text:
Opening statement: "Today, at practice, we had Turk McBride, ankle, didn't practice. Jonathan Casillas, knee, didn't practice. Drew Brees, ankle, was full. Roman Harper, wrist, was full. Marques Colston, foot, was limited. Johnny Patrick was full with his right thigh. Devery Henderson was full after his concussion. We had a couple of roster moves. We waived Jerome Murphy and signed Elbert Mack. We terminated, from injured reserve, wide receiver Adrian Arrington. It was a good practice today, we played fast. Guys are into it. They realize that we are playing one game at a time and it's all focus on just this week."
Devery Henderson has been cleared to play?
"Devery looks good, yes. He is practicing full-go and has been cleared to go."
Is Pierre Thomas not talked about enough as far as making things go offensively?
"Like I said after the game, he is under-appreciated at times and, obviously, that was a time. It went un-talked about a little bit because of the final outcome of the game. Pierre Thomas has always been a productive runner. He has always been an elusive runner. He has been, over the years I have been here for sure, and Sean (Payton) has been here, a very good running back for us."
What does he do differently running where he is able to spin off tacklers that would bring a normal running back down?
"His best attribute is his balance. He can get in awkward positions and stay up where a lot of guys would fall down."
What specific adjustments need to be addressed for why this team is 0-2?
"Specifically, offensively, we talked about it this morning. You have to know why teams are winning and why teams are losing and the number one stat we look at is turnovers. If you look at it, we have four turnovers and we have no takeaways. You look at the Kansas City Chiefs, they have six turnovers and no takeaways and both teams are going in here 0-2 because of it. That's not all on the person that turns it over. That's a team effort there whether its blocking, catching, running the right route or getting the right depth, playing the defense fast enough or getting pressure on the quarterback. That's a team stat when a lot of people look at it as an individual stat and it's not."
How does being 0-2 affect the mindset of your players?
"We are not used to being 0-anything. This is a winning organization. It has been a winning organization and we are going to take it back to that. This is unchartered territory for all of us. All we can do is worry about this one week and worry about this practice and this day and how we are getting better individually. Look in the mirror, don't point fingers, and move on."
How is different preparing for Matt Cassel instead of the other two quarterbacks you have faced (Robert Griffin III and Cam Newton)?
"It's more of a traditional NFL offense, you would say that. It would be like practicing against us in training camp if you were our defense, I would think. Very similar style of running and passing. (They have) A very talented group."


text:
The Miss New Jersey Pageant is one week away.The pageant will be held in Ocean City for the 18th time on June 12-14. The annual parade on the boardwalk kicks off the festivities on Wednesday night, June 11, 7 p.m.
All 24 contestants will dress to replicate this year's theme, "The Red Carpet on the Ocean City Boardwalk," and will be "Showing Their Shoes" as is the custom in Miss America sponsored parades.
For information, call Parade Director Karen Mahar at 609-626-1176.
The preliminary round will be held June 12-13, and the finals are set for June 14 at the Music Pier, Boardwalk and Moorlyn Terrace.
All programs begin at 7:30 p.m. and the winner advances to the Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City.
Miss Eastern Shores Devon Vanderslice, a former Miss Ocean City, will represent the city in the pageant. She attends West Chester University. Her talent is Dance and her platform is "Donate the Gift of Life," Organ Donation.
Sarah Ford, who will compete in the pageant as Miss Cape May County, is a former Little Miss and Junior Miss Ocean City. She attends the University of Pittsburgh and her talent is Dance. Her platform is Smiles Save: Healing through hospital volunteerism.
The other participants in this year's pageant include:
WJBK-TV | Fox 2
Didn't find what you were looking for?
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Worldnow. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | New Terms of Service What's new | Ad Choices

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Woodworker's Journal
April Fool's Day Issue Our previous issue, in honor of April Fool's Day, was a spoof. We sent out a completely fictitious offering in which we, the editorial staff, genially made fun of ourselves by creating a parody of our own style and content. Most of you loved it, and told us so, with some employing humor to do so. Others were not amused, and quite a few were genuinely fooled. One way or another, it netted us the largest group of responses we've ever had. Here's a healthy sampling of them, starting with the words of praise. Editor
"Wow! I can barely see to type from all the tears pooling in my eyes from laughing so hard! This is absolutely, beyond any doubt, the best thing that has come across my computer in a very long time. You guys must have spent many long hours in a room with an unsealed can of varnish or perhaps just a night of emptying brown bottles to reach that place where insight and insanity sort of blend together. And you've done a damn fine job!" Jere Bigler
"That was great. Please give my very amused thanks to everyone who contributed to this issue, and by all means, please offer a raspberry from me to anyone who refused to participate." Jon Palmer
"You'ze guys are some pretty weird puppies." Dan Mathews
"Great eZine! Thanks for the chuckle" D. C. Lance
"You got me. This was the best April Fool joke I've seen in a long time. Being a bit slow, I had to read this issue twice before I saw what was going on. Keep up the good work. Thanks." Charles Koerkenmeier
"Ptttttbbbbbt! (grin)" Joe Kesselman
"Wish this issue was actually in print so I could share it with my non-computer friends. I don't know how many of your staff were actually involved in it, but whoever they are, the are to be congratulated on their imagination and wit." Hal Gestwick
"Very funny, guys. The Harvey Porter Kolor-Wand letter was great." Bernard Campolo
"That was a hilarious issue!" Jacky
"Excellent eZine this time! Coming in a few days late, it took me completely by surprise, but cheered up my morning. Thanks from a happier U.K." Robert Atkinson
"I bet you had fun spoofing all of us woodworking rubes. Thanks for the laughs." Stephen Garanin
"Let me know how many orders you get for your laser device or the zero kerf blade. Thanks for the chuckle." Robert Bosch
"Especially enjoyed the Peebody Award article. Thanks." Sheldon Grand
"I'm still chuckling at your sense of humor on the 'Peebody' award. Hey, we may wear flannel shirts, but we're not ignorant. Anyone who uses the word 'sycophant' must have some smarts, even if he is from the Midwest. Thanks for the eZine. I always look forward to reading it." Henry Rohlfs
"Your Peebody piece was great! However, I seem to detect some 'Down East' in your gene pool." Paul Moody
"Spent about two minutes looking up 'Euclid Saw Company' and kerfless saw blades before I checked the date for the Ezine. While it is a bit cruel, I do think you guys did a funny! Thanks." Hal Hanevik
" Great article on the kerfless band saw blade. I can't believe I fell for it." Bill Berklich
"Well, you have really offended me now! You keep doing that stuff and I will be a subscriber forever!" Bob Oswin
Quite a few readers responded to our whimsy with tongue-in-cheek humor of their own. Editor
"If people would keep up with tech stuff, nano technonists and time machines, they would understand how you have letters to the magazine about the same issue they are reading." Robert Finley
"I want to report a broken Internet link on your site. I clicked on the www.ripmeoff.com link several times and it doesn't work. Do I need to add the http:\\ to the link? Thank you for your time on this matter. Looking forward to seeing the paint stirring stick plans." S.P. Linter, Dutch Elm Minnesota
"That's a brilliant April 1 issue. We had a good laugh. Only one question though; does the Euclid Saw Co. have any plans to market a drill bit that does not leave those annoying holes? I feel it would be a great companion tool for the kerfless saw blade." Peter Eisenhut
"Kerfless band saw blades can be found at the Huntington Beach, California, Sharp Tools Store. Just as you go in the door to the right, they are on the third shelf, between the sky hooks and wood stretchers." Rich Flynn
"I managed to find two of those elusive kerfless saw blades. I wish I hadn't. I lost the tip of one finger even before managing to get the damn thing out of its package, then lost two more trying to install the cursed thing on my band saw." Pat Fiorucci
"As a sharpener, I protest this product. I will have to learn how to sharpen invisible blades for which I will be paid invisible money which I will have to exchange for invisible food and clothing. Where will it all stop?" Curt Johnson
A few felt we amateur comedians should stick to woodworking and leave the comedy to professionals, a view that puzzled us, since we always encourage professional comedians to become amateur woodworkers. Editor
"Please! No more April Fool Issues! What a giant waste of time. Leave the comedy to Letterman." Allen Jenkins
"Either y'all have been sniffing the lacquer thinner again or ya just have too much spare time. Glad April Fool's Day comes only once each year." Jay Hitchens
"Scientific American did it so I guess it is OK for you to do it. Just not too often." Jim Ory
"Other than the Peebody award, the rest of the page was just tripe and not worth the effort." Andy Cotterman
Much to our astonishment (and delight), we actually managed to fool some of our well-meaning readers, at least for a short time. (Or did we?) Editor
"I am sure you checked out your sources for the award, but as soon as you said Nigeria, I got suspicious. I get emails all the time from Nigerians wanting to transfer millions of dollars from secret funds into my accounts or that of our church for a large percentage commission fee to us, and what they want is our credit card info and bank info. They are all frauds. 'Peabody Awards' are part of Georgia University. I contacted them to ask if anyone in Nigeria was contacting winners on their behalf; they said no. Their number is 706 542-3787. I hope everything works out. I do enjoy your e-journal and find it helpful to me." Arc da Silva
"Sorry, Rob, this really sounds like a credit card scam to me. Let us know how it works out. Good luck." Jeff Blavat
"I really like the story on the kerfless band saw blade, but how does one get in touch with this company?" Bill Dalton
"How do I get the kerfless band saw blades from Euclid?" Pierrino & Sandy Mascarino
"The kerfless band saw blade sounds great. Where can I get one? A quick search by Google showed no results." Tom Sharp
"OK, where can I purchase one of these Russian marvels?" Robert Anderson
"I found your article about the 'Kerfless Band Saw Blade' intriguing and would like to know more about the availability. I couldn't find anything on Google. Can you pass on some contact information?" Bob Klueg
"Is the kerfless band saw blade real or a joke? If it is real, will the Journal be doing any reviews and comparisons on it?" Rick Shields
I suppose we should be flattered that some fake articles were good enough to pass for real. In the ne'er bespoke words of Shakespeare: 'tis good parody that shares pillow and bed with authenticity.' Editor
Shaker Boxes"I was fortunate enough to take a course in Shaker Box making from John Wilson several years ago when he came to Atlanta. I also took his class in plane making. I think he is an excellent instructor, dedicated to his craft. I wish that he would come on down and teach other classes as I enjoyed the ones that I have taken very much." Lowell Baltzell
"Being relatively new to woodworking I have no clue as to what a Shaker box is or what it is used for. Can you please enlighten me? PS: I look forward to every issue of eZine. Please keep up the great work." David E. Shalek
The Shaker box is the oval style of box shown in the pictures which accompany the article. Developed by the Shakers -- a religious sect who also gave their name to their plain woodworking style -- the boxes can be stacked to conserve storage space. They're used to store whatever you would put in a box. The Shakers had more influence on us than merely their beautiful styles. In 1813, Sister Tabitha Babbitt from the Harvard Shaker community in Massachusetts invented the first American circular saw blade, and, along with Eli Whitney, is credited with inventing cut nails. Editor
Abbreviation Clarification"I had to do some research on the Internet to know what everyone was talking about when they mentioned filling nail holes with 'CA.' It appears that they are talking about cyanoacrylate. I hope that my assumption is correct." Aaron
It is. We usually try to write out all words the first time, but now and again, a common abbreviation slips through. Sorry about that. Editor


