Nanaimo Anchoring Fees !

[DaveOnCudjoe]

Unfortunately the same situation exists in the Fl Keys. Every piece of worthless crap imaginable is anchored out, often used as cheap housing and in general by people with little regard for the environmental impact of their lifestyle. Garbage, fuel and dragging anchors not to mention sewage and impediment to navigation. No simple answers, the hurricanes sink many and wash many more ashore for authorities and homeowners to deal with at great personal and public cost. The owners are annonymous and disappear with the wind. The authorities are unable to keep up with current registration and nightime lighting requirements. Those living on the fringe of society are particularly adapt at avoiding enforcement actions. How many times have we all had a poorly tended vessel drag down on us in a blow. The balance of personal freedom vs the collective good is difficult to find. Dave

[Stillraining]

Yep...perhaps there is the crusting counter culture of today Dave...and I don't want to be associated with any part of it.

[Firehoser75]

I have to agree with those who state that our best and most popular anchorages are filling up with derelict boats, "illegal" private mooring buoys, and "abandoned" crab pots, making navigation and finding a safe spot to anchor very very difficult. However, what is the "best" answer to address these problems? Who will enforce any rules that either exist or are developed with a goal to fairly solve these problems? Who will pay for the necessary enforcement activities? When have authorities gone too far, and are overly infringing on our rights and freedoms? Difficult questions with no apparent answers that are acceptable to the "majority". (Remember, you definitely can't please all of the people all of the time. I know this as a former public administrator who tried, but failed miserably). So, the goal is to please the majority not everyone, still very difficult to achieve.

As an aside, as long as cities like Victoria don't treat their sewage, the holding tank issue is really a "red herring" in my opinion, at least until an adequate, well distributed network of Pump out locations are established (and of course the much larger issue of untreated or partially treated sewage from land sources is addressed). When cruising in US (Washington) waters, following the No dumping rule is actually quite easy as it is not far to the next pump out. In BC (I am ashamed to say) it is not so easy (at times impossible).

Back to the topic at hand. I understand the fears of the posters like Brent S., but something must be done or there will be no anchorages left in the vicinity of any good provisioning port. What measures do they see as reasonable, given the current situation? I was involved in discussions over the False Creek situation, and that took years to answer and still isn't a widely accepted solution, and still isn't anywhere near 100% successful! I agree that liveaboard and boats that are anchoring for what would be considered "longer term" have just as much right to a spot as do "cruisers", but abandoned and derelict boats IMHO do not or should not. From my perspective, based on the above statements, it sounds like Nanaimo's efforts are at least somewhat reasonable. Maybe they still need to better address the situations where the boat is going to be anchored for longer than 14 days, but still not being "abandoned"?

I'll stop now, as I think I am starting to "ramble" at least a bit.
Tom

[Brent Swain]

I know many people who lived aboard full time in Nanaimo, before their being targeted and kicked out by the harbour Nazis there, so it's absolute elitist ******** to say the boats were all abandoned.
I've never had any problem finding room to anchor in Nanaimo.
There is no shortage of abandoned and derelict boats cluttering our marinas , taking up space that could be used by active cruisers , and thus, according to some , should be kicked out to make room. The difference is they have more wealthy owners, and are thus considered first class citizens, as opposed to second class citizens who can't afford exorbitant moorage rates. Very few boats were anchored out full time before moorage rates went thru the roof, due to blind greed on the part of marina operators and the ever increasing supply of bureaucrats governing them. If marina operators and bureucrats want welfare ,they should be honest about it ,and apply for it at the welfare office , rather that try to extort it out of the not so rich.
I find Beneteaus and Hunters a far greater eyesore than many well worked traditional craft. "Eysore" is totally subjective.
This is definitly a suggestion that the poor be forced into the ranks of the homeless to make way for the occasional convenience of the rich. I don't believe that people who live aboard and fit out and maintain their boats at anchor, spend less money in a year than a transient spends in a few days. I don't think the rich have the right to increase the ranks of the homeless to enhance their convenience for a few days a year. I don't think that countries which make the convenience of the rich a higher priority than allowing the poor to survive comfortably, are better places to live. I don't believe forcing more people into homelessness will make Canada a better, safer and more secure place for anyone.
It would be incredibly naive to believe that the two week expemption will last forever. This is the thin edge of the wedge to gradually move toward anchoring fees for overnight stays. I've been told that the port of Nanaimo is now run by a private corporation.
Secondary treatment is nothing but a political and dead cat smokescreen which does nothing to reduce sewage in our waters.
The Harbour Nazis have stated that they don't accept composting heads, which eliminate all overboard discharge, which proves conclusively that their goal is to maximise harassment, rather than to find solutions.
I've read the Nanaimo Harbour Nazis new rules . They consider "abandoned" any boat which is not occupied for more that three days in a row , which means that liveaboards are not allowed to go visit family members or friends for more than three days a year. The rest of the year they are under virtual "house arrest" for the hienous crime of being poor . If you are anchored in Nanaimo, and have to leave for more than three days, they can sieze your boat.They state that they can come aboard your boat anytime they please, including when you are in bed getting it on with your wife , for an inspection, without any kind of search warrant. This violates the charter of rights. They believe they are above the law.
How many of you always have someone aboard your boat while cruising, 24-7 , and never have the entire crew ashore? Does that make your boat an "Abandoned boat?"
Every dollar spent in Nanaimo is a vote for ever increasing restrictions on cruising freedom. Nananimo makes $millions on cruisers passing thru every year. Any form of boycot could easily knock several million off that figure. If you won't, then you lose your bitching rights when it starts to cost you to anchor in many more BC harbours, and when the rules become so onerous that eventually even people in your income bracket are barred from the cruising lifestyle..
The skippers who were handed threats to sieze their boats by the Harbour Nazis last summer were transients who were in port only a few days. It's a big brother power grab, plain and simple.

