodwin "Pain is fleeting, glory is forever. Remember: scars are sexy."
I take effexor now and like it much better than the combination of prozac and dexedrine that I was taking before. No side effects either. Wayne – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, LaLaura: I take adderal and effexor. The effexor helps with my motivation and mood swings. The adderal helps my thought process and energy level. But I think that the effexor has an impact on my energy level too. A friend of mine has been taking effexor at 37.5mg three times a day (I take same dose twice a day) and his blood pressure went up. His ADD dr. is monitoring the blood pressure now before determining whether it’s the effexor raising the pressure, and if it’s not the effexor, then he’ll prescribe a higher dose of effexor. This friend of mine can’t seem to get anything done, and his motivation level even on effexor three times a day is really not good. However, this is probably because he has underlying emotional issues that he’s not dealing with……As for me, I’m doing really well on the dosage I’m taking. …..There’s so much stuff to do, to think about, to assemble. Oh no, Mr. Bill, I’ve turned into my stuff!!!
Effexor reduces ‘reuptake’ of norepinephirine and dopamine as well as seratonin so it can treat both ADD and depression/anxiety. It even treated my allergies! Unfortunately, like a strong antihistamine, it caused me so much urinary tract irritation that I had to stop taking it.
Effexor reduces ‘reuptake’ of norepinephirine and dopamine as well as seratonin so it can treat both ADD and depression/anxiety. It even treated my allergies! Unfortunately, like a strong antihistamine, it caused me so much urinary tract irritation that I had to stop taking it.
Interesting. I’m grateful to you and to the other fine people who posted so far. I’m considering trying effexor, since both rit and dex leave much to be desired in my case. I’m not at all depressed, but I do apparently have temporal lobe as well as frontal lobe dysfunction, which has rendered me virtually handicapped, although I’m a sharp gal in many ways. For example, petty anxieties paralyze me, but I can be quite bold and effective in a real emergency. I have no sure sense of time or timing, unless I’m dancing. If music is involved I’m brilliant, but I’m never sure what day of the week it is. An hour can seem like a day, and whole days can zip by in seconds. Whole years vanish from my conciousness, but I’ll never forget some minor incident from my girlhood. Minor irritations that other people shrug off loom large to me, but things that terrify ordinary people are to me laughably tiny. In short, I’m out of step with the entire rest of the race of humanity. I don’t have a different drummer, I’ve got a whole dad-blamed different orchestra. It would not be a problem if people didn’t complain, but alas, much fault has been found with me, and I can’t keep a job to support myself. I would like to be able to provide for myself, at least. — Laura Goodwin "Pain is fleeting, glory is forever. Remember: scars are sexy."
effexor works for awhile then you feel crappy again. Libido is gone forever on effexor
effexor works for awhile then you feel crappy again. Libido is gone forever on effexor
That’s not true. It *CAN* happen; it can happen with most antidepressants, even those not known for it (some folks have reported sexual side effects from Wellbutrin, which has also shown a significant INCREASE to libido in one experiment), but the only way to know is to try. Wellbutrin and Serzone are the two noted for having the least sexual-side effects. — Everything I needed to know in life I learned in kindergarten. Like: There is great power in both creation and destruction, but creation focuses power, and destruction disperses it. This is the superiority of creation.
ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! Living in the UK, I frequently unsubscribe from rec.boats.paddle because there’s too much which isn’t relevant to the UK paddler. When I resubscribe (as I did last month), I’m always delighted when I find that Scott Weiser is still winding up paddlers, especially in the US. Best wishes
What a compliment. Many thanks…. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.
ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS!
Living in the UK, I frequently unsubscribe from rec.boats.paddle because there’s too much which isn’t relevant to the UK paddler. When I resubscribe (as I did last month), I’m always delighted when I find that Scott Weiser is still winding up paddlers, especially in the US. Best wishes Keith — |/| |_ |_) |_) / / canoeing instead of climbing when I | | |__ | | / __/ realised I could swim but not fly!"
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant. Just look at the Grand Canyon. yes – and that’s why most public lands that incur use impacts are placed in management plans. These plans seek to find the right balance – though I’ll admit it can be arbitrary – especially when it comes to mulltiple-use determinations. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. indeed. the ‘public’ is the government. All land public or private is regulation by Federal, State, and local laws that prevent land-owners from using their land when the impacts of such use affect the public. If you don’t believe this.. try something like a 1000 head feed-lot on your property… or placer mining… or eve condos… none of these will you do without a ‘permit’ and the government decides on behalf of the public if your proposal is ‘in the public interest’. Some folks of late consider these ‘takings’ but underlying ‘public interest’ concept is intact.
This is true, and I’ve never denied the validity of properly constructed land-use law, but *restricting* a property owner’s use to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public is substantially different from *appropriating* his property for the use of the public. But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature. Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper. hmmm.. they *are* comparative in terms of impacts… whether it is recreation, farming, mining.. all of these distill down to impacts that can be quantified in terms of water quality, habitat destruction, etc.
Yes, but an unnecessary impact is an unnecessary impact, no matter how small it may be. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area. It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow. I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass. Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned. "can be mitigated by proper management practices" leaves it up to the landowner whoever that happens to be at a given time. this does not work when money is involved. Many landowners justify the destruction of the land they own for ‘economic benefits’. You are not unilaterally entitled to un-regulated economic activity just because you own the land. Your activity has to be compatible with the ‘public interest’ as there is hardly anything (economic) you can do on your property that won’t ultimately affect the public. There are thousands and thousands of local, state, federal laws that restrict you every which way from Sunday. You may consider recreation not necessary – the public may think otherwise – the same goes for what you think is ‘necessary’. If you public disagrees with you then you may be restricted.
Absolutely correct, but the fact that the government may regulate my activities in the public interest has no nexus to my ability to regulate YOUR activities on my land. As we have seen, even the government recognizes the impacts of recreationalists on public waters and has chosen to regulate them as well. I’m not sure what your point is. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison. In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others. Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best. I follow the consistency argument and agree but behavior is governed by law whether it occurs on private or public property – though different laws may apply depending on the behavior – for instance some usually can be arrested for ’speeding on your property’ because the law does not apply to private property.