text:
Anyone who attended CSC in 63, 64, 65, 66, or 67 :
We are planning an informal gathering of old friends over the week-end of May 4,5,6 2012. Please contact Bob Miller at email@example.com for more info and to be added to our mailing list. Hosts: Larry Allred, Buddy McGee, and Bob Miller.
--- (Edited on 11/9/2011 3:54 pm [GMT-0600] by Visitor) ---


text:
It's the final week of the Major League Baseball season and yes, the Milwaukee Brewers still have a shot at the playoffs. Behind three long balls and a great outing from Shaun Marcum, with a little help from the Houston Astros, the Brewers are three and a half games behind the St. Louis Cardinals for the final Wild Card spot with seven games to play. The Brewers beat the Cincinnati Reds 8-1 at the Great American Ballpark Wednesday night. Nori Aoki, Jonathan Lucroy and Ryan Braun all hit home runs, for Braun it was his National League leading 41st of the year. Marcum gave up an RBI double to Joey Votto in the first inning but clamped down from there. He picked up his sixth win of the year by working six innings, allowing only that one run on four hits while striking out 7. The Astros helped by shutting out St. Louis 2-0. The Brewers reached the 80 victory mark and finish their road schedule Thursday afternoon sending Willy Peralta against Mat Latos in the Cincinnati series finale.
Milwaukee Brewers Baseball 5:35 PM - 10:00 PM
On Air Now.


text:
Trasteverooms La Bernardon Reviews
- Info
- |
- Rates
- |
- Map & Directions
- |
- Reviews
- |
- Facilities
Reviews & Ratings Explained
The rating percentage is calculated from customers who booked within the last 12 months.
All ratings and reviews are based on the feedback and opinions of the customers who submitted them and do not express the opinions of Hostelworld.com. This way, you get an up-to-the-minute opinion of just how good a hostel really is.
Read our review guidelines »
This was a great value for money one bed flat right in the heart of Trastevere. Stefano was great and provided us with coffee and breakfast foods as well as a great wifi connection. Would definitely recommend to anyone
- Novice Nomad
- Anonymous
- All Female Group, 18-24
- (1 review)
The apartment is nice and Stefano is a very pleasant person. The location is perfect. We went everywhere by foot: Vatican, Colosseum, everywhere. And you can actually stay all the evening in Trastevere, there are a lot of places to eat, or you can just walk and enjoy the atmosphere.
- Avid Traveller
- Anonymous
- Russia
- Couple, 31-40
- (11 reviews)
The appartment was fully new, so not really used. That's probably why we saw some things that were missing. We didn't have enough toilet paper, in the shower there was nothing to put the soap on, the aeration in the shower was not perfect and I found I had not enough space for my clothing :D But these are really minor things. I enjoyed the place. It was calm and nice! Stefano showed us some things on the maps and was there to welcome us on our arrival. Thanks, we really enjoyed our stay!
- Novice Nomad
- Anonymous
- Switzerland
- Couple, 18-24
- (1 review)


text:
The Elementary School Division was formed in late 1993. The group was formed in response to parents of elementary school children in the SGI-USA who wanted a place where their children could gather with other children who are SGI-USA members. The purpose of the Elementary School Division is to encourage friendships among the children and to teach the children the basic teachings of Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism and the spirit of the SGI peace, culture and education movement.
Let's keep in mind our Elementary School Division focus:


text:
Text Size:
Did you know you can pay your hospital or doctor's office bill on our website?
Find a Doctor
Make an Appointment
Behavioral/Mental Health
Buddy Check 16
Cancer Care
Children's Services
Emergency Medicine
Family Care
Heart and Vascular Care
Health Insurance Marketplace
Maternity Services
Neurology & Neurosurgery
Occupational Medicine
Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine
QuickMeds Pharmacy™
Rehabilitation Services
Senior Services
Sleep Medicine
Urgent Care
Women's Services
Wound Care
View All Services
Patients & Guests
Find a Doctor
Advance Medical Directives
Billing & Insurance
Bill Pay
Classes & Events
Freeman Babies
Freeman Gift Gallery
Health Resources
Online Health Assessments
Patient Information
Patient Rights
Patient Safety
Preregister Online
Request a Medical Record
Restaurant & Lodging Guide
Send an eCard
Share Your Experience
Spiritual Care
Tobacco-Free Policy
Visitor Information
View All Patient & Guest Services
Search Jobs
Join Team Freeman
Nursing Job Opportunities
Physician Career Opportunities
Graduate Medical Education
Freeman Health Academy
How to Help
Learn How You Can Help
Give to Freeman
Become a Volunteer
Children's Miracle Network Hospitals
Donate Blood
Join Freeman Auxiliary
Read Patient Stories
Register as an Organ Donor
Support Women's Health
Our Locations
Freeman Hospital West
Freeman Hospital East
Freeman Neosho Hospital
Ozark Center
Freeman Business Center
Freeman Rehabilitation & Sports Center
About Us
About Freeman
Awards & Recognitions
Freeman Medical Musings Blog
Classes & Events
Community Health Needs Assessment
Compare Us
Construction in Progress
Contact Us
Find a Job
Freeman Leadership
Freeman News
Helpful Numbers
Helping Our Community
Media Room
Our History
View Freeman Videos
View All Services
Tests and Procedures
Computed Axial Tomography (CT)
Computed Axial Tomography (CT)
What is a CT, or CAT, scan?
A CT scan looks inside your body with a special camera. It produces cross-sectional images, like the slices in a loaf of bread. During a CT exam, the scanner takes multiple crosssectional pictures of you. These images are created with the help of a computer and are capable of depicting various internal body parts in much greater detail than standard X-ray pictures. This study greatly enhances the doctor's ability to diagnose a medical condition.
How does CT work?
The CT scanner contains a large donut-shaped ring that your body slowly passes through on a moveable table. As you pass through the ring, the scanner takes a complete 360-degree picture that is sent to a computer. Then the mechanical table moves a small distance, less than half an inch, positioning you for the next picture. The computer then reconstructs these pictures to form a complete image of your internal anatomy. To make a clearer picture of certain parts of your body, some CT scans require the use of contrast materials, substances that show up as pure white on the X-ray. Contrast materials used include barium, which you usually drink, and iodine, which is usually injected through an IV.
When would I need a CT scan?
A CT scan is most commonly used for cancer detection, to look for abnormal masses that might be malignant tumors. CT scans can show the size and shape of a tumor, its precise location in the body, and whether it is solid or hollow. Sometimes a CT scan can show if a tumor is a benign or malignant, or noncancerous or cancerous. When a needle biopsy is performed for cancer diagnosis, CT scanning can also be used to guide the insertion of the biopsy needle into precisely the right location for sampling a tumor.
In addition to cancer detection, CT scans have many other uses including detecting abscesses, strokes, head injuries, and bleeding inside the skull. It is also used to evaluate trauma patients for internal injuries to the chest and abdomen.
Is the test painful?
The test is completely painless. We will ask you to lie quietly on the CT scanner's "patient couch" during the study. Because the contrast agents contain iodine, which can cause an allergic reaction in some individuals, be sure to tell the technologist, nurse, or radiologist if you have had an allergic reaction to these agents or if you have any other allergies. You may have been given contrast material as part of a CT scan, kidney X-ray, also called IVP, or heart/blood vessel catheterization, also called an angiogram.
What preparation is required for the test?
We will ask you to change into a hospital gown for some procedures. Metal objects can affect the images, so avoid clothing with zippers and snaps. You may need to remove hairpins, jewelry, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and any removable dental work that could obscure the images. You may also be asked to refrain from eating or drinking anything for 4 hours before the exam. Women should always inform their doctor or X-ray technologist if there is any possibility they are pregnant.
What restrictions or special instructions following the test?
Most patients can return to normal activities immediately following the scan.
When will I receive my test results?
A radiologist, a medical doctor specializing in reading X-rays, will review your scans, generate a report, and send it to your doctor. The technologist performing the exam cannot give you any results. Your doctor should receive a report in 3-4 working days.
Additional Information
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
Nuclear Medicine
Joshua Ball
Mark Farnham
Paul Jones
Amir Moubayed
Jane Seto
Yara Touma
John Williams
Contact Us
Freeman Health System
1102 West 32nd Street
Joplin, MO 64804
Buddy Check 16
Cancer Care
Heart Care
Mental Health
Neurology and Neurosurgery
Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine
All Healthcare Services
Freeman Information
About Freeman
Classes & Events
Give to Freeman
Hospital Locations
Media Room
Connect with Us


text:
Black Stone Cherry
- Website:
- www.blackstonecherry.com/
Recently Played Tracks
Track Album Lyrics Buy Me and Mary Jane Magic Mountain Lyrics Buy
Artist BioBlack Stone Cherry is an American rock band, formed in 2001 in Edmonton, Kentucky. They are signed to Roadrunner Records. The band consists of Chris Robertson (lead vocals, lead guitar), Ben Wells (rhythm guitar, backing vocals), Jon Lawhon (bass guitar, backing vocals), and John Fred Young (drums, backing vocals). Black Stone Cherry have released four studio albums: Black Stone Cherry (2006), Folklore and Superstition (2008), Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea (2011) and Magic Mountain (2014), as well as three EPs, and have charted eight singles on the US Mainstream Rock Tracks charts.1801bd47-46ae-49ff-bfcd-6e01b562d880
Black Stone Cherry
- Date
- Aug. 16, 2012, 3 p.m.
- Location
- Madison Theater - Covington
- Other Artists
- Stellar Revival
Black Stone Cherry
- Date
- Aug. 29, 2012, 6:15 p.m.
- Location
- Beaumont Club - Kansas City
- Other Artists
- Obsidian
Rise Above Fest
- Date
- Sept. 3, 2012, 8:30 a.m.
- Location
- Meadowbrook U.S. Cellular Pavilion - Gilford, NH
- Other Artists
- Seether, Puddle of Mudd, Black Stone Cherry, Otherwise


text:
Kacey Musgraves, we need to talk, sister!
As the year winds down and the country darling deservingly lands atop pretty much every "best of" list for 2013, I'm dying for another sit-down with the star to get a follow-up to her quote from this past spring.
"It's weird just being inside of it, you know?" she said. "It's kinda sometimes hard to get perspective on everything around me exactly because so many things are happening so fast."
At the time of this quote and conversation, it was April 2013. Musgraves and I were chatting in Las Vegas at the Academy of Country Music Awards, where the buzz was all about a heartbreakingly raw and honest tune called "Merry Go 'Round" and the no-nonsense, earnest wordsmith behind the song. Musgraves was attending the show that night with her very first nomination for female vocalist of the year even before her debut album, Same Trailer Different Park, had been released.
And when I say there was a buzz about Musgraves and the song, I mean an overwhelming buzz -- a buzz that was perhaps a little too overwhelming for the singer-songwriter to absorb at that particular moment. At the time, she admitted there was so much excitement, it was hard to get an accurate perspective on how much her career and life were changing. But it was a whirlwind experience she wouldn't trade for anything.
She told me during that interview, "I wanna be in this game for a long time and to be knocking out so many firsts on my bucket list so early on ... it's daunting a little bit. But it's really cool, and I couldn't be more thankful. ... It's just a little like, 'Whoa!'"
Since our conversation in Las Vegas, Same Trailer Different Park hit No. 1 on the country albums chart. Musgraves rounded out a wildly-successful tour with Kenny Chesney, embarked on her first headlining tour and was invited by pop superstar Katy Perry to perform at the Hollywood Bowl. She charged into the CMA Awards this year with a whopping six total nominations -- tying with Taylor Swift as the most-nominated artist. Musgraves took home the best new artist trophy.
Rolling Stone, the Hollywood Reporter and NPR have all named her to their best albums lists this year -- and now Musgraves heads into 2014 with four Grammy nominations.
Is it everything she thought it would be? I certainly hope so. She's worked hard to forge her own way in this business. I'm dying to get her perspective on all that has happened.


text:
A good friend of mine, Stephen, works as a barman in what has to be one of the finest establishments in Dublin, Kavanaghs of Glasnevin. If you're a Dubliner, odds are you'll know it as The Gravediggers. Just far enough from town to be quiet, but close enough for anyone visiting who has done any research to drop out to, the place is magic. Tellyless magic. No nonsense 'you can have one of these four pints or go back to the city' magic. In short, it's the pub time didn't change. The Euro was probably the last new addition to the place, and it's perfect for it's timeless essence.
Imagine my shock last year then when Kavanaghs somehow didn't feature in the '250 Collection' of beermats from Arthur Guinness and Sons. O' Donoghues of Merrion Row? check. The Long Hall? check. In fact, almost all the 'Dublin pubs' featured.
All is forgiven now, as they've got this one spot on. Behind the pub you can spot the gates to Glasnevin cemetery, where you'll find Frank Ryan, Brendan Behan, Daniel O' Connell, Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa, Luke Kelly and my own great-grandfather. Is there a better way to spend an evening post-graveyard touring than next door in the cosy Kavanaghs? I highly doubt it.
Anyone spotted any other new ones?


text:
ignition posters, igniting a match posters, lighting a match posters, match combustion posters, combustion posters, fire posters, fire art posters, flame art posters, the ghost posters, flames posters
All prints ship in durable cardboard tubes.
Fine Art America is one of the largest, most-respected giclee printing companies in the world with over 40 years of experience producing museum-quality posters and prints. All of our posters are produced on state-of-the-art, professional-grade Epson printers.
We use acid-free paper with archival inks to guarantee that your posters last a lifetime without fading or loss of color. All posters include a 1" white border around the image to allow for future framing and matting, if desired.
Posters ship within 3 - 4 business days in durable cardboard tubes.
Flame Art
Hello and Welcome :-) I was born in the Ancient Harbor Town of Poole in Dorset in the UK in 1967, one of the most beautiful places you can Imagine. The day after I left school at sixteen, I went down to Poole harbor quay and managed to find a job working on a commercial fishing boat, fishing for crabs and lobsters. It was on this first day I realized that this was the happiest I had ever felt, I had a troubled upbringing and so for me this wonderful job was a revelation, a freedom that set my Soul and heart free, for the first time in my life. I remained working on fishing boats for many many years, I witnessed the most incredible natural wonders over this period I spent at sea, I lost a few friends from tragic accidents at sea, I...
Our return policy is very simple:
If you're not happy with a purchase that you made on FineArtAmerica.com, for any reason, you can return it to us within 30 days of the order date. As soon as it arrives, we'll issue a full refund for the entire purchase price. Please note - Fine Art America does not reimburse the outgoing or return shipping charges unless the return is due to a defect in quality.
Fine Art America sells thousands of pieces of artwork each month - all with a 100% money-back guarantee.
If you've hesitated to purchase artwork online in the past, why not give us a try? You have nothing to lose!
We take great pride in the fact that 263,526 artists have chosen Fine Art America to fulfill their orders, and we look forward to helping you select your next piece!
Customer Service: 877-807-5901
(Call Any Time - 24 Hours Per Day)
All posters ship from our production facility within 24 hours of your order.


text:
Currently Shopping by:
- Remove This Item Format: eBook
David Richo
David Richo, PhD, MFT, is a teacher, workshop leader, and psychotherapist in Santa Barbara and San Francisco, California. He combines Jungian, transpersonal, and mythic perspectives in his work.
Books & Audio
How to Be an Adult in Love
Letting Love in Safely and Showing It Recklessly
We were made to love and be loved. Loving ourselves and others is in our genetic code. It's nothing other than the purpose of our lives—but knowing that doesn't make it easy to do. We may find it a challenge… Read More
How to Be an Adult in LoveeBook
Coming Home to Who You Are
Discovering Your Natural Capacity for Love, Integrity, and Compassion
We already possess everything we need to have satisfying relationships and a happy, fulfilling life; all we need to do is learn how to bring forth our natural wisdom—which includes our innate kindness, understanding, and courage. Psychotherapist David Richo draws… Read More
Coming Home to Who You AreeBook
Daring to Trust
Opening Ourselves to Real Love and Intimacy
Most relationship problems are essentially trust issues, explains psychotherapist David Richo. Whether it's fear of commitment, insecurity, jealousy, or a tendency to be controlling, the real obstacle is a fundamental lack of trust—both in ourselves and in our partner. … Read More
Daring to TrusteBook
The Five Things We Cannot Change
And the Happiness We Find by Embracing Them
Why is it that despite our best efforts, many of us remain fundamentally unhappy and unfulfilled in our lives? In this provocative and inspiring book, David Richo distills thirty years of experience as a therapist to explain the underlying roots… Read More
The Five Things We Cannot ChangeeBook
How to Be an Adult in Relationships
The Five Keys to Mindful Loving
"Most people think of love as a feeling," says David Richo, "but love is not so much a feeling as a way of being present." In this book, Richo offers a fresh perspective on love and relationships—one that focuses not… Read More
How to Be an Adult in RelationshipseBook
The Power of Coincidence
How Life Shows Us What We Need to Know
Meaningful coincidences and surprising connections occur all the time in our daily lives, yet we often fail to appreciate how they can guide us, warn us, and confirm us on our life's path. This book explores how meaningful coincidence operates… Read More
The Power of CoincidenceeBook
Shadow Dance
Liberating the Power and Creativity of Your Dark Side
Our "shadow" is the collection of negative or undesirable traits we keep hidden—the things we don't like about ourselves or are afraid to admit: egotist, non-"PC" proclivities, forbidden sexual desires. But it also includes our positive, untapped potential—qualities we may… Read More
Shadow DanceeBook
When the Past Is Present
Healing the Emotional Wounds That Sabotage Our Relationships
In this book, psychotherapist David Richo explores how we replay the past in our present-day relationships—and how we can free ourselves from this destructive pattern. We all have a tendency to transfer potent feelings, needs, expectations, and beliefs from… Read More
When the Past Is PresenteBook
About Author
David Richo, PhD, MFT, is a teacher, workshop leader, and psychotherapist in Santa Barbara and San Francisco, California. He combines Jungian, transpersonal, and mythic perspectives in his work.