[Maggie-K]

Victoria Has Primary sewage treatment on each of it's facilities Both run raw waste water through six-millimetre screens to catch wastewater solids, plastics and floatable material. The remaining material is discharged into the ocean via underwater pipes. It goes out 1,700 metres offshore at Macaulay and 1,200 metres at Clover Point.
Ocean currents in eastern Juan de Fuca Strait consist of tidal, storm driven
and estuarine components. Superimposed on the tidal and storm driven current components are the more persistent estuarine currents driven by the hydraulic head of the Fraser River as it enters the Strait of Georgia near Vancouver resulting in a net flow toward the Pacific Ocean. In addition, the quantities of dissolved effluent are so small (theoretically 9ppm) that they cannot be measured more than a few hundred meters from the outfalls.
Analysis: Flood tide currents cannot transport anything from Victoria's two deep sea outfalls more than a few kilometers into Haro Strait. The Strait of Georgia is located about 50 kilometers North East of Victoria. Ebb tides flow in the opposite direction out towards Race Rocks. The net effect of the tidal movement component within the daily (25 hour) tidal cycle is close to zero. The estuarine (or residual) current is estimated to consistently flow at rates of 10 to 20 cm/sec occasionally reaching maximums of 40 cm/sec out past Victoria towards the Pacific Ocean.
Conclusions: There is no credible evidence that any significant quantities of sewage from Victoria’s long outfalls enter the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound or the Pacific Ocean by natural oceanographic processes.


Before you cast judgment look into the science . It is a unique situation and location. There are no credible scientific papers that support changing the system and very many that say don't touch it.



Brent I agree the price of moorage here is criminal. Another factor that has caused the increase is the huge number of foreign vessels overstaying their time in Canada by faking breakdowns and required work so the vessel can make way. In marinas like Van Isle they fill up 60% of the slips driving up prices. Is they were sent packing there would be a lot of moorage available.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Maggie-K

In addition, the quantities of dissolved effluent are so small (theoretically 9ppm) that they cannot be measured more than a few hundred meters from the outfalls.

I don't disagree with anything you say, but I thought this was an interesting claim. Anyone who's sailed there has probably seen the thousands of seagulls that congregate on the water above the outfalls - I'll leave it to your imaginations what they do there.

[Maggie-K]

Lodesman : What I stated was not a claim it is the scientific evidence. What are the seagulls doing ....feeding. The outfall supports a vibrant ecosystem . Many small species feed on the effluent plume and likewise larger species feed on them . If it was toxic you would see no seagulls there. A recent study by the CRD supports this as have many other studies going way back in history. The CRD was looking for environmental damage and found none.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Maggie-K

(theoretically 9ppm)

Don't get yer knickers in a twist Maggie - when you say "theoretical" it sort of implies there is no "scientific evidence".

What are the seagulls doing ....feeding.

Well, duh! While it's possible that the effluent is going through several stages of the food-chain, I would tend to believe the very localized nature of the flocking (couple hundred yard diameter circle of birds right above the end of the outfall) and the fact that crap floats suggests a shortcut in the food-chain (insert gagging smiley here).

I didn't suggest it was toxic - I said I agreed with you; the sewage is being managed and monitored reasonably.

Not directed at you, but at those who have suggested that pumping heads in harbour should be allowed given the sewage-handling system in place - there is simply no comparison. I can personally attest to the fact that Esquimalt Harbour became noticeably cleaner when the Navy banned overboard discharge.

[DaveOnCudjoe]

The cold, oxygen rich waters of the PacificNW allow the ecosystem around Victoria to maintain equalibrium. As mentioned earlier the harbors and anchorages are probably more sheltered and less able to absorbe the increased nutrient load. This battle has been raging in and around Key West for years. I've found the best way to deal with the situation is to serve as an example of responsible boating. Keeping one's vessel in sail away condition with adequate ground tackle for all forseable conditions and not tossing buckets of raw sewage overboard will go a long way. What would be a fair price to pay to live in a public anchorage? Here in Key West you get an anchor ball, showers, trash disposal, pump out and dingy dock for about $250/mo. Municipalities have expenses that all need to bear. As I said before there are no easy answers but my experience shows that if each side will step into the others shoes for just a moment the compromises seem easier to find. Dave

[GordMay]

Property taxes are the largest source of revenue for municipalities, which include:
1. Revenue from the taxation of residential property.
2. Revenue from the taxation of business concerns.
3. Grants from Senior Governments.
4. Fees, licences, etc.
5. Profit earned from the operation of public utilities.
6. Non recurring receipts. (e.g. from the sale of land.)

