Nanaimo Anchoring Fees!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Maggie-K

The Nanaimo port authority has no jurisdiction over anchoring it is a federal matter.

A lot of lower-deck lawyers here. The Minister has granted said authority to the NPA through letters patent described in the Canada Gazette.

CMA sections 58, 62 and 74 would seem to support the NPA's position.

IMHO

[Amgine]

Heh, well the minister can do pretty much anything according to CMA. But those letters patent are not what that set of rules cites as it's authority. They solely cite 56(1)(b).

And Ontario lost in their provincial SC on a similar set of policies.

For me it's not a direct concern, but I'd worry for the precedence; the Port Authority very literally is saying it has the right to control everything within the port, and it could include all lands immediately around the port according to the CMA. Depending on its enforcement it could easily make the port a very nice destination for non-local cruisers. At least, I can't imagine wanting to spend more than 14 days in 30 anchored in Nanaimo myself.

But the people living aboard in that anchorage are now vulnerable to being given the bum's rush no matter how perfect their boat is kept. It's impossible not to see this as yet another attack on them, the third in 12 months I believe. And the previous two failed in court.

[Rex Delay]

I am all for the liveaboards, with the vessel manned and lit in accordance with the colregs. It is the unmanned derelicts that this is aimed at and I am in favor of any move to make anchorages more accessable to the general public. Derelict boats should be removed from the water to leave room for the rest of us.

[Evan]

For the Vancouver False Creek anchoring rules, I think it took a specific amendment to the Canada Shipping Act to get the rules passed.

I doubt Nanaimo has a legal case if it went to court - but I suspect few derelict boats would challenge the law.

Of course who would really want to stay in Nanaimo more than 2 weeks anyway

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Amgine

Heh, well the minister can do pretty much anything according to CMA. But those letters patent are not what that set of rules cites as it's authority. They solely cite 56(1)(b).
...
But the people living aboard in that anchorage are now vulnerable to being given the bum's rush no matter how perfect their boat is kept. It's impossible not to see this as yet another attack on them, the third in 12 months I believe. And the previous two failed in court.

My point was that the letters patent give the NPA jurisdiction over anchoring. 56(1)(b) is just a generic catch-all that gives the NPA the authority to establish rules and procedures for the purpose of navigation safety and environmental protection within the port.

The OP seemed to imply that this was a rule aimed at discouraging cruisers - I submit that it's not "cruisers" that spend more than two weeks anchored in a place like Nanaimo. Liveaboards can apply for an extended stay permit if they wish. This rule doesn't apply to leased water-lots (private or commercial mooring fields).

I recall another thread where the issue was about harbours with no space for itinerant cruisers because locals had the moorages filles with rarely-used boats. Seems to me that the NPA is trying to make it easier for the travelling cruisers to find a free place to anchor while they're passing through.

A friend told me that the visitors dock , usually crammed with visiting boats, this time of year, is virtually empty.

This statement by the OP has absolutely nothing to do with anchoring BTW - perhaps he might consider that the visitor's dock, usually crammed with visiting AMERICAN boats, is virtually empty because there's a recession.

[Amgine]

No, a set of rules must cite the authority on which it is based, and it is on that authority that it may be challenged. If they were going to use a ministerial patent, then that's what they would cite. Clearly their legal advisors believe they're more likely to survive a challenge on 56(1)(b) than on their patent alone.

I personally know of several world cruising Canadians who have hauled back to BC in order to refresh their cruising kitty. One of them was anchored in Nanaimo last summer, had been for a year or so, but was planning to head off again this spring. Another boat I met while anchored there was a commercial charter boat, fairly heavily booked for day charters and weekends during the season but likely spent the winter months nearly abandoned except for maintenance visits. Who am I to say that isn't a 'cruiser'?

Sure, I'd love to show up at my destinations with a large anchoring field empty of other boats sometimes. But I, as a visiting United Stater in Canadian waters, am not at all bothered to tie up at the visitor's dock if the anchorage is full - after all, I'm the guest. I sure don't want to push people out of their homes just for my convenience. And I happen to like interacting with other sailors.

Besides, the docks are cluttered with unused boats as well; I don't hear anyone saying they should be impounded if they look abandoned and the owners do not respond to the port within 30 days. Or that boats in marinas must maintain holding tank logs surrenderable upon any demand, or apply for permission to stay within the port if staying there more than 14 days in 30, or any of the other half-dozen strictures which are going to be applied to anchored boats.

I'm all for getting rid of derelict boats by some fair and reasonable method. This doesn't seem to be it. On the US east coast many PAs have simply outlawed anchoring within the port, but offer very reasonable moorages in tight mooring fields. Seems a much better solution, though I don't know how it might work in practice in BC.