text:
Let us know how we did in 2014!
Please answer these questions and send feedback to : email@example.com
1. The most unusual thing I saw or did...
2. I wish...
3. I liked...
4. Things I would change next time...
Summary of Birding Tour Observations
The birding tours for the Creston Valley Bird Fest, which occurred on May 10-11, were well attended.
They were conducted on the western side of the Creston valley, mainly at these locations:
A total of 108 species were seen. Seven of these are rare for the valley or for May. Several of these species were observed on Kootenay River Road in a flooded cattle pasture. In 2013, birding tour observers saw 91 species, but they didn't see any of the rare birds seen in 2014.
The table at the link below summarizes the observations for the 11 birding tours conducted on May 10 and 11, 2014. The species list and abundance estimates were derived from Creston Valley Birds: When and Where to Find Them by Linda M. Van Damme (2012).
Click here for the table of Species Observed May 10-11, 2014 - Creston Valley Bird Fest
Species Abundance:
Bold: Species are Abundant or Common
Not bold: Species are uncommon
Red: Species are rare for the valley or season
Some of the highlights of the 2014 Bird Fest were:


text:
The White House is sounding the alarm bell again over this week's sequester deadline. Republicans say it's mostly hype.
There are still some big questions about how all of this will play out and the truth is that the Friday deadline may come and go without most people noticing.
On Tuesday, the President turns to the Navy, traveling to a part of Virginia that depends heavily on the continuous flow of Pentagon cash.
"That region, as everyone knows, will be particularly hard hit if the sequestration is allowed to take effect," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
And there is almost certainly some truth to that.
Defense contractors are bracing for cuts, but other claims about what is a relatively small cut in federal spending may be more dubious.
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said the country would be less secure.
"I'm not here to scare people, I'm here to inform and also to let people begin to plan because they're going to see these impacts in their daily lives," she said.
But what if things like long airport lines never materialize?
Most people may not even notice the sequester cuts which will take weeks or months to kick in -- and Republicans claim the President is exaggerating.
"He's far more interested in holding campaign rallies than he is in urging his Senate Democrats to actually pass a plan," said Speaker of the House John Boehner.
Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy adds, "If you can't handle a 2.3 percent cut, how can we put this place back in order? I don't understand the hysteria."
And the sequester may also get lost in the shuffle here.
While those automatic sequester cuts start hitting Friday, March 1st, the continuing resolution that funds the government expires on March 27th. Flip forward to May and we're up against another federal debt ceiling -- making the sequester cuts look like petty cash.
And both parties are, to some degree, looking past the sequester already because there is almost no chance to stop it.
WTTG FOX 5 & myfoxdc
Didn't find what you were looking for?
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 Fox Television Stations, Inc. and Worldnow. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | New Terms of Service What's new | Ad Choices


text:
Converting images with Kim
With a Konqueror-integrated service menu called Kim, you can modify and manipulate image files through a handy context menu.
Whereas Windows has let applications
add functions to the
Explorer file manager for some
time, KDE version 3.2 was the first version
of KDE to give users this ability.
KDE 3.3 included a version of Konqueror
with a separate context menu for image
files. Thanks to this menu, users can
right click to view, rotate, and scale
images directly from within Konqueror.
The KDE Image Menu ( Kim) by
Charles Bouveyron [1] takes this feature
a step farther. Kim gives you far more
options than a Windows user can
expect. The context menu allows users
to convert, compress, rotate, crop, and
mail images in various formats via Konqueror.
The program can even create an
MPEG clip from an image directory. Kim
draws on the functionality of the
ImageMagick [2] image manipulation
program and Mpegtools [3]. Kim also
integrates Kalbum [4], a KDE program
designed for creating Web galleries and
photo albums.
Buy this article as PDF
(incl. VAT)
Buy Linux Magazine
Visit Our Shop
Direct Download
Read full article as PDF:KDE_Image_Menu_Kim.pdf (335.69 kB)
Tag Cloud
Mozilla Labs Shuts Down
Mozilla's product think tank sinks silently into history.
Internet Giants Launch Collaboration to Improve Open Source
TODO group will focus on open source tools in large-scale environments.
Fedora Announces New Partition Manager App
New tool will look like GParted but support a wider range of storage technologies.
Mozilla Releases a New Firefox
New public key pinning feature will help prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.
Tool Predicts Which Websites Will be Compromised
Carnegie Mellon researchers say 3 million pages could fall down the phishing hole in the next year.
SSH Key Management Guidelines
The US government rolls new best-practice rules for protecting SSH.
Knoppix 7.4 Released
Klaus Knopper announces the latest version of his iconic Live Linux system.
PHP Attack Puts WordPress and Drupal at Risk
All websites that use these popular CMS tools could be vulnerable to denial of service attacks if users don't install the updates.
Heartbleed Bleeds On
According to a report, many potential victims of the Heartbleed attack have patched their systems, but few have cleaned up the crime scene to protect themselves from the effects of a previous intrusion.
Drone Brain Goes Open Source
DARPA and NICTA release the code for the ultra-secure microkernel system used in aerial drones.