I don’t understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. This is simply not true. No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor. And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public. Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have. That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers. The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource. Indeed – with respect to ‘wilderness designation’, it’s not the paddlers or recreation folks or environmentalists that are fighting it.. it’s the folks that want to build roads and use motors. Impacts from recreation are easily mitigated.. you employ a permit system and if an area has eagle nests.. then you close it off entirely. The right fringe/landowner rights movement is trying to strike down all of these laws.. they want it all wide open … so that power boats, ski doos, etc can you AND the impacts ARE comparative. 100 canoes CAN and ARE compared to 100 ski-doos. One single four-wheel drive can severly damage a trail… and it has become recognized that hikers can do but it’ll take a 1000 of them… so you permit the use.. no 4-wheel and only 10 hikers per day.. etc etc
True, but largely irrelevant. You do prove my point however that mitigating and preventing impacts is a legitimate method of preserving the resource. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Public officials don’t make the decisions, wrong… if the public doesn’t like the court decision they’ll change the law. The ‘law’ is determined by the legislature which consists of publically-elected officials. the Courts do. No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public. yep…but even the constition can be ammended if the people want it.
True, and when you succeed in repealing the Fifth Amendment, get back to me. While you are technically correct, you must recognize that private property ownership and the prohibitions against the government exproprating property without compensation are one of the core beliefs of our nation, and it’s simply not credible that the vast majority of the public, *who are property owners*, will tear up the Constitution simply to suit a *small number* of boating recreationists who aren’t satisfied with the public … read more »
It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant. Just look at the Grand Canyon.
yes – and that’s why most public lands that incur use impacts are placed in management plans. These plans seek to find the right balance – though I’ll admit it can be arbitrary – especially when it comes to mulltiple-use determinations. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation.
indeed. the ‘public’ is the government. All land public or private is regulation by Federal, State, and local laws that prevent land-owners from using their land when the impacts of such use affect the public. If you don’t believe this.. try something like a 1000 head feed-lot on your property… or placer mining… or eve condos… none of these will you do without a ‘permit’ and the government decides on behalf of the public if your proposal is ‘in the public interest’. Some folks of late consider these ‘takings’ but underlying ‘public interest’ concept is intact. But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature. Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper.
hmmm.. they *are* comparative in terms of impacts… whether it is recreation, farming, mining.. all of these distill down to impacts that can be quantified in terms of water quality, habitat destruction, etc. Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area. It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow. I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass. Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned.
"can be mitigated by proper management practices" leaves it up to the landowner whoever that happens to be at a given time. this does not work when money is involved. Many landowners justify the destruction of the land they own for ‘economic benefits’. You are not unilaterally entitled to un-regulated economic activity just because you own the land. Your activity has to be compatible with the ‘public interest’ as there is hardly anything (economic) you can do on your property that won’t ultimately affect the public. There are thousands and thousands of local, state, federal laws that restrict you every which way from Sunday. You may consider recreation not necessary – the public may think otherwise – the same goes for what you think is ‘necessary’. If you public disagrees with you then you may be restricted. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison. In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others. Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best.
I follow the consistency argument and agree but behavior is governed by law whether it occurs on private or public property – though different laws may apply depending on the behavior – for instance some usually can be arrested for ’speeding on your property’ because the law does not apply to private property. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. This is simply not true. No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor. And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public. Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have. That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers. The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource.
Indeed – with respect to ‘wilderness designation’, it’s not the paddlers or recreation folks or environmentalists that are fighting it.. it’s the folks that want to build roads and use motors. Impacts from recreation are easily mitigated.. you employ a permit system and if an area has eagle nests.. then you close it off entirely. The right fringe/landowner rights movement is trying to strike down all of these laws.. they want it all wide open … so that power boats, ski doos, etc can you AND the impacts ARE comparative. 100 canoes CAN and ARE compared to 100 ski-doos. One single four-wheel drive can severly damage a trail… and it has become recognized that hikers can do but it’ll take a 1000 of them… so you permit the use.. no 4-wheel and only 10 hikers per day.. etc etc The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Public officials don’t make the decisions,
wrong… if the public doesn’t like the court decision they’ll change the law. The ‘law’ is determined by the legislature which consists of publically-elected officials. the Courts do. No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public.
yep…but even the constition can be ammended if the people want it. If I were to do as I suggest, *something* would happen, either the trespassers would be arrested, or *I* would be arrested for "illegally" preventing them from trespassing, or they would file a suit, or I would. And as soon as the matter comes to court, the LAW rules, and I am quite confident in the strength of my legal case.
Like I said… if the law in Colorado was rigidly enforced along the lines that you suggest… and paddlers were kicked off of the major streams.. you could expect the law to change – regardless of how the courts feel. When you have a law like they have in Colorado and it’s not enforced.. there is a message in it. Federal Laws can force changes in Colorado law also – and do all the time. In the end… in a democracy… "rights" are decided by the people. You have no "right" to economic activity or even landowner rights if the public that votes disagrees with you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole
… read more »
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers. yep – actually this is more common that most folks either know or will admit. In Virginia – The Cowpasture River ( not great whitewater but a really beautify mountain river) is essentially off-limits. Others include Back Creek and the Jackson. Had a little old lady point a long-barreled 45 at our group on the Bullpasture. She wanted us off of "her damned land" NOW! People have been arrested in the past and many others are "warned" by local landowners before they even put in. Interestingly, we *used* to be able to get permission from the landowner group for a number of years and then suddenly we were refused. Not because we had done anything wrong – we ALWAYS sought permission and ALWAYS were polite – but because 1 landowner out of dozens didn’t want ANYBODY and didn’t care whether they were polite or respectful or anything else. End of story. All of years of carefully trying to not step on anyones toes went for naught. Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners". After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use. yep, i erred in the generalization. there is a link however. I don’t buy your ‘protection’ argument. I’ve paddled hundreds of rivers in 30 years of boating and damage, if any, is miniscule compared to cattle, 4 wheelers, local trash dumps, roadside dumps, fishermen – believe it of not!, logging, farming, and industry.
