I have always been a great listener of the "Shirley Dill'' Sunday talk show.

But, now it is beginning to get very boring. The people who call, are talking too long and other people can never get a chance to talk with her.

I feel there should be a time limit, or they should write down important notes to help them to get straight to the point.

I think it is very sad when people want to take a stroll down memory lane, and use up all the time that she has.

Shirley, please ask your callers to keep it short. I am happy, that I am not able to see them, or I might have to resort to this: At a recent dinner the speaker went on and on.. .and on, until a guest was so fed up he picked up a bottle and aimed it at the speaker's head.

Unfortunately it missed the speaker and hit a little man sitting beside him and this knocked him out. Immediately some of the people rushed to bring him around, and when eventually he came round the only thing he was heard to say was: "Please hit me again, I can still hear his voice.'' Love you Shirley.

OBSERVER Southampton Don't change course The following was sent to the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries and copied to The Royal Gazette .

April 30, 1999 Dear Sir, I am writing this letter as a private citizen who is concerned over the possible reintroduction of the fish pot as legal means of harvesting the fish stocks in Bermuda. My concern over the matter is based on both my education overseas and the hobbies that I enjoy in Bermuda. I feel that I must first state that not only have I received my Advanced BSc from Dalhousie University in Biology, (with focus on genetics and environmentalism), but I am an avid scuba diver, snorkeller, spear fisher and lobster diver in Bermuda waters. In addition to this I have travelled to such places as the Virgin Islands and Bahamas and have viewed the impact of their fisheries policies on the reef ecosystems in those areas. The opinions I also have formed on this issue are also based on conversations I have had in both professional and personal environments with personnel from the Aquarium, Bermuda Biological Station and the Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute, all of whom have vehemently opposed the use of fish pots.

As a last reference to my knowledge and expertise in this area please be aware that as part of my studies at Dalhousie one of the courses I took was on Fisheries regulation practices. As an independent study project within the Class I contacted the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, requested and received the catch rates for the years before and after the institution of the fishpot ban. I did this with the intention of focusing on the differences in the reported catch ratios of reef fish before and after the ban and the possible effects on the ecosystem. Although I had been aware of the danger that the Bermudian reef system was in before I received the reports, I was still horrified by the degree that the herbivorous reef fish, (such as parrot fish), were being decimated before the ban. While it has been too long for me to remember the precise figures I do recall that after the ban the percentage of the catch consisting of parrot fish dropped to 4 percent, less than 1/10th of what it had been before the ban. The indiscriminate nature of the fish captured by the pots is an issue that cannot be doubted. To make the situation even worse these undesirable eating fish cannot be and are not returned after they have been hauled to the surface from 50 to 100 feet of depth.

The herbivorous fish of which the parrotfish are only one example, are vital to the healthy functioning of the reef ecosystem. Approximately 15 years ago I spent two weeks diving and snorkelling in the waters around the Virgin Islands and as a consequence I was able to view the effects of the removal of these vital components of the ecosystem. The appearance of the reefs was similar to Bermuda's with the exception that it appeared as if someone had poured concrete over the entire reef structure. In two weeks of water activity in both the British and American Virgin Islands the largest fish I saw was an 18-inch barracuda and the largest piece of coral was only six inches across.

This catastrophic collapse of that ecosystem is a result of constant extreme pressure on the fish population and I have absolutely no doubt that before the ban Bermuda was very close to the threshold where this sort of collapse would have happened.

The very nature of fish pots makes them impossible to regulate efficiently.

Indeed, the technology of today makes it even easier for the unscrupulous to utilise them as a method maximising their catches with little effort. I can attest from personal experience and conversations with other avid divers that even with the pot ban in place there are pots out there; lots of them. We have found them even in shallow waters and I am scared to speculate how many are in the deeper waters. The fishermen using them leave the buoy under water so it is not visible from a distance and rely upon such devices as Global Positioning Systems, (GPS) to find and harvest the illegal pots. When the fishermen haul the catches at night and fillet the fish before returning to dock who is to say that type of fish is being sold and how it was caught.

To make this situation even worse it does not seem to me that the Government makes it a priority to catch these individuals and doesn't prosecute them to the full extent of the law when it does catch them. Since these pots are illegal the individuals in question have no scruples about using non-degradable materials in their construction and when the marker breaks loose they act as indiscriminate killers of fish for years to come. Clearly if the use of the devices cannot be prevented when they are illegal there is no way to effectively regulate them if they were legal.