text:
Chapter XII:
Protecting The Humpback Whales
Saving the whales was one of the popular causes of the new environmentalism of the 1960s and 1970s. Not only did this animal's immense size, grace, and mysteriousness excite the public imagination, but the calamitous effects of international whaling on whale populations awakened people to the human species' devastation of the world's oceans. Television documentaries, picture books, and other widely disseminated fruits of the fast-growing science of marine biology made the great whale a very sympathetic animal and a symbol of imperiled nature.
Humpback whales received a large play in the growing amount of travel literature on Glacier Bay and southeast Alaska. With their spectacular habit of bursting into the air in a half- or full-bodied "breach," and their unusual pattern of lifting their flukes out of the water before each dive, these animals made superb photographic subjects in the Glacier Bay setting. For thousands of visitors to Glacier Bay each year, humpback whale sightings ranked as the high point of their experience, and for thousands of others who read wistfully of Glacier Bay in travel magazines or promotional brochures, the humpback whales made a particularly alluring picture.
Public concern about the humpback whale altered the meaning of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in the 1980s, much as public concern about the Alaska brown bear had reshaped the monument forty years earlier. It focused public attention on the marine area of the park and ultimately broadened the conception of the park's wilderness character to include marine waters. As soon as marine vessel traffic increased to a point where it jeopardized the whales, vessel management became a central problem of park administration. Vessel management, in turn, highlighted other needs of this marine area, including designation of wilderness waters, a general management plan for the park, and reconsideration of the Park Service's longstanding policy of toleration toward commercial fishing in Glacier Bay. By then, a writer for the popular magazine Alaska could state approvingly that the Park Service's myriad boat regulations, most of them still tied to whale protection, were all "part of the effort to keep Glacier Bay a wilderness park while accommodating an increasing number of visitors." [1]
Personnel at Bartlett Cove and others who were familiar with Glacier Bay perceived as early as 1975 that the seasonal migration of humpback whales to Glacier Bay was declining. [2] This was a serious concern. Humpback whales had been observed in Glacier Bay since the nineteenth century. The number of humpback whales in the North Pacific Ocean had declined from an estimated 15,000 in 1905 to perhaps 1,000 in 1966, when the International Whaling Commission declared a moratorium on harvesting. The humpback whale was listed as an endangered species in 1969.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 recognized the aesthetic value of marine mammals, including the humpback whale, and required federal agencies to manage marine mammals with the primary objective being "to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem." If the carrying capacity of the habitat allowed, "it should be the goal to obtain an optimum sustainable population." The act prohibited the taking of any marine mammals, and defined the term "take" as "to harass, hunt, capture, or kill" --which made the effects of sightseeing boats on whale behavior a legal as well as moral issue for NPS officials. Although the population of humpback whales summering in Glacier Bay was never large, the bay was thought to be an important feeding area for the North Pacific herd of humpback whales, and further, they were a well-publicized tourist attraction. A briefing statement prepared for the Park Service's Washington office explained that the humpback whales represented "a significant and unique quality in Glacier Bay, the only unit in the National Park System in which they occur." [3]
Although the Park Service's files contained numerous references to humpback whale sightings over the years, no census of the animal had ever been taken. Indeed, the information on humpback whales in all of southeast Alaska was very scant. Streveler showed keen interest, therefore, when amateur cetologist Charles Jurasz contacted him at Bartlett Cove in 1975 and shared his insights from nearly ten years of whale-watching in southeast Alaska. A Juneau high school biology teacher, Jurasz had logged thousands of hours observing and photographing humpback whales with his family aboard their 50-foot, wooden vessel Ginjur, which he had specially equipped with a navy exhaust silencer and rubber housing around the shaft and propeller. Since 1973, Jurasz had been structuring his family's whale-watching around the compilation of data that would illuminate how whales responded to vessels. The data consisted of photoidentification of more than two dozen individuals based on the unique white markings on their flukes (an innovation that was soon adopted by other scientists), with accompanying "breath logs" that recorded intervals in each whale's breathing and its location relative to an encounter with a vessel. It was Jurasz's belief that vessel traffic disrupted whales' feeding behavior. Jurasz proposed a more detailed Glacier Bay whale study to test his hypothesis. [4]
Streveler saw in Jurasz's proposal an opportunity to gain valuable data for NPS management with a modest outlay of funds. He got the amateur cetologist together with regional biologist Don Field, and was pleased when Field agreed to match whatever research funds Streveler wanted to use from his own operating budget to support Jurasz's work. Streveler felt that Field had gotten "an impressive display of Jurasz's intensity, intelligence, and love of Glacier Bay." In 1976, the Park Service contracted with Jurasz's new company, Sea Search, Ltd. to research the feeding habits of Glacier Bay's humpback whales. [5]
In the middle of 1977, Streveler received an initial written report from Charles and Virginia Jurasz, which he found "very marginal." But he excused this effort on the grounds that the Juraszes had decided "to emphasize extension of their perceptions at this point in their research," rather than organize their data. Jurasz showed an uncanny ability to predict whale behavior. He was now theorizing that whales established territories around where they fed, and displayed an escalating scale of behaviors to warn away competitors--from vocalization to the full-bodied breach out of the water that gave spectators such a thrill. In his view, humpback whales reacted to vessels in much the same way that they responded to other whales--as potential competitors in their feeding areas. He called these observed behaviors "whale-vessel interactions." The danger, Jurasz believed, was that vessels were disrupting the humpback whales' feeding; the whales were exercising themselves to warn away sightseeing vessels from their feeding areas, only to attract them instead. Streveler extended the contract and report deadline for another year, directing the Juraszes to focus now on whale-vessel interactions. "I remain convinced that the Jurasz' [sic] are the most knowledgable people on S.E. Alaska humpback whales," Streveler wrote. "Given our great need to understand whale ecology and behavior in relation to Monument visitation, it seems justifiable to yield to the Jurasz' honestly held, if somewhat unusual, approach to their contract and to science." [6]
Jurasz found that what he called "whale-vessel interactions" were increasing even faster than the year-to-year increase in the number of cruises. Whereas the latter grew from 113 in 1975 to 123 in 1976 to 142 in 1977, whale-vessel interactions jumped by 56 percent in 1976 and a further 61 percent in 1977. In July 1978, Jurasz told Streveler that vessel traffic had become so heavy it was masking the underwater sounds made by whales. On July 16, he recorded the highest number of whale-vessel interactions he had ever witnessed in a single day, and radioed to Streveler that he thought the whales would likely abandon the bay within twenty-four hours. On July 17 and 18 rangers assisted the Juraszes in censusing the whales, and were able to find only three from a previous population of nineteen. Later, the Juraszes found that several of these individuals had moved to Frederick Sound. [7]
Streveler was deeply concerned that increased boat traffic might have driven out the humpback whales for good. Not only was Streveler disturbed by the grim prospect that the national monument--of all places--might become unlivable for this endangered species, but Jurasz had suggested that Glacier Bay might be critical habitat, perhaps being the preferred feeding area for females with calves among the southeast Alaska population. In the summer of 1978 Streveler requested the Juraszes' acoustical data, thinking that it might be useful for developing some enforcable regulation to keep boats a certain distance from whales that were feeding in the bay. When the Juraszes' raw data proved to be unmanageable, Streveler contracted with Sea Search to produce a monitoring and ranger instruction program for the Park Service over the winter of 1978-79. Meanwhile, Streveler pushed Jurasz for a draft report to assist him in making management recommendations for the 1979 tourist season. [8]
The report was a disappointment; in fact, it promptly became an embarrassment to the Park Service and a weapon for the cruise ship industry in challenging the agency's efforts to regulate vessel traffic in Glacier Bay. Having had no previous experience in the preparation of a scientific report, the Juraszes were simply unable to perform a sound statistical analysis of their complex and voluminous data, much less effectively express their findings in writing. The draft final report (June 1979) was 159 pages of rambling discourse punctuated by faulty statistical tables; after revisions (November 1980) it grew to 206 pages plus a 66-page supplement. A National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewer commented, "From any point of view, this is not a very adequate product," and a biologist with the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) stated, "The report as it stands now would most likely not withstand close scientific scrutiny or critical review." [9] After much wrangling with Jurasz over ownership of data and payment for services, the NPS finally cancelled its contract with Sea Search, Ltd., in 1981. While the data were eventually subjected to analysis by Dr. Frederick Dean of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit in Fairbanks, the results (completed in 1982) were inconclusive and largely superseded by three separate scientific studies of the humpback whale's feeding habits, its behavior, and the underwater acoustical properties of Glacier Bay, all funded by vastly bigger sums than were available in the 1970s. Substantively, all of this subsequent research would neither prove nor disprove Jurasz's central findings and its results would be inconclusive for management.
With hindsight, people in the Park Service would hold different opinions about the study by Jurasz. Some would argue that the NPS got itself out on a limb with an unqualified expert and a flawed contract, or worse, erred with bad science; others would insist that Jurasz's work did what it needed to do by shaking down a shower of money for more professional research. They would agree, at least, that the Jurasz study had grown out of a research environment that was woefully short of funds. [10]
From Park Service personnel to concessioners, journalists, Alaska politicians, and environmentalists, many people thought the Park Service lost control of the Glacier Bay humpback whale problem in 1979-80. One environmentalist newsletter summed up the widespread perception with the headline, "Park Service Is In Over Its Head In Glacier Bay." [11] Reflecting their diverse points of view, people offered many explanations for the agency's credibility gap in the early 1980s: an institutional insensitivity by the Park Service to marine environmental problems, a flawed basis for action in the Jurasz research, failed leadership by the superintendent, too rapid growth in the amount of visitor use, unbridled influence of the park concessioner and the cruise ship lobby, and the inevitable backlash from enactment of ANILCA, which greatly enlarged the Park Service's presence in Alaska. Certainly there was some truth in all of these assertions.
By the late 1970s, there were several signs of strain from increasing visitor use. Visitation grew by 66 percent in four years, from 58,280 in 1976 to 96,151 in 1980. While cruise ship passengers accounted for most of the increase, there were more lodge visitors, small boat users, and commercial fishermen in the monument, too. [12] Superintendent J. Thomas Ritter told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce at the beginning of the 1978 tourist season that growing visitor use was his "prime concern." There was a need for new accommodations in addition to Glacier Bay Lodge, but first the Park Service had to expand the water supply at Bartlett Cove. More public docks were in demand, and the Park Service had to improve its boater safety program. Increasing backcountry use was wearing out certain campsites. Cruise ships were polluting the air with their funnel emissions, and possibly troubling the humpback whale population. [13]
The Park Service convened the first annual meeting with representatives of the cruise ship industry at the regional office in Seattle in April 1977. Among the items on the agenda were "precautions" (not regulations) that the cruise ship companies must accept in order to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act and avoid harassment of marine mammals. The discussion revolved around whales, porpoises, seals, avoidance of seal pupping areas, noise pollution caused by steamship whistles, garbage disposal, and stack emissions. Jurasz's preliminary findings caused the cruise ship companies some concern, especially when some of his material appeared in a television documentary that aired in 1977, but Park Service officials stressed that Jurasz's study was not yet complete. A briefing statement on the whale issue prepared for the Washington office stated, "We strongly recommend that the final report and findings from the researcher be awaited before drawing conclusions or attempting remedial action." [14]
It was in this clouded context, with vessel traffic strongly implicated in the sudden departure of the humpback whales from Glacier Bay in July 1978, that Superintendent Ritter and Regional Director John Rutter made a dubious decision. They agreed in principle to the introduction of an overnight tour boat by the concessioner as a means of accommodating the overflow demand for lodging. Their decision was reaffirmed, with "no hint of controversy," in a meeting in Seattle on January 16, 1979. [15] Not only was the boat's effect on the whales in doubt, but the boat's design, and hence its effect on visitors' experience, was left up to the concessioner. Robert Giersdorf, the principal owner of Glacier Bay Lodge, Inc., unveiled his new vessel the following March, to the dismay of many on the Glacier Bay staff and other concerned citizens who had heard nothing about it beforehand. Able to sleep 64 passengers in 32 staterooms, equipped with a bar and live music, the 120-foot Glacier Bay Explorer amounted to a backcountry resort, "a sort of floating addition to the famed lodge," reported the Seattle Times. Unlike the cruise ships, Glacier Bay Explorer would disembark passengers at points in the proposed wilderness area and would anchor for the night far up the bay in Reid Inlet. Although there was concern that overnight passengers would strain the capacity of dining and laundry facilities in Bartlett Cove and trample the delicate vegetation wherever they were put ashore up the bay, the Park Service had not required an environmental impact statement. Moreover, when Glacier Bay Explorer made her first appearance in Glacier Bay in June 1979, it became evident that the vessel was significantly louder than the two day-tour concession boats. [16]
Opponents of Glacier Bay Explorer did not know who to hold accountable for it, nor who they could trust to remedy the situation. Ritter transferred to Voyageurs National Park in January 1979. Donald D. Chase was appointed acting superintendent until the arrival of a new superintendent. As for John Rutter and the regional office in Seattle, their involvement with Alaska parks diminished as the Alaska field office became a full-fledged regional office in 1980, with John E. Cook directing. Cook had such a large task in setting up several new park administrations under ANILCA that he could illafford to review the decision on the Glacier Bay Explorer.
Cook, formerly director of the Southwest Region, selected John F. Chapman, superintendent of the small Capulin Volcano National Monument in New Mexico, to fill the position at Glacier Bay. A journalist by background, Chapman wrote voluminously and generally treated his time in the field as recreation. He did not inspire confidence in his staff, particularly in the old hands who had been around since Howe's tenure. He was no boatman, and the personnel he brought with him from the Southwest were mockingly called "the desert rats" by more seasoned members of the staff. [17]
Almost from the day he arrived, Chapman was caught between the advice of his staff, who wanted tough protective measures to cope with increasing visitor use, and the advice of Cook and others who urged a "get along" policy while Alaskans adjusted to the new land management regime promulgated by ANILCA. In May 1979, Chapman announced that the Park Service would require all vessel operators to limit their speed to 10 knots and a steady RPM while in designated "whale waters" in Glacier Bay, and to approach no closer than 1/4 mile from any whale. But at this late date the NPS would not control the total number of vessels entering the bay, as this might involve turning ships away whose passengers had planned and paid to see Glacier Bay. These restrictions were in fact the mildest of five management options outlined by Streveler. [18]
Chapman soon faced a crisis when the humpback whales arrived in southeast Alaska waters only to shun Glacier Bay itself. According to Jurasz, the whales normally entered the bay during two "influxes," which coincided with extreme high tides and strong tidal currents. (This idea was later discredited.) Few whales appeared during the anticipated first influx in June, and by mid-July the anticipated second influx was proving an even greater disappointment. Chapman consulted both the regional and Washington offices about a possible ten-day emergency closure of the bay while the humpbacks established "residence." On their advice he inquired with Dr. George Harry of the National Marine Fisheries Service about the need for a consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. [19]
Immediately following this telephone call, on July 16, 1979, Chapman held a conference call with John Cook, Doug Warnock, Bob Peterson, and Jim Larson in Anchorage and Boyd Evison, Roland Wauer, and John Dennis in Washington, D.C. They discussed the political and economic consequences of an immediate emergency closure or a threatened closure the following year, and the risks of taking no action. Warnock posed the question: what if the NPS took action and still no humpback whales appeared in the bay? Larson wondered: if the whales went away, how hard would it be to get them back? Wauer thought the NPS would be negligent not to do something. They discussed the legal procedures for voluntary or forced compliance with vessel restrictions. What if cruise ship companies refused to comply? What credibility would the NPS have in its jurisdictional dispute over Glacier Bay with the state of Alaska if it didn't assert its jurisdiction now? At the end of the conference call Cook directed Chapman to seek voluntary changes in the cruise ship paths for the time being and to formalize his request with Dr. Harry for a Section 7 consultation. Clearly uneasy with the situation he now faced, Chapman scribbled at the bottom of his notes, "No data on feeding, Bay carrying capacity, other biological considerations. Can't eliminate other possible explanations. Data no good." [20]
On the morning of July 18, 1979, rangers reported that the few whales in Glacier Bay had evidently departed, as they had exactly one year earlier to the day. Chapman telephoned the Marine Mammal Commission's office in Juneau, which promptly dispatched its biologist in Sitka, Andrew R. Gifford, to the scene. Arriving at headquarters in Bartlett Cove just after noon, Gifford was "immediately engulfed in a very serious and intense meeting." There were remarks that the unusually loud Glacier Bay Explorer had produced strong reactions from certain whales, and there were estimates that nine out of ten whales observed in the Bartlett Cove area that summer had had some form of conflict with a vessel. [21]
With the humpback whales now absent from the bay, the controversy continued to escalate. The acerbic environmental group Greenpeace Alaska informed Chapman by letter that it was prepared to alert all Greenpeace offices, demand closure of the bay, and attempt to get a restraining order against the cruise ship companies. The Alaska Visitors Association warned that an "arbitrary closure of the monument" without further study would seriously harm Alaska tourism. The president of Princess Cruises conveyed a similar sentiment, and looking ahead to the 1980 season he said that his company had already produced half a million brochures featuring Glacier Bay, and if the monument were closed for two ten-day periods "there would be a tremendous softness in sales for those sailings." The most withering attack came from Robert Giersdorf, who publicly accused the Park Service of manipulating media coverage to the detriment of the cruise ship industry with unfounded and inflammatory words like "abandonment," "failure," and "alarming departure." Giersdorf had consulted other whale biologists who believed fluctuations in the abundance of feed could explain the whales' movements. He rebuked Chapman for undermining the "cooperative spirit and dialogue" between the Park Service and the cruise ship industry that Superintendent Ritter had nurtured. [22]
Yet another blow to the Park Service's credibility was struck when a group of Gustavus residents, led by retired former superintendent Howe, formed Friends of Glacier Bay. They were prompted by fears that corporate interests were "beginning to dictate the future of the Monument." [23] An unstated but widely shared view was that both former superintendent Ritter and Chapman, in contrast with Howe, regarded their post at Glacier Bay as a mere stepping stone and did not have the long-term interests of the place at heart. At its first meeting that summer, Friends of Glacier Bay passed a resolution exhorting the Park Service to place tougher restrictions on vessel traffic. The group quickly attracted members from as far away as Fairbanks and Anchorage.
In September, a management review of Glacier Bay National Monument found a rift between the seasonal and permanent staff, with seasonal rangers and naturalists (many of whom had worked in Glacier Bay for several summer seasons) taking the position that higher echelon Park Service officials were selling out the Park Service mission in order to advance their careers. [24]
That winter, as Chapman approached the task of drafting whale management regulations that would be sufficient, enforceable, and reasonably satisfactory to everyone concerned, he found himself working from a very narrow base of support.
As soon as Chapman floated the idea of closing Glacier Bay to vessels during certain critical phases of the summer whale migration, it was clear that the cruise ship industry stood to lose millions of dollars in the effort to stabilize the monument's humpback whale population. And since Glacier Bay was the featured destination on most southeast Alaska cruises, the industry contended that its closure would have a ripple effect, lowering tourism revenues for communities like Sitka and Ketchikan. [25] Giersdorf and other tourist industry executives insisted that they had as much interest in preserving the whales as the Park Service did, but they disputed whether whale-vessel interactions were really a problem. The whales' search for food might be the real cause of their movement out of the bay.