This may be true elsewhere, but the fact that others may cause more damage does not reduce the impacts which boaters cause, and since whatever those impacts are are unnecessary, it’s perfectly proper to prevent them. Actually, of late, many rivers have been saved from damage by pointing out that they are used significantly for recreation. also interesting is that once a River becomes officially protected and becomes a destination for paddlers – the localities reap economic benefit AND the river then becomes essentially off-limits to single-minded proposals that *would* damage it.
If economic benefits were the only criteria perhaps this would be valid. You do make a valid point that public awareness of the particular value of a particular river can be helpful in protecting the resource, but far too often the negative impacts of public access do more harm than good. It’s all well and good to say that you, one individual boater, does no identifiable harm, but this ignores the impacts of scale, and when a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand boaters use the area, the cumulative impacts become significant. Just look at the Grand Canyon. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. I don’t think it is a ‘delicate balance’ at all. In most cases, it is fairly clear what the landowners intentions are.. you can see it in the way they take care of ( or not ) the land. Recreation does not harm the land on near the same scale as say cattle. A hundred cattle can totally ruin a river bank and turn a clean stream into a mess. A 100 paddlers – even if they all urinated in unison wouldn’t even come close.
But this is true ONLY IF the 100 cattle *do* damage the riverbank. Such impacts are not really comparative in nature. Negative impacts cause by paddlers are not "better", or "less negative" impacts simply because they are caused by a paddler instead of a cow, they stand on their own, and when those impacts are unnecessary to begin with, they are that much more improper. Cattle may cause negative impacts, which can be mitigated by proper management practices, but cattle are *necessary* impacts in most cases, because they are what pay the taxes and create the profits that are used to continue to preserve the area. It’s all well and good to say "cattle-free in 2003" or whatever (though this mostly applies to federal lands) but the bills have to get paid somehow. I suppose when paddlers fork over the thousands of dollars a year to pay the taxes and maintain the property, then I’ll consider allowing them to trespass. Until then, their impacts, however slight, are *not necessary* to the preservation of the resource, and therefore they are justifiably banned. I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’?
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. The fact that species and habitat may have been impacted by landowners is a broad generalization and an irrelevant comparison. In my case this is not the case, as is true in many other places, and you cannot claim that your impacts are legitimate merely because other impacts occur. Your impacts stand alone, on their own merits, and you are not excused by the bad behavior of others. Using your logic, you should be able to toss beer cans on the bank, leave rubbish around and cut down trees for firewood just because somebody else does so somewhere else. That’s fallacious logic at best. If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around.
This is simply not true. No one said that the riparian zone would become ‘devoid’ of life, and while wildlife may become habituated to some degree, the stresses of human intrusion *remain* to negatively affect populations and vigor. And that wildlife you may see, which may be habituated, ignores those "shy" species, which are in the majority, which may indeed leave the area altogether, or may simply begin a gradual decline. Our federal lands are managed for *multiple* use with the recognition that humans *will* have impacts, and those impacts are balanced against the benefits which accrue to the public. Factually, from a political point of view, it would be highly desireable to simply forbid human access to *most* wilderness areas in order to preserve the habitat, but it’s politically impossible to do so, so we instead try to mitigate the impacts we do have. That’s why permit systems are cropping up on more and more rivers. The impacts of scale have become clear and limitations are required to preserve the resource. Those impacts are just as present on Boulder Creek, though to a lesser degree. The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the *** snip legal rambling **** Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly…. The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is.
Public officials don’t make the decisions, the Courts do. No amount of feverish desire in pursuit of the almighty dollar can prevent me, or someone else from filing a suit in court claiming an improper taking of private property for public use without just compensation. That’s the purpose of the Constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority and the infringements of the rights of the individual by the public. If I were to do as I suggest, *something* would happen, either the trespassers would be arrested, or *I* would be arrested for "illegally" preventing them from trespassing, or they would file a suit, or I would. And as soon as the matter comes to court, the LAW rules, and I am quite confident in the strength of my legal case. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.
Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers.
yep – actually this is more common that most folks either know or will admit. In Virginia – The Cowpasture River ( not great whitewater but a really beautify mountain river) is essentially off-limits. Others include Back Creek and the Jackson. Had a little old lady point a long-barreled 45 at our group on the Bullpasture. She wanted us off of "her damned land" NOW! People have been arrested in the past and many others are "warned" by local landowners before they even put in. Interestingly, we *used* to be able to get permission from the landowner group for a number of years and then suddenly we were refused. Not because we had done anything wrong – we ALWAYS sought permission and ALWAYS were polite – but because 1 landowner out of dozens didn’t want ANYBODY and didn’t care whether they were polite or respectful or anything else. End of story. All of years of carefully trying to not step on anyones toes went for naught. Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners". After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use.
yep, i erred in the generalization. there is a link however. I don’t buy your ‘protection’ argument. I’ve paddled hundreds of rivers in 30 years of boating and damage, if any, is miniscule compared to cattle, 4 wheelers, local trash dumps, roadside dumps, fishermen – believe it of not!, logging, farming, and industry. Actually, of late, many rivers have been saved from damage by pointing out that they are used significantly for recreation. also interesting is that once a River becomes officially protected and becomes a destination for paddlers – the localities reap economic benefit AND the river then becomes essentially off-limits to single-minded proposals that *would* damage it. It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation.