Since the ban, my personal experience in the water, (especially in the last three years), has revealed that the fish are getting bigger and more plentiful while the number of corals and water plants has increased dramatically. As an example, I lived here and swum in Bermuda's waters my whole life but it wasn't until last year that I had ever seen a two and a half-foot parrot fish. This is clear evidence that the reef system is in a recovery cycle but it has taken ten years to get this far and the cycle is far from complete. Models used to predict species growth and recovery rates show that some species will recover faster than others. Certain types of fish are still very scarce due to their longer life spans and as their recovery depends upon the population their prey fish reaching levels that they have not. I have heard of programmes to be instituted by organisations such as the methods that led to this situation at this crucial juncture can only be described as the height of folly and irresponsibility.

I can only hope that the Government will not only tighten restrictions on the use of any type of pots but will more actively find and prosecute the individuals responsible for using them in the first place. This is a necessary deterrent to those who think they can damage every Bermudians birthright for their own selfish short-term gain. Bermuda's reefs are too valuable to all Bermudians, both as irreplaceable tourist attraction and as a vital piece of our collective heritage. Dive magazines world wide have had articles illustrating Bermuda's underwater beauty and it would be a shame and an embarrassment to see these articles turned into scientific papers detailing the destruction of something so precious, without mentioning the loss to Bermuda's already besieged tourist industry.

I would like to say for the record that I do not oppose the harvesting of the waters around Bermuda for the gain of local industry and for the benefit of our citizens. However, I must strongly oppose the use of irresponsible methods designed to maximise the economic benefits for a new while damaging the long-term moral and economic fabric of our society. Anyone who studies Bermuda's history can see the evidence of past environmental disasters and I pray that no more are added in my lifetime.

RICHARD D. KEMPE City of Hamilton Mr. Jones' sour grapes August 25, 1999 Dear Sir, This letter is in reply to Mr. Niel Jones' letter dated August 2 and printed in The Royal Gazette on August 11.

Mr. Jones, I was a spectator at the Non-Mariners Race and have been for many years. It would appear that you do not understand the term "Non-Mariners'' for if you did, you would not have wasted as much time as you did whining to the media i.e. TV, front page Royal Gazette , letter to the Editor, Radio and also the Non Mariners Committee, about the Hotline float crew's behaviour. It was however, comforting to note that you received no sympathy whatsoever from the Committee, spectators or fellow competitors, none of whom would back-up your silly claims but rather stated that the Hotline crew acted in a proper manner and in keeping with regulations. Have you participated in one of the races before? It would appear not, for then you would be well aware that it is the tradition of the race for competitors to sink their opponents' floats.

As a seasoned spectator of the race and with an excellent view of the proceedings, I can categorically state the following: The Hotline float was made up of materials much the same as all the other floats on the water.

Children who came near the Hotline float, I noticed were admonished and told to go back to shore, especially whilst the race was in progress, which they did.

The only "weapons'' on board Hotline were water balloons and a water gun -- hardly threatening or potentially dangerous. On the other hand, Mr. Jones' crew were wielding paddles and flippers and were haphazardly thrashing these things around people's heads and faces. Indeed, one crew member from Hotline sustained a very nasty blow to the nose causing swelling and abrasions inflicted by one of Mr. Jones paddle brandishing crew and another, a lady, received a knock to the head from another. Yet, Mr. Jones in his letter has the audacity to talk of Hotline placing people in danger of being knocked unconscious and possible drowning but, perhaps his paddle smacking crew were specially trained to only inflict surface wounds -- I don't think so! However, the Hotline crew who have participated in the Non-Marines race on several occasions, accepted their injuries in a sporting way and in keeping with the good humour of the race. Perhaps Mr. Jones should take a leaf from their book, or is he too busy munching on sour grapes? I note that when the Hotline float was tipped over by an opponent, the crew immediately stopped racing in order to dismantle it and deposit the various pieces on the dump truck. This was obviously done for the safety of all concerned and I certainly did not witness any protruding rusty nails -- to which Mr. Jones attributes his injured foot. Mr. Jones's idea of using his float after the race seems rather ludicrous to me and would only serve as a dangerous hazard to other boat users and bathers alike since these floats are not fitted with any safety or even basic devices such as stirring! (Hello!) Mr Jones, your obsession with safety should be highly commended.

I say, notwithstanding Mr. Jones's petty and unwarranted whining, that it was a great day, a great race and enjoyed by all who spectated and participated.

The Non-Mariners Committee as usual did a great job and everything was in keeping with the tradition. I hope the Hotline crew are there again next year to fight another battle and that Mr. Jones settles for punting on the Thames which would seem much more his speed! GET A LIFE Pembroke