Tourist industry executives suggested, in effect, that the problem of whale management should be resolved by science, and proper scientific method involved testing alternative hypotheses before drawing any conclusions. The Park Service would be irresponsible, therefore, to close monument waters without first making a bigger research effort. By August 1979, the tourist industry was familiar with Jurasz's work. In fact, the southeast Alaska tourist industry had been financing its own research on Glacier Bay's whales since 1978 by employing a marine biologist who had formerly worked with Jurasz in Glacier Bay. William S. Lawton, a fisheries science graduate student and part-time reseacher at the NMFS's laboratory in Seattle, told a Seattle Times reporter in October 1979 that the industry had hired him to provide it with "unprejudiced, objective data" on vessels' effects upon whales in Glacier Bay, and he accused the Park Service of jumping to conclusions with Jurasz's research. [26] Lawton no doubt advised Giersdorf on the question of whale food.
But the NPS position was that it could not wait for irrefutable scientific findings to take precautions involving an endangered species. Wildlife managers very often had to base decisions on an imperfect knowledge of the resource, and in the case of an endangered species, it was especially important to err on the side of the resource. [27]
Complicating the dialogue further was the fact that the NPS, the MMC, and the NMFS had different responsibilities in managing an endangered species. All three agencies were required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972) and the Endangered Species Act (1973) to manage the humpback whales for a maximum sustainable population consistent with the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem. But the National Parks Act (1916) narrowed the Park Service's focus to the area of the monument, with the express purpose "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein." NMFS and MMC officials thought in terms of the southeast Alaska humpback whale stock and the larger ecosystem; Park Service officials were chiefly concerned about the Glacier Bay population and ecosystem. [28]
With so many conflicting interests and so much money at stake, it would be impossible for science to render an impartial verdict. This became clear in the meetings between tourist industry representatives, Park Service officials, and marine biologists of the NMFS and MMC which occurred in August and October 1979 in Seattle, and the following March in Anchorage. The representatives of the tourist industry insisted on a broader scope of research by professional scientists. In particular, they wanted a whale prey study to test their alternative explanation of whale behavior. NPS officials resisted the idea of a whale prey study, recognizing that it would be extremely difficult, probably inconclusive, and a drain on research funds available for extending the work begun by Jurasz on whale-vessel interactions. NMFS and MMC biologists sided with the tourist industry on the need for a prey study, partly, at least, because the marine biology research establishment was heavily oriented toward commercial fisheries, and they found the work done by Jurasz off-putting for its unconventionality as well as its amateurishness. [29] Indeed, the Jurasz report came under increasing attack by marine biologists and the tourist industry, until it was impossible to separate criticisms of its scientific merits from objections to its conclusions for management. Park Service officials mixed politics with science, too, as they came to the Jurasz report's defense:
The research plan that finally developed from these meetings involved three major studies to be undertaken concurrently, plus statistical analysis of the Jurasz data. The NPS allocated $275,000 for the research in fiscal year 1981, and $350,000 the following year, a ten-fold increase over money spent on whale research in Glacier Bay National Monument to date. Contracts were awarded through the National Marine Mammal Laboratory of the NMFS. These contracts were completed in 1983, although significant whale research would continue in the park for several more years. The three studies examined biotic activity and prey species abundance in the Glacier Bay ecosystem, acoustical properties of Glacier Bay and its ambient sound production levels, and whale behavioral responses to vessel traffic. [31]
While this research got under way, the Park Service developed temporary whale management regulations based on a biological opinion supplied by the NMFS in December 1979. The opinion emphasized that too little was known about the humpback whales to make sound conclusions; nevertheless, it gave strong support to the Park Service's inferences about whale-vessel interactions. Continued increase in the amount of vessel traffic in Glacier Bay, the opinion stated, might jeopardize the whole population of humpback whales in southeast Alaska. Dislocations of this whale stock, in turn, could decrease the likelihood of population recovery of the North Pacific herd. Therefore, it recommended that the NPS limit vessel entries to 1976 levels. [32]
Chapman's interim whale management plan introduced a permit system so that the NPS could limit vessel entries both by day and cumulatively over the season. For cruise ships, the limits were two per day and a total of 89 during June, July, and August, to take effect in 1981. For small vessels, the quotas were set at 230 tour, 226 charter, and 339 private boats during the whale season, with a limit of three tour vessels per day, to take effect in 1980. The plan continued the restrictions on movement in designated whale waters and prohibited commercial fishing for herring and capelin--two known prey species of the humpback whale. Released on March 5, 1980, for public comment, the plan elicited no fewer than 142 responses. Environmental groups generally responded favorably. Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Federation both responded that the plan did not go far enough: limits on entries needed to be more stringent, particularly during the influx periods. Friends of Glacier Bay recommended among other things placing commercial fishing boats under permit, too. Greenpeace wanted better enforcement of vessel movement restrictions. The sharpest criticism developed over the fact that the Park Service did not count trips by the concession boats toward the ceiling on tour boat entries, ostensibly because they were already included in the concessioner's contract. [33] Giersdorf, Jack Musiel of Westours, and others in the tourist industry did not object strenuously to the regulations through most of 1980 as the quotas did not yet apply to cruise ships. For the time being, they declined to contribute financially to the whale research program. [34]
Then two events occurred in the winter of 1980-81 which changed environmental politics in Alaska like nothing since statehood. President Carter signed ANILCA into law in the waning days of his administration, and President-elect Ronald Reagan confirmed environmentalists' fears by nominating one of the most pro-development interior secretaries of the century, James Watt. With enactment of ANILCA, the spotlight of environmental policymaking in Alaska swung from the legislative to the executive branch of government, and everyone knew that the incoming Republican administration was hardly friendly toward the new law. It did not take long to see how Watt would proceed. "Under the guise of implementing the law," Senator Paul Tsongas would declare in June 1982, "the secretary is, in fact, undoing the law. Through calculated use of the budget, selective enforcement of some provisions of the law but no enforcement of others, and by suspect interpretation of statutory provisions--the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act is being transformed into the Alaska National Interest Lands Development Act." [35]
Three months after Reagan took office, Jack Musiel appealed to Secretary Watt: "I am sure you are aware by now that the restrictions on vessel traffic in Glacier Bay National Park are having a severe adverse economic impact on the Alaska Travel Industry. We are in dire need of immediate relief." This missive followed a letter from Alaska's congressional delegation to Watt which alleged that the NPS was "using humpback whales as a smokescreen for limiting access" to the park. The senators and congressman reminded the secretary that ANILCA's Section 1307 guaranteed access. The administration was limited in how much it could do by the Endangered Species Act and the NMFS biological opinion, but Assistant Secretary G. Ray Arnett indicated that its goal was to complete the research program "as fast as possible" while pursuing "other possible causes" for the whales' behavior, and once "definitive answers" were found, it would issue new regulations. [36]
Park Service and NMFS officials felt pressured from various quarters to speed the research effort in the summer of 1982. The Park Service dropped its earlier objections to the construction of a whale observation platform for the 1982 season and to the use of radio transmitters for tracking whale movements. Radio tagging caused considerable excitement among park staff and Greenpeace observers, who felt that the tagging procedure, in which a transmitter was shot about twelve inches into the whale's back muscle behind its blowhole, might drive the whales off. [37] The NMFS assigned a biologist to Glacier Bay to coordinate the three studies and get them on a fast track for completion by early 1983. [38] Senator Frank Murkowski raised expectations for the 1983 season by his unilateral announcement that "the National Park Service is prepared to increase the number of cruise ship entries into Glacier Bay from 89 to 180 per summer if the research supports the level of activity." [39] In February 1983, the Park Service requested the NMFS for a second consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The most overt action by the administration came in March 1983 with the ouster of Regional Director John E. Cook and Superintendent Chapman. Critics charged that the administration had sacked these two men in order to send a message to all NPS officials in Alaska. [40] Watt handpicked Cook's successor, Olympic National Park Superintendent Roger Contor. Contor, recognizing that he was walking into a political minefield, told a reporter for the Anchorage Daily News soon after his appointment that Alaskans were polarized over public land issues and it was the Park Service's goal to "stay somewhere in the middle." [41]
Contor appointed Michael Tollefson to fill the vacancy at Glacier Bay. Tollefson was skilled at getting along with different interest groups. He also possessed valuable Alaska experience, as a ranger at Kenai Fjords National Park and chief of operations at Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. To his staff as well as to the growing cadre of former park employees who were settled in Gustavus, Tollefson exuded competence and professionalism but also a kind of aloofness. These people, wary after Chapman's unceremonious departure, sensed that Tollefson was aligned more closely with the NPS bureaucracy than with the local interests of the park. [42]
Tollefson moved quickly to create permanent whale water regulations on the basis of the three scientific studies after they reached completion in the spring of 1983. The acoustical study, made by Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, showed that the rocky floor in certain portions of Glacier Bay did accentuate engine noise, while ambient noise levels in the bay were not significantly different than in Frederick Sound. The whale prey study, conducted by the National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Seattle, measured abundance of plankton, krill, capelin, herring, and other prey species in Glacier Bay, Frederick Sound, and Stephens Passage, and compared distribution patterns between 1981 and 1982. The results showed considerable variability of abundance between locations and years. The whale behavior study, done by C. Scott Baker and Louis M. Herman of the University of Hawaii, was hampered by the small number of resident whales in Glacier Bay during the two field seasons, but its findings corroborated Jurasz's basic observation that there was a correlation between whales' "aerial" behavior (breaching, tail slapping, etc.) and their proximity to vessels. Baker and Herman rejected Jurasz's hierarchy of stress behavior, however, suggesting that whales' reactions to vessels were dependent on complex variables such as an individual's age and sex, mother/calf pairing, feed availability, and physical characteristics at the site of the encounter. Finally, Dr. Frederick Dean's analysis of the breath logs compiled by Jurasz indicated that breath rates were affected by vessel traffic, with cruise ship and high-speed cabin cruisers having the most pronounced effect on blow-interval patterns. [43]
Predictably, it was possible to draw different practical conclusions from these results, and the need for more data, particularly concerning whale behavior, was evident. The NMFS issued its second biological opinion on June 22, 1983, still holding to its earlier position that uncontrolled increases in vessel traffic in Glacier Bay would jeopardize the southeast Alaska humpback whale stock. However, the NMFS now suggested that a twenty percent increase in vessel entries would be prudent as long as the Glacier Bay whale population did not fall below the 1982 level. After a minimum of two years of monitoring the effects of such an increase, a further increase might be proposed. [44]
When the whale regulations finally appeared in the Federal Register the following April, they did not attract as much comment as had Chapman's temporary regulations in 1980. The regulations extended the buffer around whales from 1/4- to 1/2-mile, prohibited sudden changes of speed in designated whale waters, and changed the permit system to track visitor use days, allowing the Park Service more control over the volume of boats in the park at any given time. The regulations also authorized the superintendent to increase the ceilings on vessel permits by up to twenty percent if the whale population increased.
Tollefson's management of the humpback whale issue elicited markedly different responses from the two environmental groups most involved with the park, Friends of Glacier Bay and Greenpeace Alaska (which changed its name to Alaska Wildlife Alliance in 1983). While Friends of Glacier Bay adopted a more supportive stance toward park administration, Alaska Wildlife Alliance became progressively more critical. This was not surprising. The evolving membership of Friends of Glacier Bay included a large contingent of local fishermen as well as former and current Park Service employees living in Gustavus, together with environmentalists from around the state. The group increasingly viewed its role as that of consensus builder and promoter of enlightened local environmental management. Alaska Wildlife Alliance's membership was mainly urban, and it saw its role as oppositional, as the uncompromising advocate of the environment. Its strategy was confrontational. As an organization that survived on door-to-door membership drives, it depended on media attention and controversy for sustenance. Its parent organization, Greenpeace U.S.A., had made its name challenging the establishment on such hot-button issues as atmospheric nuclear tests and seal and whale harvesting.
Friends of Glacier Bay commended the Park Service for the new regulations. "They give whales the benefit of any major doubt," Howe wrote to Tollefson, "yet they are couched in somewhat generalized language that permits the NPS a reasonable amount of management flexibility." Friends of Glacier Bay did raise two specific concerns. First, small vessels should be allowed to anchor in Bartlett Cove while awaiting availability of a permit, thereby facilitating visitor access to park headquarters, which was "critical." (Howe had raised the same point with Chapman in 1980.) Second, the regulation against pot-fishing for shrimp seemed unduly hard on local fishermen. Friends of Glacier Bay intended to ask the scientists whether this small-scale fishery really had a measurable impact on whale feed. "Whether or not commercial fishing is considered an appropriate Park activity," Howe advised, "whale regulations should not be used as a vehicle for limiting it unless whales benefit from the limits. Shooting square with fishermen on this matter will earn the NPS good will that is sorely needed in addressing much thornier management conflicts--such as the issue of wilderness waters." [45]
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance focused on two main objectives: to census the Glacier Bay whale population from year to year, and to monitor how effectively the Park Service enforced vessel restrictions. The group fielded a small number of shore-based volunteers in the park for a few weeks every year from 1980 through 1984. These people contributed their whale sightings to the censusing effort and goaded the NPS toward stricter enforcement with both written and radio-transmitted reports of boater violations. Both efforts served the group's self-interest as well as the whales: the census provided a simple, objective index with which the media and the public could continue to track the situation after all the sound and fury over closing the bay and vessel entry quotas had subsided, and monitoring the Park Service's enforcement of the regulations fit the group's confrontational strategy. But these efforts were also based on very real fears that the whale regulations, and thus the whales, might otherwise fall victim to the Reagan administration's pattern of selective non-enforcement of environmental laws and regulations.
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance found Regional Director Roger Contor and Superintendent Tollefson noticeably less receptive than their predecessors Cook and Chapman had been. In July 1983, Alaska Wildlife Alliance Director Wayne Hall discussed his group's past volunteer program in Glacier Bay with Contor and afterwards submitted a proposal that would greatly expand the program in 1984 with a $23,514 grant from the Park Service for supplies, radio equipment, and transportation costs. He was disappointed, however, when the Park Service did not even acknowledge the proposal despite several follow-up letters. Nevertheless, Hall and seven other volunteers spent fourteen days of the whale season of 1984 camped at various posts around the lower and middle bay. In September, Hall sent a strong letter to Contor in which he alleged, "The National Park Service commitment to the protection of humpback whales appears to be in a very serious state of decline." In five seasons of "direct observations in Glacier Bay," the past season had been the "worst." They had observed boaters speeding, violating the 1/2-mile buffer around whales, even pursuing whales, while ranger patrols were inadequate. Even when a ranger apprehended a violator, they alleged, the ranger was discouraged from issuing a citation. Park management had also ignored their request to extend designated whale waters north of Sitakaday Narrows, despite their observations of whales in the area. "For the first time in our involvement in Glacier Bay," Hall wrote, "we felt that our whale observations were not believed by NPS staff." Indeed, Hall and his associates had quit reporting their whale sightings before the end of their stay, concluding that the rangers gave more credence to whale reports by the skippers of Glacier Bay Explorer and Thunder Bay. [46]
Hall and his associates were probably correct in their perception of a more relaxed atmosphere. The park staff generally viewed the new whale management plan as a sign that the crisis had passed, that the Park Service had found a manageable way for whales and park visitors to coexist in Glacier Bay. Park personnel liked to assume that boaters were responsive to the need for whale protection and would readily change their behavior if given a warning. One seasonal ranger who served on whale patrol in the summer of 1983 told an interviewer for Alaska Magazine, "Glacier Bay isn't a cops and robbers park so a good deal of my job is best described as public relations. In parks in the Lower 48, I'd be busy handing out citations but here the whales keep me busier than the park visitors." [47] As the park returned to normalcy under Tollefson's superintendency, Alaska Wildlife Alliance volunteers simply wore out their welcome among park rangers with their shrill calls over the air waves for whale patrol.
The complexion of the whale management problem improved with each year's new findings from the ongoing research of biologist C. Scott Baker. In 1985, Baker estimated the total population of humpback whales in southeast Alaska at 326--considerably more than the most commonly cited estimate in 1978 of 60. Baker suggested that local movement of whales, such as between Glacier Bay and Frederick Sound, might reflect "complex foraging strategies to exploit seasonal changes in the distribution and abundance of prey species." Glacier Bay appeared to be an important foraging area in early summer. In 1986, Baker attempted to give a picture of the whole North Pacific herd. Photoidentification revealed that the same humpbacks that summered in southeast Alaska wintered in the Hawaiian Islands. He estimated that the winter breeding stock was four to six times larger than the southeast Alaska population in summer. It appeared that the stock in the Hawaiian Islands dispersed into smaller groups for summer feeding, and these groups showed strong site fidelity, often returning to the same bays and channels in southeast Alaska year after year. [48]
The most important study for whale management was an NPS report by Baker and resource specialist Gary M. Vequist in 1987, "Humpback Whales in Glacier Bay, Alaska: A long-term history of habitat use." Baker and Vequist determined that whale movement patterns within southeast Alaska were so complex that the summer resident population in Glacier Bay was bound to show considerable variation. The relatively stable population levels during the 1970s now appeared to be atypical, and the sudden departure of the whales in 1978 was probably a normal foraging strategy. The population in Glacier Bay might fluctuate, but the total stock in southeast Alaska appeared to be stable or increasing. As for monitoring the population with a view toward raising the number of vessel entry permits as recommended in the NMFS's second biological opinion, Baker and Vequist suggested that treating Icy Strait and Glacier Bay as one contiguous habitat would reflect more accurately the health of the whale population. The whales in these combined areas constituted about ten percent of the total southeast Alaska stock. [49]
The Park Service increased the number of vessel entry permits twice under the whale management plan of 1984. Following a whale count of twenty-six in the bay in 1984, Tollefson raised the vessel entry permits by 14.6 percent in all categories for 1985. When the whale count fell to thirteen the next year, Tollefson maintained that the decline was thought to be due to the cold summer weather and a smaller amount of whale feed in the park, not increased vessel traffic. The whale count reached thirty-two in 1986 and thirty-three in 1987. A further increase in vessel entry permits was adopted for all categories for 1988, completing the 20 percent increase over 1976 vessel entries allowed by the 1984 whale regulations. This brought the total number of cruise ship entry permits during whale season to 107.
Twelve years after the Park Service began funding research on the humpback whales, no one could depict with certainty the overall effects of vessel traffic on whale habitat. Asked about this by a reporter when the NPS announced its second increase in vessel entry permits, Vequist answered with measured words, hewing to what was definitely known: "Many whales respond to close proximity of vessels by decreasing blow intervals, increasing dive times, and moving away from the vessel path." [50] What the long term consequences of vessel traffic in Glacier Bay would be for humpback whales remained an open question.
Last Updated: 24-Sep-2000