I don’t think it is a ‘delicate balance’ at all. In most cases, it is fairly clear what the landowners intentions are.. you can see it in the way they take care of ( or not ) the land. Recreation does not harm the land on near the same scale as say cattle. A hundred cattle can totally ruin a river bank and turn a clean stream into a mess. A 100 paddlers – even if they all urinated in unison wouldn’t even come close. I’am also amused by the ’scaring the wildlife’ argument – somewhat because there may be a ‘hint’ of truth for some species but how many species in the last few decades have been not only ’scared’ but just plain wiped-out because the habitat they lived on was used by the landowner for ‘other purposes’? If the ’scaring the wildlife’ arugment were true then most of the official ‘wild & scenic’ rivers in this nation – which are heavily travelled by recreation paddlers – would be completely devoid of wildlife. The reverse is true – once the land is dedicated by recreational use ONLY – the wildlife return and thrive.. and with the exception of certain ’shy’ species become confortable with humans – especially if they are not shooting them. It’s not the presence of the human itself that disturbs most animals – it is WHAT the human is doing and animals *know* that there is risk is hanging around. The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the
*** snip legal rambling **** Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly….
The ‘difficulty’ is that if Colorado actually did what you suggest – that there would be a firestorm and the arugment would be over with very quickly. You would lose big time. Very significant tourism and the public’s perception of being ‘welcome’ are involved. No sane public official would even consider it.. that’ why they’re content to let it be the way it is. Absolutely correct, and only by dialog between landowners and river users can such conflicts be peacefully and properly resolved with benefit to everyone.
I actually agree with the basic premise that no one is guanranteed access to private land because they are engaging in what they perceive as a ‘noble’ activity. Usually, it’s scumballs who cloak themselves with the ‘noble activity’ and then abuse the landowner. We’ve seen it with hunting and to some extent with boating. I’ve always subscribed to the idea that if someone owns the land that *I* need to *ask permission* and if they refuse – they refuse. It is their right. It burns my butt when 99 paddlers are polite and ask permission and then Mr asshole waltz’s in and screws it up for everybody. Folks from the ‘big’ cities are often the worst offenders. For some odd reason, I’ve never been able to understand they think they are ‘entitled’ to treaspass once in the rural landscape. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am willing to conceed to Scott that there is a valid interest in these dicussions on this newsgroup, but I do wish I could make the "NOT weiser" boolean search request work on my newsreader client. The problem I have with these posts is that Scott seems to be preoccupied with preaching legal findings and citing past relevant rulings to paddlers that are responding back with statements like "If I can paddle it, the river is navigable!" and "Just try to stop me!". Reading these threads is like sitting in a nicely furnished living room watching an acclaimed vet scold his dog by using the following phrase…"Sparky, the reason you should not urinate on the carpet is because the acidic nature of your fluid excrement has an adverse effect on both the optical appearance of this synthetic-based floor covering and also tends to react unpleasantly with the olfactory processes of myself and my house guests. Please, Sparky, give me a reason why I should not confine you to your pre-designated travel container." Whereas, the more intelligent vet, the person that learns through careful observation would say "Bad Dog, go to your box.", realizing that dogs do not make for good argument.
ROTFLMAO. What a hoot….I had not thought to compare kayakers to untrainable dogs. I sort of thought by presenting the evidence in (hopefully) a manner which the average adult could understand, that people would discover the logic involved themselves and make good decisions based upon that knowledge. I’ve had quite a bit of evidence that this is indeed the case. While you may tire of repetition (as I do), there is a constant stream of people who *don’t* understand and might like to who deserve to be informed of the controversy and the facts surrounding it so that they, too, can make informed decisions. My suggestion is that those who know the material and have made the decision, one way or the other, simply skip the threads altogether and allow those who *are* interested debate the matter with me in peace and quiet. Unfortunately, those who have seen the material cannot seem to control themselves and insist on insulting me and interrupting valid and interesting conversations among others. It’s a lot like a high-school student running into a class full of 8th graders and shouting "Hey, teach, shut the **ck up! I’ve heard all this before and you annoy me!" Why can’t those who don’t like the nature of the discussion simply switch off and go for a paddle and leave those who wish to discuss alone? I suspect it’s because such people are violently opposed to my particular argument and see it as dangerous, and decide to do whatever they can to disrupt the flow of information. It’s a lame attempt at censorship, nothing more, and I’ll tell you here and now it won’t work. I guess what I am trying to say here is that the best communicators are the ones that can tailor a response, argumentative or otherwise, to the intended audience. Make your point and make it clear. There is nothing wrong with being a highly intelligent, well versed, individual, but make no mistake…a highly- intelligent, well-versed idiot is still an idiot. Finally, Scott, if you feel the need to reply to this posting, I will assume that you deem me a colleague worth engaging with in meaningful debate. If your words truly express your feelings about me…
I think you have made a trenchant statement of fact, and I appreciate your candor. I hope that my reply is likewise informative. We agree more than we disagree, but I have a policy about "Shut the **ck UP!" threads, which is that I reply to them with whatever degree of politeness is called for until those posting to the thread….shut the **ck up. Then I return to the adult debates about access issues and the law with those who wish to discuss the issue. When nobody cares to discuss it anymore, then the thread dies and I retreat to my place under the bridge for a time, until some event stimulates me to begin again, for a new crop of paddlers who may be in need of enlightenment. (Your Previous Posting) <CLIP If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion. You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you. <CLIP …then why do you bother post a reply, I personally do not waste my time reasoning with someone that sounded like a spoiled three-year-old.
It’s not for *their* benefit, it’s for the benefit of others, and for my own amusement. If you do repond and I do not, please do not feel bad. Sometimes I go out and paddle instead of talking about it in this newsgroup.
Good plan. BTW- I apologize for the YELLING in my first post, it was uncalled for.
No problem, I’m a very forgiving kind of guy. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.
Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga?
Correct, and the point is that *somebody* just might own such places, and you could lose the access in a heartbeat due to the malefactions of one or two individual paddlers. Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources.
Um….I think this qualifies as a "broad generalization" of the type which Richard was objecting to when applied to paddlers, so I guess I have to object to it when applied to "landowners". After all, my purpose is not to develop or destroy the resource, it’s to protect it from the damage caused by public use. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship.
It’s a delicate balance of the two, but remember that preserving to pass stewardship on does *not* necessarily mean passing it to the public who want to use the land for recreation. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state.
