Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 28-11-2007, 17:14   #1
Registered User
 
S/V Illusion's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FLORIDA
Boat: Alden 50, Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 1,693
Recreational Boating Act of 2007

Some of you U.S. sailors may want to write in support of this legislation to your representatives in Congress


BoatUS.com: Government Affairs
__________________

__________________
S/V Illusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 11:29   #2
Registered User
 
S/V Illusion's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FLORIDA
Boat: Alden 50, Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 1,693
apparently, nobody cares...
__________________

__________________
S/V Illusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 11:53   #3
Registered User
 
Brandywine's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Napa, CA
Boat: Shopping for catamaran
Posts: 76

I would not say that BoatUS etc have been pushing this for a few months... I have not seen a status or odds recently.
__________________
Brandywine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 13:19   #4
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Boat: 1974 Columbia 41
Posts: 91
Images: 1
Personally, I dont believe there should be an exemption for recreational vessels. Considering the number of vessels out there, the environmental impact of unregulated discharges could be fairly large. Copper based paints regularly slough off and mix with the substrate of whatever body of water the vessel is located in. We use copper based paints because they deter aquatic and marine organisms from attaching to the boat. The same is likely happening with the sloughed off material found in the sediment, altering the habitat of the benthic invertebrates. Additionally, the EPA (under the Clean Water Act of 1973) is supposed to regulate the discharges from any point source. Any discharging source from a boat that contains chemicals, water from a different body of water, water of a different temperature, etc (by the Clean Water Act) is to be regulated. The problem is that we cannot process or cool our discharges onboard (without processing the discharges with expensive equipment). Regulating to the letter of the law would kill boating in general. I am opposed to regulating point source discharges from recreational boating, as a boater. The issue is that discharging grey water, bilge water, and even cleaning your boat is bad for the water's health. I am an aquatic biologist, so it would be benefitial to have these discharges stop or be regulated heavily. We will see how this issue plays out.
__________________
stoupidmonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 14:23   #5
Registered User
 
S/V Illusion's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FLORIDA
Boat: Alden 50, Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 1,693
There are too many people who think this is simply another piece of junk legislation or worse, there are some who think it may have some environmental benefit. Neither is the case. I personally believe passage is a slam-dunk but for some strange unforseeable reason, if it does not pass, we have a real problem far beyond the meager cost of paying for permits.
__________________
S/V Illusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 15:28   #6
Registered User
 
sluissa's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, FL, US
Boat: Westfield UK Kingfisher 20+ - Rabbit
Posts: 402
Images: 4
Send a message via AIM to sluissa
I say regulate the bigger problems first. Agricultural runoff, big corporations or even smaller businesses dumping things, raw city sewage and storm drain water being pumped directly into the water. Fix those and then go after the relatively clean boaters if you have to.
__________________
sluissa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 16:04   #7
Moderator Emeritus
 
Pblais's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hayes, VA
Boat: Gozzard 36
Posts: 8,700
Images: 15
Send a message via Skype™ to Pblais
Quote:
Personally, I don't believe there should be an exemption for recreational vessels.
Given you already have a USCG approved system for handling waste I fail to see the value of requiring a permit. This is a hold over from other legislation that deals with larger commercial vessles and they forgot to exclude the family boat. Local governemnt does not treat sewage as well as this.
__________________
Paul Blais
s/v Bright Eyes Gozzard 36
37 15.7 N 76 28.9 W
Pblais is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 16:15   #8
Registered User
 
S/V Illusion's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FLORIDA
Boat: Alden 50, Sarasota, Florida
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluissa View Post
I say regulate the bigger problems first. Agricultural runoff, big corporations or even smaller businesses dumping things, raw city sewage and storm drain water being pumped directly into the water. Fix those and then go after the relatively clean boaters if you have to.

Tell your congressman or senator, not us! We're already in agreement
__________________
S/V Illusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 22:46   #9
Moderator Emeritus
 
David M's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay
Boat: research vessel
Posts: 10,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by sluissa View Post
I say regulate the bigger problems first. Agricultural runoff, big corporations or even smaller businesses dumping things, raw city sewage and storm drain water being pumped directly into the water. Fix those and then go after the relatively clean boaters if you have to.
I have to agree sluissa,
During a few major storms last year and the previous year, I was off the San Francisco and EBMUD sewage outfalls taking samples for both of those utilities. I could smell the untreated sewage and see occasional solids up at the surface. At times I was literally floating in raw untreated sewage. I could see it, smell it and see the salinity change on my flow through system (which I subsequently had to shut down). To say the least, it was disgusting. The municipalities are FAR FAR greater polluters than all of the boats combined. They do normally treat their sewage, but during heavy rainfalls their treatment plants are overwhelmed to the point where they are only able to treat the larger solids....the rest goes untreated directly into the SF Bay (primary treatment)...normally there is secondary and tertiary treatment.

The money needs to go to the grossest of the polluters first if you want to effect the greatest bang for the buck.

In the San Joaquin Delta, pesticides and fertilizers are causing trouble for the phytoplankton and zooplankton....negatively affecting the food chain for all life in the SF Bay. And the government is more concerned about the yachties?

Besides, it is already illegal for all boaters to dump their poop in the water...yet these utilities can do the same exact thing but on a much more massive scale with absolutely no ramifications.

Where is the consistency, the logic and the bang for the buck? With the utilities pumping millions of gallons of crap into the SF Bay during each and every major rainfall, how is the licensing of yachties going to make any negligible difference? Take the same money that it is going to take to license, monitor and enforce this ridiculous licensing for boats and apply it towards upgrading the big sewage treatment plants.
__________________
David

Life begins where land ends.
David M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2007, 23:04   #10
Senior Cruiser
 
senormechanico's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2003
Boat: Dragonfly 1000 trimaran
Posts: 5,826
"Where is the consistency, the logic and the bang for the buck?"

Who needs consistency when you can get political "bang for the buck" by attacking those "rich boaters" in the media?

Steve B.
__________________
senormechanico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2007, 05:49   #11
Moderator Emeritus
 
Pblais's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hayes, VA
Boat: Gozzard 36
Posts: 8,700
Images: 15
Send a message via Skype™ to Pblais
Quote:
And the government is more concerned about the yachties?
It was the least they could do. That is the goal of governement after all.

This is actually a left over from a recent law addressing large commercial ships. They failed to designate which boats in the law it aplies to and so someone filed a court action that basically resulted a ruling that it applies to ALL boats NOW. This new bill fixes that blunder.

If this bill fails we all need discharge permits to drain the sink. I can't sum it up better than that. This is not about boat sewage. It was a law concerning gray water.

This isn't some goofy bill targeting recreational boats that we need to stop. It's already law today and this bill cleans up that legislative pollution. So it cannot get worse because it already is.
__________________

__________________
Paul Blais
s/v Bright Eyes Gozzard 36
37 15.7 N 76 28.9 W
Pblais is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Recreational Fishing Rules for the Bahamas ! CaptMarti Atlantic & the Caribbean 21 27-04-2007 01:17
President Bush signs SAFE port act ... sort of GordMay Off Topic Forum 1 13-12-2006 05:55
JONES ACT seagypsywoman General Sailing Forum 8 25-02-2006 09:21



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 16:12.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.