text:
LSAT Private Tutoring
An expert Kaplan tutor will streamline a course—on your own schedule and at your own pace—just for you. Tailor Your Studies With One-on-One LSAT® Prep.
Personal Attention
A higher score is just a course away. With LSAT Private Tutoring, a rigorously trained instructor will create a curriculum that suits your specific needs.
- Get tutored in person
- Choose from 15-hour, 25-hour, and 35-hour packages
- Get full access to a live Advantage course
- Practice ad nauseam with a PrepTest library of 70+ exams – and self-proctoring tools
- You'll be ready thanks to 7,000+ practice questions and custom quizzes
- Complete explanations to every released LSAT question at your fingertips
The Kaplan Difference
- Smart Reports™ will single out, then remedy, your weaknesses
- Smart Reports™ will prescribe what instruction and which practice is right for you
A Higher Score Guarantee means:
- If you don't improve, you get your money back
- If you're not ready to take the LSAT or are unsatisfied with your score, take another class with Kaplan for free
- Any make-up classes you need are free
Hear it from students just like you
More students get into law school with an LSAT class from Kaplan than with any other course.*
*The Harris Interactive® online study for Kaplan was conducted between December 6th and 21st, 2007 among 149 US adults who applied to and were admitted into law school, of whom 125 took the LSAT and a course to prepare for it. Teacher ratings based on student responses received from December 6, 2009 - June 6, 2010.