The difficulty is that many jurisdictions are relying upon the Attorney General’s opinion of the effects of changing the definition of "premises", including the state Department of Natural Resources, which leads to inconsistent enforcement of the law and a misunderstanding of the law itself. The issue is still unresolved because no case has been brought to overturn the AG’s opinion and confirm the Emmert Court’s decision. I hope it won’t come to that, because such a ruling would *shut down* public recreational use of most of the important recreational waters of the state, including the Number section of the Arkansas, which, while most of it is on BLM or Forest Service land, is criss-crossed by private "inholdings", any one of which could choose at any time to prohibit trespass and thereby destroy the ability to complete the float at all, since there’s no way to egress at the closed properties. This is why I propose a system which allows the state to, in this example, *condemn* a recreational easement if necessary to assure continued access to the entire run. But the essential part is that the state must *pay for* the access. After all, commercial whitewater recreation on the Arkansas is a multi-million dollar industry, which makes that easement quite valuable. I’ve suggested before the possibility that a landowner who owns a strip of land under the river somewhere in the middle of the popular section could simply take photos of every commercial raft which passes by in a season, identify the outfitter, count the number of heads and send them a bill at, say, $5.00 a head for a "trespass fee." I imagine this would get the attention of the recreational community rather quickly. Pity I don’t own such a parcel…..I could bring this thing to a head quite quickly…. The thread has been excellent raising awareness and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.
Absolutely correct, and only by dialog between landowners and river users can such conflicts be peacefully and properly resolved with benefit to everyone. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.
Shut Up, Shut up, Shut Up!!! For the love of God people please stop this nonesense. Like everyone else I give a damn but I’m F%#$ing tired of seeing all these lame Wesier posts. Dear lord have mercy on our souls!! T.J.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga? Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state. The thread has been excellent raising awareness and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.
I will go against the spirit of my original post and add a few more coals to the fire. Larry, you make a good point here. It is important that people reading this newsgroup realize the opinions of Scott and landowners like him. I do admit that I skimmed over the legal content of your posting pretty lightly, because I myself (speaking only for myself) do not give much consideration to written law while paddling. Not to say that I am a scofflaw, I just rely on simple common sense and judgement when leaving the city for a relaxing paddling trip. In my opinion, many access laws are on the books for liability reasons. There is a certain river here in the Southeast, that is officially banned from access. I have been told by local law enforcement officials that they do not particularly mind paddlers on the river, nor do they bother them if the right attitude is excercised by the group. The law was enacted to protect the state in the event of an unforseen accident. When I paddle, I paddle until told not to. If a local landowner expresses their concern in my paddling, I respect their wishes. If I should get arrested and am legally "in the wrong", I pay my fine and do not visit that particular area again. This approach has not failed me yet. Mutual respect goes quite a long way here in the Southeast. Maybe things are different in Colorado, I really do not know. I am not saying we should feel that we have the right to paddle anywhere. I am simply saying that 9 times out of ten, if you are not making a problem for anyone, people usually do not make problems for you. If Mr. Weiser’s family property on Boulder Creek contains a fence to control livestock, and by Colorado law they have a right to maintain that fence, then I would say paddling that section does impose a problem on someone, so it shold be avoided. It is quite possible that if there was no need for the fence, the Weisers may not care if their property is paddled across, who knows, it does not really matter. If I am paddling down a "legal" creek and a trout fisherman has inadvertantly snagged his line across the river, I wait, or help, or get out and walk around. I do not care who is or is not supposed to be there. (enough rambling, I will try to make my point here.) I am willing to conceed to Scott that there is a valid interest in these dicussions on this newsgroup, but I do wish I could make the "NOT weiser" boolean search request work on my newsreader client. The problem I have with these posts is that Scott seems to be preoccupied with preaching legal findings and citing past relevant rulings to paddlers that are responding back with statements like "If I can paddle it, the river is navigable!" and "Just try to stop me!". Reading these threads is like sitting in a nicely furnished living room watching an acclaimed vet scold his dog by using the following phrase…"Sparky, the reason you should not urinate on the carpet is because the acidic nature of your fluid excrement has an adverse effect on both the optical appearance of this synthetic-based floor covering and also tends to react unpleasantly with the olfactory processes of myself and my house guests. Please, Sparky, give me a reason why I should not confine you to your pre-designated travel container." Whereas, the more intelligent vet, the person that learns through careful observation would say "Bad Dog, go to your box.", realizing that dogs do not make for good argument. I guess what I am trying to say here is that the best communicators are the ones that can tailor a response, argumentative or otherwise, to the intended audience. Make your point and make it clear. There is nothing wrong with being a highly intelligent, well versed, individual, but make no mistake…a highly- intelligent, well-versed idiot is still an idiot. Finally, Scott, if you feel the need to reply to this posting, I will assume that you deem me a colleague worth engaging with in meaningful debate. If your words truly express your feelings about me… (Your Previous Posting) <CLIP If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion. You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you.
<CLIP …then why do you bother post a reply, I personally do not waste my time reasoning with someone that sounded like a spoiled three-year-old. If you do repond and I do not, please do not feel bad. Sometimes I go out and paddle instead of talking about it in this newsgroup. BTW- I apologize for the YELLING in my first post, it was uncalled for. SYOTR (well maybe 99.9% of you) -Craig
From, Mick "Better to be paddlin’ hard than hardly paddlin’ "
I think it’s kind of funny. Near the beginning of the great return of Weiser, everyone was more or less agreeing with him. Now he’s isolated himself against the NG again by posting more to this newsgroup on a few days than I have since I’ve started looking at it.
Of course, the slingers of insults who *start* the threads have *nothing* to do with it…..not… If only the "vocal minority" were able to leave well enough alone, then perhaps these pyrotechnic offshoots wouldn’t happen, but of course, unable to audit their conduct, they just *have* to get a dig in there. Well, poke me and I poke right back. You want it to stop, you stop it. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.
Hey, hey. We should be counting our blessings. Suppose Mr. Weiser owned the put-in to the Ocoee or Chatooga? Paddlers need to know about folks like him AND how he thinks. Mr. Weiser is representative of many ‘landowner rights’ advocates some of whom also belong to the ‘Wise Use’ groups. They usually not only want to keep paddlers off the rivers but they want to develop their land in any way they please even if it destroys natural resources. Some folks think if they own land that it ‘ALL MINE’ and I can do with it what I want while others see themselves as temporary stewards responsible for passing the land on to others to also will practice stewardship. It is a significant movement and unless paddlers and others become involved and pay attention – you’ll see more and more rivers placed off-limits. I’m amazed that if Colorado Law is what Mr. Weiser sez it is that ANY rivers out there can be accessed legally. Something doesn’t fit. I wonder how popular rivers fare on the access issue in that state. The thread has been excellent raising awareness and I’ll bet more than a few now realize how important it is to contribute/join the AWA who works on behalf paddlers on access issues.