[Rex Delay]

The liveaboards are not the issue. Most of these boats are essentially abandoned. They are not seaworthy, do not show lights and are not manned. They are derelicts. They are a hazard to navigation and are taking up space that would be used by cruisers. Many of B.C.'s best anchorages are becoming dominated by junk and there is little room for the average cruiser to anchor. There is a green multihull moored in Silva Bay that has not moved for 10 years! This, and many others, have got to be removed from our waters by some means. I am not a lawyer but am sure there exists some regulations, which are not being enforced, to have this junk removed from our water.

[David M]

I have to say that its sounds really snooty to want to push the poorer people out so the wealthier can have a place to moor. There must be a better way to accommodate people of all incomes. I'm not really on anyone's side. That's just what came to mind in reading many of the posts.

[Brent Swain]

What is a reasonable fee varies depending on how much you have. What an overpaid bureacrat considers reasonable would be prohibitive for someone with zero income. Whatever they regard as reasonable can be expected to rise exponentially once the toe is in the door, and the maximum stay time can be expected to be reduced once the precedent is set.
So why not exempt those boats which are being lived aboard for several months a year? Because they are a target.
The only mooring buoys that consitute a hazzard to navigation are the ones that have chunks of unlit docks tied to them. Those should definitley be removed. Scotchmen are no hazzard whatever.
What needs to be done is get the message out that without a water lease , once a can use any mooring they wish and there is nothing the owner can do about it. Just tie up and give her full throttle in reverse to make sure it is strong enough, or let it stop the boat at four knots.
What also needs to be done is inform the public of the advantages of using an anchor, far greater holding power , the ability to check the chain, shackles etc and the ability to move anytime.
Brent

[Rex Delay]

Again I repeat, I do not believe that liveaboards are the target of this action. If you liveaboard, maintain your boat and show lights, no problem. It is the large collection of abandoned boats that need to go. Many of the boats in Nanaimo have not had a person aboard since the vessel arrived after being removed from Vancouver.

[Cheechako]

Just scratched NOnaimo off the list of places to stop this summer......

[highseas]

Its all part of the big 5 ring circus cleanup going on all over these days.Visiting boaters spend money,owners of derelict boats probably not so much.As time goes by I feel like we are losing the uniqueness that made B.C. what it is,and becoming more like the south.The only thing you can count on,is change.Remember that dream of owning a boat,nothing fancy,just something to get on the water with.Where can you draw the line?The coast has been littered with abandoned boats since that"junk"first landed here.

[Brent Swain]

Nanaimo BC has been trying to set a precedent, by charging people to anchor in the harbour. They are also trying to limit dinghy access to the town, and charging for any dinghy landings over three hours. Last summer they went around the anchored boats handing out threats to sieze the boats. The cruisers upped anchor and left.
Like so many bureaucracies, they have been using sewage as an excuse despite the fact that Nanaimo has no secondary sewage treatment for a town of around 100,000. It goes thru a screen ( to get the dead cats out and not much more,) then concentrates the sewage off Neck Point , into warm, shallow water , with minimal current , near several popular beaches.
While there is a lot of local furor over Victoria dumping its sewage into deep ,cold water with a six knot current running on every big tide, far from any swimming beaches, there is no mention of Nanaimo doing the same in warm shallow water with minimal tidal current , near popular beaches. Perhaps it's time we started a campaign to force Nanaimo to spend millions on secondary sewage treatment.
Every dollar spent by cruisers in Nanaimo is a vote for further restrictions on the cruising lifestyle. There are plenty of alternatives to stopping in Nanaimo ,for anything.

[Stillraining]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

So why not hunt down the owners of the junk, send them a notice, if they don't remove it in say 30 days, then remove it for them and send them the bill for the cost, salvage the vessel if possible. There is tons of small hardware on any vessel that could be removed and resold to the cost conscious cruiser that is trying to refit their boats.

Because that requires common sense ....something government sorely lakes and always will.

Was reading here lately where some town here in Puget Sound was starting to charge a fee requiring and permit to anchor in there bay as well.

Regarding the sewage ....That should not be an issue as most of you guys North of the border claim your poop doesn't stink..

Just Kidding..Just Kidding..

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

... Like so many bureaucracies, they have been using sewage as an excuse despite the fact that Nanaimo has no secondary sewage treatment for a town of around 100,000. It goes thru a screen ( to get the dead cats out and not much more,) then concentrates the sewage off Neck Point , into warm, shallow water , with minimal current , near several popular beaches.
... While there is a lot of local furor over Victoria dumping its sewage into deep ,cold water with a six knot current running on every big tide, far from any swimming beaches...

The effluent from the Greater Nanaimo wastewater treatment plant, a chemically enhanced primary treatment facility, is discharged into the Strait of Georgia, at a depth of 70 meters (230 feet), at a distance 2,030 meters (6,660 feet) off shore.

Victoria has NO sewerage treatment, discharging untreated effluent.