Thanks for all the replies. It looks like it is permitted, so this is very good news. It seems like half the responses think it is a bad idea but I am not really sure why (except that it's boring to sail there)
To give some background, on why I made the previous comments, consider my experience in the
cape cod canal:
According to their rules you need auxillary
power (which I have in the form of very efficient oars) I can travel at 1.5 knots for hours + current if needed. I am also much more maneuverable than an inboard, I have the ability to turn as fast as an
outboard that can rotate because I can do turning strokes. I waited 3 days until the
wind was blowing 15 knots straight down the canal. I had a strong favorable current also as I entered 1 hours after the current switched.
I was making 7 knots over ground, and would be through the canal in about an hour. The canal patrol pulled up to me and told me to use an
engine. I explained that my auxillary
power was not an
engine, but oars. I was all the way on the right side of the canal, and in complete control and ability to maneuver. There was no reason I would not make it through without any problem to anyone.
Instead they freaked out, and got really upset, that I didn't want to cause pollution like the superyacht next to me that was bellowing black smoke. I said I was following the rules since it says "auxillary power" and mentions nothing about what form of power or how powerful etc. I also explained I had an
electric outboard I could use if required. I also stated that I could understand if they didn't want me tacking across the canal, but I was running wing and wing and maintaining a straight course right on the side of the canal so I would not cause problems.
They got really mad and said that I didn't know what the definition of auxillary power was. They then explained it had to be "internal combustion" and
electric isn't powerful enough. I protested to this, and the reply was "we have the authority to stop any vessel for any reason" which to me is basically admitting to abusing power. Then they stated: "YOU ARE DENIED, YOU WILL NOT TRANSIT THE CANAL, YOU WILL TURN BACK NOW etc etc" I explained I couldn't go against the 4
knot current, so they told me to take a
mooring on the side, and wait for tide to change which I did. 6 hours later I had to tack 20 times to go back out of the canal and sail an extra 30 hours for no reason.
It turned out ok, because I caught a lot of
fish around
cape cod and made lots of jerky, but wow, I must be lucky that I am not one of these guys, what a miserable job.
Now apparently, the C&D canal is different. It sounds like as long as I can stay all the way on the side the whole time, and am alert and able to maneuver (1.5 knots over
water speed even if the
wind dies) then it would be impossible to actually have any problems.
I would not choose to go through against the wind, but if I somehow needed to, consider that if any ship comes along and gives me less space than the 30 meters I need to tack, and the wind is more than 20 knots so I cannot row against it, I can just turn around and run with the wind while the ship passes and maintain complete control and maneuverability.
For this reason, I think sailing and using oars should always be permitted and encouraged in canals, because it can never actually cause a problem.
As for the 4ft waves that the ships leave behind them.. I somehow doubt this, but I'm really not at all concerned by it even if they did make such waves. Keep in mind, I am more maneuverable (less vulernerable to currents spinning me) than a
boat with an inboard. I can actually turn in place.
Anyone who were to transit relying on the engine, is much more likely to cause a problem than I would, so logically this should be discouraged. engines are not very reliable compared to oars. A lot of times something gets sucked into the impeller or so I have heard plenty of stories about random engine problems.