I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS!
Thank you for that trenchant commentary. I am a kayaker. I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love.
And access debates have nothing to do with your sport? Boy, are you deluded. And just what makes you think that anyone else is obliged to give a rodent’s fundamental orifice about why YOU choose to participate here or what YOU like or want? When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here". When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time."
Well, I do rather enjoy jousting with the fine folks here…and the Netwits too. It’s my time to waste though, so what’s your beef? Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject. Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content.
Clog the group? Have you ever heard of a concept called the "delete" key? How about the "down arrow" key? Both of them will allow you to completely bypass any discussion which might cause consternation and confusion in your tiny mind. There’s and even better one….it’s called the "OFF" switch. Use it in good health, but USE it. If the posts are the same in content, it’s because others keep asking the same questions, and as long as they do, I’ll keep responding to them because it’s the polite thing to do. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes. I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience. Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)!
And so you would impose your will on everyone else, some of whom might be interested, simply because you don’t have the wit to skip a thread. How very altruistic of you. If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not. If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP!
Let me see if I can put this delicately……No. If you don’t like the course of the conversation, then toddle off and start one of your own instead of sniping at the adults who are having an interesting discussion. You sound like a three-year-old who’s whining and throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy is ignoring you. Grow up and act like an adult. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.
I think it’s kind of funny. Near the beginning of the great return of Weiser, everyone was more or less agreeing with him. Now he’s isolated himself against the NG again by posting more to this newsgroup on a few days than I have since I’ve started looking at it. "Regards," Sam Glover
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You know, I agree with just about everything Scott said in this post. Nobody forces you to read every article on the newsgroup. Just skip over the threads you don’t like. I know we’ve gone over this subject a zillion times, but apparently we keep getting new people in the group who are not aware of the differences in access laws from place to place. Some of these people want argue with Scott, but it really won’t do them any good–they can’t change the laws of the state of Colorado. They do, however, learn from the exchanges. And for every person who posts in the thread, there are at least ten who are reading it and learning from it. If paddlers improve their behaviour wrt access, then maybe some irate landowners who have the power to block access to put-ins or even to the entire river may decide that paddlers aren’t so bad. If these threads improve our collective behaviour enough that the closure of just one river is avoided, then it will be worthwhile.
Well said. I do take issue with one of Scott’s statements, though. Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject. Scott, you were the first poster on this subject. So one out of the dozens of your posts was NOT a repy. (OK, I may be picking at straws there, but read on.) Also, just the other day, you replied to a post that was completely unrelated (i.e. had nothing to do with access), and did so in a manner that seemed (to me) aimed at starting another big thread. Hence, you do not ONLY post to reply to questions about access, although I would agree that the vast majority of your posts are valid replies. If you had said that you "usually" or "generally only reply… then I would have no argument with your statement.
Well, you’ve got me there. I admit to priming the pan from time to time, but you can hardly blame me when the flash occurs. It’s possible for everyone to simply ignore my flashy lures, but it’s also highly unlikely, as I have discovered, and so I take advantage of that phenomenon to stimulate debate, and this has been another interesting and lively debate, and, as you so succintly said, some people learned something new. Whether they like what they learned, or agree with it is unimportant, what’s important is that they have had their horizons expanded, which is *always* a good thing. Regards, Scott Weiser ****** "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" ****** http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/ Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly contracting with me in my professional capacity for a consultation on the ad’s effectiveness and you expressly agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such consultation within 10 days of my report to the original sending address. You further expressly agree that all actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have sole jurisdiction.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! I am a kayaker. I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love. When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here". When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time." Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes. I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience. Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)! If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not. If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP! By the way, if any of you would like to paddle this weekend, let me know Let me out of this concrete jungle, -Craig "no playboat yet" Geist
You better watch out buddy … you started a new possible deadly feud here … you better know that Mr. Weiser is a very fast typist, commands the English language like no other, is an expert of all laws of the king’s land, he is a sharp shooter (he is also a gunsmithlike expert) and a land "king size" owner. You are doomed my friend! Scotty will beam your tired sorry paddling ass up! PS: I really felt sorry for the incident and for the two idiots that went after Mr. Weiser’s mother but this is to much! Fred Fred Mechini Visit my homepage http://pluto.njcc.com/~fmec/Welcome.html A WEB PAGE DEDICATED TO OLYMPIC SPRINT KAYAK
You know, I agree with just about everything Scott said in this post. Nobody forces you to read every article on the newsgroup. Just skip over the threads you don’t like. I know we’ve gone over this subject a zillion times, but apparently we keep getting new people in the group who are not aware of the differences in access laws from place to place. Some of these people want argue with Scott, but it really won’t do them any good–they can’t change the laws of the state of Colorado. They do, however, learn from the exchanges. And for every person who posts in the thread, there are at least ten who are reading it and learning from it. If paddlers improve their behaviour wrt access, then maybe some irate landowners who have the power to block access to put-ins or even to the entire river may decide that paddlers aren’t so bad. If these threads improve our collective behaviour enough that the closure of just one river is avoided, then it will be worthwhile. I do take issue with one of Scott’s statements, though. Remember, I only post in reply to a query or discussion from someone else who, axiomatically, *is* interested in the subject.
