Sorry for death of dog, but in defense of ice bubblers

To the Editor:

I’m sorry about your grandson’s dog, but your argument is emotionally based and anecdotal. [“Letter from Brant Lake: Blames bubblers for dog’s drowning,” Jan. 13 Chronicle]

Based on what you said, you should think about what you will say to your homeowner’s insurance provider when the ice does do actual damage to your home, because what you’re doing isn’t safe; you have
just been lucky.

’m not a betting man, but I would wager they won’t cover anything if you never have bubblers or ice eaters running.

I have done a lot of dock work in my 31 years, all on docks that were protected from the ice, so your boathouse can’t be the datum we base legislation on.

Again, I truly am sorry about the loss of your grandson’s pet, but besides death there is another force of nature that you are all too flippant about.

Brant lake is tiny; imagine a four-mile-wide piece of ice 20 inches thick pushed with enough force to topple buildings, all with your boathouse and docks iced in and taken along for the ride.

Ice cropped 20,000 feet off of our beloved ADK mountains in the last ice age; underestimate its raw power at your own peril.

Docks are expensive; to insure them is expensive, and some of us base our entire livelihoods on lake access. It’s only logical to protect that capital.

I am also a little puzzled as to why someone has to make their property and lakefront curtilage safe for your, clearly unsupervised, use.

Lastly, I’m sure terms like “slaughter holes” and “death traps” are the types of keywords, which, when included in a letter, will illicit a legislative response from downstate….

Is that really what any of us want? Or need?

— Jacob Russell, Bolton Landing

Copyright © 2022 Lone Oak Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved