Do you think recreational boats should be licensed?

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by beecreek

A license always becomes a tax. The Feds and States will welcome this to squeeze the last dime out of you.

In the case of NJ in the USA....

I believe it was $5 that went to the state from a $30 to $100 course to handle paperwork. I am sure the $5 didn't cover all the state's expenses.

Why does everyone make assumptions everything is a money grab? It's not.

If they need or want the money they will get it...just not every program is that.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

WTF, police need to find something to do to justify their salaries.
They don't stop the jetskis from buzzing around the dock, when big signs everywhere say 'NO jetski's within 100 feet of dock'. Can't fix stupid with laws or even Police, and I don't want them to try either, as they will just end up causing more trouble and not solving the problems.

Well said.

[sailorboy1]

Wonder why boaters always seem to feel that things equivalent to land things shouldn't apply to boats (licenses, taxes, etc).

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Wonder why boaters always seem to feel that things equivalent to land things shouldn't apply to boats (licenses, taxes, etc).

Because the govt didn't build the "highway" I sail on.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by BigBoater917

There is no doubt that there is an increase in recreational boating in the Northeast. As a commercial mariner there is a large uptick in kayaks and small boaters in the waterways around here. I would say on average in the last 5 years that I've had or seen 3-4 close calls that nearly resulted in death or major environmental impact. An article in this month's Workboat magazine WorkBoat.com - Maritime News, Commercial Marine and Dayrates | WorkBoat.com - Maritime News, Commercial Marine and Dayrates talks about the increase of traffic in commercial waterways and discusses the possibility of requiring some form of license for rec boaters.
I'm personally in favor as this would hopefully make my job easier in the long run but I'm sure there would be a lot of pushback. It would be incredibly difficult to enact on a national level and the current state levels vary widely, a federal standard would be nice.

So what I'd like to discuss is what do you think? It seems like a situation when nothing will happen until it's a reaction to an incident most likely resulting from the loss of life. If you don't agree with some kind of license what other solutions do you propose?

i voted no. more governmet regulation, taxation, fees, etc is never a good solution to any problem. no matter how well intentioned it is, government involvement does more harm than good. i have often considered this problem. i think it could esily be handled without requiring new regulations. all boats under power or over a certain size have to be registered and get a number, at least in my state.

it would be a simple matter to include, as a requirement of registration, a certificate showing that the applicant has taken a simple seamanship/boating course; something that covers the basics of safety on the water. there are already courses like that which are available.

once you have had a boat registered, under that requirement, your file wold show that you had taken such a course and you would not be required to show proof when registering other boats.

no government red tape. no additional government fees or taxation. and, best of all, no extra government program or 'service' using up more of our tax dollars.

if you have the governent in charge of such a course, it would end up costing millions to set up a division like the MVA, but for boats. then, on top of the taxes to establish and staff such a division, you would see the creation of extra fees, payable at the time you try to get your boat license. let's face it, anytime you have to deal with the mva, it's usually an expensive nightmare that takes mutiple visits for most things. do we really want that for boating?

follow the kiss rule. we already have boat registration. there are already boating classes available. adding the requirement that new boat registrations be accompanied by a certificate saying you passed one of those courses would require no additional use of tax money and give them no excuse to assess more fees or meddle further with our lives.

besides, there is precious little that the government can accomplish with anything near the competency level of the private sector.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Because the govt didn't build the "highway" I sail on.

Really? You don't use channels, follow buoys, lighthouses etc.

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Wonder why boaters always seem to feel that things equivalent to land things shouldn't apply to boats (licenses, taxes, etc).

I don't know about boaters as a class but I'm against those things on land as well but feel that's it's a lost cause in regards to land based items so don't state my opinion much. One of the reasons I've moved out of the US is due to over regulation and costs (taxes). Not a primary reason but one of the top 10.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Really? You don't use channels, follow buoys, lighthouses etc.

Sputter, choke, gag...

Gee, of course, we paid those taxes.

We're simply suggesting MORE taxes and fees make little sense.

And they didn't put most of those buoys in for recreational sailors.

[Stu Jackson]

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

This is a BRILLIANT solution, and well presented.

It's really nice to have a challenge followed by a real, workable solution.

Instead of my regular bickering!

Originally Posted by first wind

i voted no. more governmet regulation, taxation, fees, etc is never a good solution to any problem. no matter how well intentioned it is, government involvement does more harm than good. i have often considered this problem. i think it could esily be handled without requiring new regulations. all boats under power or over a certain size have to be registered and get a number, at least in my state.

it would be a simple matter to include, as a requirement of registration, a certificate showing that the applicant has taken a simple seamanship/boating course; something that covers the basics of safety on the water. there are already courses like that which are available.

once you have had a boat registered, under that requirement, your file wold show that you had taken such a course and you would not be required to show proof when registering other boats.

no government red tape. no additional government fees or taxation. and, best of all, no extra government program or 'service' using up more of our tax dollars.

if you have the governent in charge of such a course, it would end up costing millions to set up a division like the MVA, but for boats. then, on top of the taxes to establish and staff such a division, you would see the creation of extra fees, payable at the time you try to get your boat license. let's face it, anytime you have to deal with the mva, it's usually an expensive nightmare that takes mutiple visits for most things. do we really want that for boating?

follow the kiss rule. we already have boat registration. there are already boating classes available. adding the requirement that new boat registrations be accompanied by a certificate saying you passed one of those courses would require no additional use of tax money and give them no excuse to assess more fees or meddle further with our lives.