Scott, you were the first poster on this subject. So one out of the dozens of your posts was NOT a repy. (OK, I may be picking at straws there, but read on.) Also, just the other day, you replied to a post that was completely unrelated (i.e. had nothing to do with access), and did so in a manner that seemed (to me) aimed at starting another big thread. Hence, you do not ONLY post to reply to questions about access, although I would agree that the vast majority of your posts are valid replies. If you had said that you "usually" or "generally only reply… then I would have no argument with your statement. -Paul
I apologize in advance, but there really is no diplomatic way to state this… ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ACCESS DEBATE THREADS! I am a kayaker. I view and post to this newsgroup in order to keep abreast of new happenings in the sport I love. When I see three postings (or threads) involving a river access issue, I think "Good debate, there have been some valid issues presented here". When I see thirty posts, mostly by one individual, I think "These (expletive’in) people have nothing better to do with their time." Please, If you are absolutely hot-and-bothered to the point that you are treating this news group like your own personal chat-room, I understand…But keep it private, e-mail is really an ideal medium for this type of thing. Don’t clog this otherwise interesting group with twenty different post that are essentially the same in content. For the record, Yes, I do now know that Scott Weiser(sp?) is very familiar with private domain laws in Colorado and he would prefer that kayakers show a little more respect towards his family’s legal wishes. I also know that there are a lot of disrespectful boaters out there that believe once the water droplet leaves the cloud, it is there God-given right to use it at their convenience. Well folks, these are things I learned in the first few posts. I can see both sides of the argument, but really do not give a flying (expletive)! If you have any other opinions that you think I am interested in past that point, know that I am not. If any of you involved in this thread think of any other gems that need to be discussed pertaining to this topic. Please, WRITE YOUR (EXPLETIVE’IN) CONGRESSMAN OR SHUT THE (EXPLETIVE) UP! By the way, if any of you would like to paddle this weekend, let me know Let me out of this concrete jungle, -Craig "no playboat yet" Geist
Where do I find veterinarian supply companies? Maybe I’m being lazy here, but if you know I’d appreciate it. I’ve been to farm supply companies but don’t remember seeing tryptophan. But then I was there for antibiotics myself. (worked great too!!) Thanks, dn
snipped for brevity – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – LT is available in 100 g. or larger quantities from veterinary suppliers, at a cost substantially less than prescription LT, though still more than the OTC product once cost. Veterinary LT is molecularly identical to the tryptophan we are interested in here, and purity and quality control are probably higher than most old OTC products. One caveat: if you are taking a SSRI (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor) antidepressent, concurrent LT use is strongly contradicated, as taking both together can produce the potentially lethal ’serotonin syndrome,’ due to toxic levels of 5-HT in the body. –Will
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Where do I find veterinarian supply companies? Maybe I’m being lazy here, but if you know I’d appreciate it. I’ve been to farm supply companies but don’t remember seeing tryptophan. But then I was there for antibiotics myself. (worked great too!!) Thanks, dn snipped for brevity LT is available in 100 g. or larger quantities from veterinary suppliers, at a cost substantially less than prescription LT, though still more than the OTC product once cost. Veterinary LT is molecularly identical to the tryptophan we are interested in here, and purity
There is a mail-order souce in Tucson, I don’t know their name. Check in alt.support.depression, or sci.med.pharmacy. –Will
snipped for brevity LT is available in 100 g. or larger quantities from veterinary suppliers, at a cost substantially less than prescription LT, though still more than the OTC product once cost. Veterinary LT is molecularly identical to the tryptophan we are interested in here, and purity There is a mail-order souce in Tucson, I don’t know their name. Check in alt.support.depression, or sci.med.pharmacy. –Will
Please also come have a look at our site for this product. Be Well. QHI — Medicines For The Modern Mainstream http://www.qhi.co.uk
The FDA Ban of L-Tryptophan: Politics, Profits and Prozac1* By Dean Wolfe Manders, Ph.D. Copyright, All Rights Reserved In the fall of 1989, the FDA recalled L-Tryptophan, an amino acid nutritional supplement, stating that it caused a rare and deadly flu-like condition (Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome — EMS). On March 22, 1990, the FDA banned the public sale dietary of L- Tryptophan completely. This ban continues today. On March 26, 1990, Newsweek featured a lead article praising the virtues of the anti-depressant drug Prozac. Its multi-color cover displayed a floating, gigantic green and white capsule of Prozac with the caption: "Prozac: A Breakthrough Drug for Depression." The fact that the FDA ban of L-Tryptophan and the Newsweek Prozac cover story occurred within four days of each other went unnoticed by both the media and the public. Yet, to those who understand the effective properties of L-Tryptophan and Prozac, the concurrence seems "unbelievably coincidental." The link here is the brain neurotransmitter serotonin — a biochemical nerve signal conductor. The action of Prozac and L-Tryptophan are both involved with serotonin, but in totally different ways. Elevated levels of serotonin in the body often result in the relief of depression, as well as substantial reduction in pain sensitivity, anxiety and stress. Prozac, as well as other new anti- depressant drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft, attempt to enhance levels of serotonin by working on whatever amounts of it already exist in the body (these drugs are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). None of these drugs, however, produce serotonin. In contrast, ingested L-Tryptophan acts to produce serotonin, even in individuals who generate little serotonin of their own. The most effective way to elevate levels of serotonin would be to use a serotonin producer rather than a serotonin enhancer. The continuing FDA public ban of L-Tryptophan prevents popular access to this most effective serotonin producer. The millions of Americans who for decades safely had relied upon L-Tryptophan to relieve depression, anxiety and PMS, as well as to control pain and induce natural sleep, have been forced elsewhere for solutions. Routinely, such solutions are pharmaceutical in nature: people are forced to use either often highly addictive, expensive, and some- times dangerous drugs like Xanax, Valium, Halcion, Dalmane, Co- deine, Anafranil, Prozac, and others, or, simply suffer. Present FDA public policy maintains that L-Tryptophan is an untested, unapproved and hazardous drug. The analytical work done a few years ago by the Centers for Disease Control and the Mayo Clinic, research which traced the fall 1989 outbreak of the serious flu-like condition to contaminants found in batches of L-Tryptophan made by the Japanese company Showa Denko, has not convinced the FDA to allow L-Tryptophan back on the market. This decision is based primarily on the research of FDA and NIMH scientists who state that L-Tryptophan itself, irrespective of contaminants, is a dangerous substance. Other university-based research scientists