Unless they pay mooring or habour fees, urban anchored/moored liveaboards contribute virtually nothing towards paying the cost of local services they value and use.

The question would then remain: what amount would be a reasonable contribution from those anchored out? This might parallel the common debate over property tax rates.

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

... Very few boats were anchored out full time before moorage rates went thru the roof, due to blind greed on the part of marina operators and the ever increasing supply of bureaucrats governing them. If marina operators and bureaucrats want welfare ,they should be honest about it ,and apply for it at the welfare office , rather that try to extort it out of the not so rich.
... This is definitely a suggestion that the poor be forced into the ranks of the homeless ...

[Maggie-K]

I agree with you Gord if your living in a community you must contribute to it's upkeep. Determining that value is a hard question .As Brent brings up there is a poverty issue. Many have been displaced by outrageous marina fees and no protection under law from your landlords whims. These people choose this as an option to homelessness . If the government has to start paying for shelters on shore for them it also drains the public purse. The answer... I don't have one.

Lodesman... Seems we got off on the wrong foot. There are laws in place prohibiting the overboard discharge of sewage in most harbors in the PNW. What irks me is the constant comparison to Victoria's effluent which is not in the harbor at all. As to your conjecture that the seagulls feed on effluent from the outfalls you could not be further from the truth. The outfall is terminated in a diffuser at on the ocean floor about 200 feet below sea level . The effluent is principally water . It resembles a very diluted milkshake. Most of the year, the effluent plume is dispersed well below sea level. In the winter months, the diluted effluent plume (diluted by 1600 times before it reaches the surface) surfaces only 4.8% of the time at the Macaulay outfall and 1.7% at Clover point. Occasional bacterial tests have detected this diluted plume. Mariners, sailors, wind-surfers, scuba divers, other water users are not harmed or undergo any significant health risks from Victoria’s natural sewage treatment system primarily because they are not exposed to the plume. Pollution only occurs when some measure of significant harm to humans or marine biota has been observed. No such harm has been observed to date nor is likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

[cantxsailor]

A 1% "transaction fee" for any time money, goods or service changes hands, no exceptions, in a several trillion dollar economy would almost instantly wipe out all government debts and leave a substantial surplus for doing the good things that governments are supposed to, but rarely, do.

Unfortunately this would require those that consume the most to also pay the most and we all know that will never happen in Canada or the USA or anywhere else they congregate. The rich(yup they consume the most) won't put up with it.

Just think no more endless IRS loopholes for the wealthy and well connected and we could make new laws stating if you get caught not paying you taxes we take all your property and put you in jail and you get to start all over again. No excuses as it don't get anymore simple than 1%.

I know, it's just a dream. But hey, when you're poor you have all the time in the world to sit around and figure out the ways to steal from the rich. I mean when you're not working to eat and such................Eat the rich.............m

[Stillraining]

I thought we were talking about derelict... left to rot boats not active liveaboards?

In that case I have no issue charging some small fee to a live aboard anchored out that is using public facilities...The dock..The restroom/showers etc.etc...I have an issue with charging transit travelers a fee for the same usage and maybe the 14 day limit is to tight but maybe not depending on how popular the anchorage is...There is even a limit on how many or how long one can hike or camp in the Cascade Mountains any more as well..no different.

Our planet is filling up and more and more people are enjoying the outdoors then use to ..we are at a point where limiting the access or sharing and not hording for oneself is required of us...and that goes for the poor as well as the wealthy when it comes to a desirable spot.

And I stand on my opinion that any true derelict ..unused boats should be removed at the owners expense to make room for those who do use their boats and need a spot to anchor rather they are poor or not.

[Solitude]

There are a number of derelict boats in Howe Sound as well, Bowen Island and even at Keats. Farther up the inlet at Bedwell Bay there are a bunch of "private moorings".
I understand there needs to be a balance but I agree that true derelict boats need to be removed.

[cantxsailor]

In case anyone thinks I hate/just like to rail against the rich, I too think true derelict boats need to be hauled off. At owners expense if possible, at government expense if required. The excuse that the owner can't be found is a lame one at best. If I can be found to be served, so can they.

A simple well thought out method of determining ownership shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the government.

If the owner can't be found or doesn't go to their(by now posted) boat in 90days and answer the posting notice, haul it off to impound for another 90days while continuing to attempt to find the owner. If after 120days the owner can't/won't be found, crush it, land fill it and keep the bill for future collection. If they can make a person pay 30% on their credit cards surely they can make a person pay to remove their trash.............m