besides, there is precious little that the government can accomplish with anything near the competency level of the private sector.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by conachair

Possibly in many places, but the UK is a rare example of how a culture of learning without legislation exists and works. A network of small yachtclubs operating more as low budget self help groups polling together resources and knowledge helping the process along with the excellent RYA courses. Still idiots around, but in general not knowing and not trying to learn is frowned upon. If you have a stick and some rags anyway
In other countries though..... dunno

excellent post. more government control is not the answer to every problem in life. "gee mr president. i have trouble wiping my butt. can you come do it for me?"

freedom=independence
independence=personal responsibility

replacing personal responsibility with government oversight and control=enslavement to the government

[first wind]

Originally Posted by Offshore1960

Another alternative is to hold people responsible for their actions. As an example if you choose to depart New York in January bound for the Caribbean in an untested vessel in the face of bad weather and get your ass handed to you. You shouldn't expect the USCG to come and bail you out, or if you do you should have to pay the costs of doing so.

that is the real answer: personal responsibility.

[Dauntlessny]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

You left out a choice: only UNDER a certain y length and y hp.

Many times the bigger vessels are fine 'cuz the owners got smart.

It's the little gnats and mosquitoes that are a great problem.

Can't license out stupidity.

The "Entitled" or "Unenlightened" generation now using kayaks and SUPs are clueless, ignorant and dangerous to themselves. If there were licensing requirements, legislatures won't go after them. "They are too small to worry about," Senator Quackenstupid said at his press conference. I can hear it now...

Yep. That sums it up pretty well. Plus we all know those commercial guys have deep pockets.

In reading this tread, I think Bigboat917 was also alluding to the fact of the need for anyone on the water to have some boat.watercraft safety course.

I've seen kayaks after sunset on the Hudson River downtown, with a little light that fits the requirements, but certainly wouldn't save their ass if aferry did not see them.

I think a lot of these folks simply have no clue how dangerous it is, and how hard they are to see.

By the way, I voted for Senator Quackenstupid. Look at all the pork he has brought to our state

[serah]

I live in Canada where our legislated PCOC is already a joke. I do not want to see further "government oversight" of my chosen activities.

That being said, we keep our boat moored between the First and Second narrows bridges, which both have currents up to 7ish knots at times. And, we have oil tankers going underneath these bridges, plus a lot of other commercial traffic, and the likelihood of expansion of the oil freighter traffic in the near future. Vancouver's port is essential to her economic well being. Absolutely, all of our waterways need to remain accessible to recreational boating. Our commercial shipping lanes run directly next to major small recreational boating areas (Stanley park, ambleside beach, and a bit further kits beach)

We are diligent, conscientious boaters. We listen to traffic on channel 12 when approaching bridges, and generally when in the harbour. We do not want to be caught in the way of a large, draft restricted, slow to change direction freighter in a narrow passage with currents larger than what our 32' sailboat can manage. Yet we frequently see small non-motorized vessels, (kayaks and SUPs specifically) nonchalantly crossing these shipping lanes. We have observed on multiple occasions freighters doing all that they can to avoid "incidents" due to negligence and obliviousness of these small toys. (We have kayaks as well, and I used to guide. I love them, obviously, but believe they can be used safely) They are a hazard the way many operate them. We often hear the pilots and freighter radio operators and traffic discussing how to avoid the paddleboarders, with a fair bit of stress. I worry that this raises the potential for serious injury or possibly even a grounding of an oil tanker in our Harbour.

Though I do not believe licensing is the answer here, there needs to better enforcement, and more importantly, education for those in the area of the regulations in shipping lanes, and an understanding of the consequences.


Sent from my XT1034 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Because the govt didn't build the "highway" I sail on.

Thankfully, else it would have even bigger waves in the surface

[first wind]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

Your goal is more educated boaters with the basis that this would make things safer.

I think that the error comes in believing that a testing system would provide this. I recently did the 7 day live aboard ASA and the driving purpose of their test was to "pre qualify" you for chartering a boat. While I found value (I won't be chartering any boats because as far as I know all the charter companies won't allow single handers) in the course because I was looking for hands on experience. The testing was simple and more along the lines of modern education, study for the test, pass the test, wipe the slate clean and get ready for the next test. Driver's License are done in much the same way. These really turn into desk-job creation tools and a revenue stream for the administration and if what you see on any large US city streets provide little guarantee of a safe environment.

From a personal freedom standpoint, I fail to see the reason why I need permission from anyone to do something that has no physical effect on another. If I run into your boat then I am financially (and possible criminally) responsible to make "it right", irregardless if I have a license or not. I agree there are too many stupid people in the world (on water and land) and they should all go to someplace I am not, but I realize I just can't force people to do that because I don't agree with their level of education, knowledge of risks, or abilities to evaluate what is safe and what is not.

(point being that this becomes another pain in the ass box I have to check off to get permission from a nanny state to do something I want to do that because I am responsible will have <10% of affecting someone else and the proposed solution doesn't remove the problem in reality).

But American's be lovin' their rules, regulations and lines.

excellent post but, i'd like to point out that irregardless is not really a word; although you hear it everywhere, now.

regardless means that something is a certain way without difference (or regard) for any other conditions or influences.

adding 'ir' to a word makes it the opposite of what it means. thus, irregardless, if it was a word, would mean 'with exception to certain conditions".

i find the decay of language in modern society to be deplorable.