disagree with these findings. The public availability of L-Tryptophan is too important an issue only to be argued and shrouded within a scientific debate that remains, ultimately, mystifying to the vast majority of Americans. There are many obvious facts worthy of public attention, and public concern. For example, consider the following: ~ On February 9, 1993, a United States government patent (#5185157) was issued to use L-Tryptophan to treat, and cure EMS, the very same deadly flu-like condition which prompted the FDA to take L-Tryptophan off the market in 1989. ~ Notwithstanding its public ban and import alert on L- Tryptophan, the FDA today allows Ajinomoto U.S.A. the right to import from Japan human-use L-Tryptophan. Distributed from the Ajinomoto plant in Raleigh, North Carolina, the L-Tryptophan is then sold to, and through, a network of compounding pharmacies across the United States. Purchased by individuals only under a physician’s order, L-Tryptophan emerges here as a new prescription drug in the serotonin marketplace; one hundred 500 mg capsules cost about $75.00, approximately five times more than if they were sold as a dietary supplement. Since the FDA holds the political mandate and power of a public regulatory agency established, ostensibly, to protect people from raw corporate interests in drug production and distribution, the actions of the FDA in concert with Ajinomoto U.S.A. are illumi- nating. By publicly banning L-Tryptophan from its dietary supple- ment status and price, while allowing L-Tryptophan to be sold as a high-priced prescription drug, the naked duplicity of FDA L- Tryptophan policy is revealed. ~ During and after the 1989 EMS outbreak, the FDA did not totally ban the use of L-Tryptophan in humans — then, as today, the FDA has granted the pharmaceutical industry the protected right to use L-Tryptophan in hospital settings. Manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, the amino acid injectable solutions Aminosyn and Aminosyn II contain as much as 200 mg of L-Tryptophan. (Moreover, L-Tryptophan has never been removed from baby food produced and sold within the United States.) ~ While the FDA has banned the public sale and use of safe, non-contaminated, dietary supplement L-Tryptophan for people, the United States Department of Agriculture still sanctions the legal sale and use of non-contaminated L-Tryptophan for animals. Today, as in the past, feed grade L-Tryptophan continues to be used as a nutritional and bulk feed additive by the commercial hog and chicken farming industry. Additionally, L-Tryptophan is now available for use by veterinarians in caring for horses and pets. ~ Outside of the United States, in countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, England, and others, L-Tryptophan is widely used. Nowhere, have any serious or widespread health problems occurred. At bottom, the FDA public ban of safe, non-contaminated L- Tryptophan is uneven, expensive, and biased in favor of the phar- maceutical industry. The FDA proscription effectively awards billions of dollars in profits to pharmaceutical companies and their suppliers in the same proportion as it adds billions of unnecessary dollars to the nation’s already bloated health care expenditures. On June 15, 1993, the FDA Dietary Supplement Task Force published a report on the work it had been doing in the area of developing FDA policy around nutritional supplements. On page two, the report admits, "The Task Force considered various issues in its deliberations, including… what steps are necessary to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive for drug development." In this case, the FDA has succeeded in carrying out its stated policy goal. With competition from publicly available L-Tryptophan removed, the rapidly expanding market in prescription serotonin drugs — now among them L-Tryptophan itself — contains no major "disincentives" for the massive accumulation of pharmaceutical industry profits. It is now time for appropriate congressional committees to review openly and aggressively the entire matter of L-Tryptophan. This will provide a needed forum where political, corporate, and scientific issues of FDA L-Tryptophan regulatory policy may be addressed. There exists ample precedent for such hearings: in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, for example, such investigations uncovered FDA favoritism in the approval of generic drugs and the bribery of FDA officials. The story of L-Tryptophan illustrates a sad and perverse picture of the politics and priorities of public health in America: A safe, dietary-supplement serotonin producer is publicly unavailable to people, while daily fed to animals by corporate agribusiness. A drug patent is approved to use L-Tryptophan to cure the very condition the FDA claims it caused. And, while publicly exclaiming that L-Tryptophan is a dangerous and untested drug, the FDA, more quietly, allows human-use L-Tryptophan to be imported, and then marketed and sold by the pharmaceutical industry. To allow the FDA ban of L-Tryptophan to continue unreviewed and uninvestigated condemns millions of Americans to unnecessary financial expenditures and needless suffering. 1. This article appeared in Social Policy, Vol. 26, No. 2, Winter 1995. Dean Wolfe Manders is a senior lecturer in humanities and sciences at the California College of Arts and Crafts, Oakland/San Francisco. He has lectured and done extensive research on the medical politics of L-Tryptophan. *Blazing Tattles, June 96. Responses to the above article may be quoted in future issues unless writer explicitly requests otherwise. For information about Blazing Tattles send inquiry to: Tattles at P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yet, to those who understand the effective properties of L-Tryptophan and Prozac, the concurrence seems "unbelievably coincidental." The link here is the brain neurotransmitter serotonin — a biochemical nerve signal conductor. The action of Prozac and L-Tryptophan are both involved with serotonin, but in totally different ways. Elevated levels of serotonin in the body often result in the relief of depression, as well as substantial reduction in pain sensitivity, anxiety and stress. Prozac, as well as other new anti- depressant drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft, attempt to enhance levels of serotonin by working on whatever amounts of it already exist in the body (these drugs are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). None of these drugs, however, produce serotonin. In contrast, ingested L-Tryptophan acts to produce serotonin, even in individuals who generate little serotonin of their own. The most effective way to elevate levels of serotonin would be to use a serotonin producer rather than a serotonin enhancer.
Agreed that SSRIs and LTryptophan both work on serotonin. I have used both with good results. The distinction needs to be made that some depressions are more neurologic, others more hormonal or enzymatic. In cases of the former, SSRIs generally work much better, and in the latter, LT works better. I also agree that the continuing FDA ban looks suspicious, and it ought to be lifted immediately. LT is available in 100 g. or larger quantities from veterinary suppliers, at a cost substantially less than prescription LT, though still more than the OTC product once cost. Veterinary LT is molecularly identical to the tryptophan we are interested in here, and purity and quality control are probably higher than most old OTC products. One caveat: if you are taking a SSRI (Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor) antidepressent, concurrent LT use is strongly contradicated, as taking both together can produce the potentially lethal ’serotonin syndrome,’ due to toxic levels of 5-HT in the body. –Will