text:
One of Rochester's most popular free concert series, Bands on the Bricks brings the Rochester Public Market to the evening set with live music through the summer months! 2014 Bands on the Bricks will be run on Fridays. Gates open at 5:30 p.m. and the music runs 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
New for 2014, Bands on the Bricks will be on a Mission. Bring a non-perishable food item and consider a cash donation to help support the Open Door Mission. All funds raised will be used to purchase fresh, produce from local farmers at the Rochester Public Market to help feed the homeless in our community.
Enjoy some of the best local Latin music performers from the Greater Rochester area.
Friday, July 11 Latin Night
Next Level, Latinos De Corazon, Roc Kizomba
and Mike Rosario y su Orquesta La Murolla
Friday, July 18
Giant Panda Guerilla Dub Squad - Reggae Music
Friday, July 25
Big Eyed Phish- a Dave Matthews Tribute Band
Friday, August 1
Donna the Buffalo- Zydeco Music
Friday, August 8
Leon Russell- World Renowned Classic
Interested in being a vendor? Download an application.
Contact the Market office at (585) 428-6907.
The City of Rochester, NY is an Equal Opportunity Employer. | Fair Housing | Terms of Use | Accessibility | Privacy | Security | Contact Us | Video Tour


text:
I Love 80s SweatshirtProduct Sku: TEES003
$ 26.00
- Relive the Me Generation with this fantabulous wide neck sweatshirt. You can't flaunt it until you've got it. Valley girls, Head bangers and Dungeon Masters would all agree that this sweatshirt is like, totally gnarly. Warning: This shirt's neck is especially wide for pencil neck geeks.
Size Width (A) Length (B) Small 26" 21" Medium 27" 22" Large 28" 23" XL 29" 24"
*Measurements are listed in US Inches.
*Bust or chest is done by doubling the width measurement.
*For full circumference of the waistline, double the waist measurement.
- • Product Type: Sweatshirts
• 80sTees Exclusive
• Color: Heather Grey
• Gender: Junior/Ladies
• Graphic: Heat Transfer
Distressed refers to the worn appearance in the image or lettering on a garment. A distressed print may include faded areas, missing color, or other irregularities. This is an intentional occurrence in the product and adds to the vintage look of the design.• Tag Location: Side TagThe sizing and composition information can be found on a tag sewn inside the left or right side seam of this garment. Occasionally, there is also a neck tag present, which features brand information only.
• Made of: 100% Polyester
• Fits like: Slim-Fit
• Fabric Softness: StandardSweatshirts of STANDARD SOFTNESS are composed of traditional material and are considered to be your standard weight classic Sweatshirts.