rules for c&d canal?

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

It's a good analogy. In this case, the bicycle poses no danger to anyone else, the same as the sailboat free of engines. Going faster significantly increases the chances of injury.

This explains it all.

You spent your whole life abusing the environment by enabling only the richest people in the world to do what they should not do; traveling in the least efficient way and spoiling many destinations that would be interesting and exotic if it were not for air travel.

The vast majority of humans in the world have never and will never be allowed to fly, but they must pay for it with a degraded and polluted environment. Many islands are disappearing where the inhabitants do not use air travel.

Air travel is an environmental disaster.

It is really serious irony to accuse me of something like environmental disaster, when you are doing basically everything to ruin the environment.

Massive self righteous ego on display ..... unsubscribed.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

He obviously realized he wasn't going to be in compliance with the clearly written rule but thinks that the fact he got away with it makes it OK. I agree that it's far from the most horrible thing one can do in a sailboat but it's a pretty good example of how rationalizing why stretching the existing rule is OK for (special) you to do causes more and more rules to be written. If enough people try this, short tacking endlessly up the side of the canal as he did without an auxiliary engine as backup, one of them will get tired of so many damn tacks and be tempted to stray out in the middle just when the wind dies or swirls unpredictably and a large, oncoming vessel appears and there's suddenly a problem that he didn't intend to cause and feels just terrible about afterwards. Then, all sailboats will get a bad name and the bureaucrats will have endless hearings and pass even more restrictive rules that will apply to all recreational sailors wanting to use the canal and we'll all complain about how more unreasonable those rules are.

Yep,just one more example of the "dirty wake" around the world that has been gleefully described in previous threads.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

It's a good analogy. In this case, the bicycle poses no danger to anyone else, the same as the sailboat free of engines. Going faster significantly increases the chances of injury.

This explains it all.

You spent your whole life abusing the environment by enabling only the richest people in the world to do what they should not do; traveling in the least efficient way and spoiling many destinations that would be interesting and exotic if it were not for air travel.

The vast majority of humans in the world have never and will never be allowed to fly, but they must pay for it with a degraded and polluted environment. Many islands are disappearing where the inhabitants do not use air travel.

Air travel is an environmental disaster.

It is really serious irony to accuse me of something like environmental disaster, when you are doing basically everything to ruin the environment.

I am with you when it comes to the environmental degredation we can see everywhere on the planet now. I get it. I grew up with a father who was a passionate and well-known environmentalist and he railed about it everyday. His life's mission was to save the wild places. He used to say, only half-jokingly, we could solve the air pollution problem if everyone on the planet would just hold their breath for ten minutes. He considered the destruction we see all around nothing less than desecration. I share your anger.
But to be affective you must pick the right targets. What we are all doing, not just pilots, is contributing to a less livable planet daily. So cut us all a little slack, many of us, including pilots, would very much like to do our part, and ARE doing our part, to improve things. That said, may I chime in on your post?
What you have accomplished is remarkable by any standard. You have seen the planet at a level of intimacy very few will ever know. The love you have for the sea and planet as a whole is something most have not been lucky enough to experience. But you now risk spoiling a tremendous gift you have been given and that you now could have for us all. As you come in from the wilderness, don't blow it now by coming in carrying nothing from the experience for us except a bitter contempt for civilization that your post suggests.
By your accomplishment now, you have a voice that many will listen to. If there was a mission and meaning to your journey and method of travel, beyond perhaps something like the "because it was there" of George Mallory, and I hope there was, then I humbly suggest, bring it to light with the most positive and compelling eloquence you can and leave most of the insults on the cutting room floor. Save a few for only those who truly deserve it. My admonishment to you comes because I, selfishly I freely admit, would like to see you build on your accomplishment now and not waste this teachable moment for all of us. There are many willing to listen.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

That's just silliness. First, name an island that's disappeared and
prove it had anything whatsoever to do with airplanes.

I will not "prove" this; but denying obvious evidence to defend your own behavior is ridiculous.

Islands around the world are disappearing from rising sea levels. airplanes are a major cause of this.

if you can afford a computer to post on this forum you are among the "richest"

My raspberry pi was donated to me, but even affording this does not make me among the "richest people in the world" I found that even in very poor villages people have laptops and smartphones, but they never did fly. I do not buy plane tickets neither.

The majority of people never fly in airplanes, but are forced to live with the negative effects caused by them.

but I didn't want to use it because I'd hit a big crab buoy with my prop and it was vibrating uncomfortably above about 1000 RPM. But if needed, it was available for use, all I had to do was to put it in gear and grit my teeth to endure the vibration, so that's a little different
so sure the prop was mangled that I didn't think it would be worthwhile.

you were confident you could use your "partially fouled" prop if needed?

It sounds a lot less reliable than a sculling oar.

Canals are man made structures and I think it's reasonable for those who built them and control them have rules to prevent that expensive canal from being damaged and also to make sure all users can do their part to avoid colliding with each other. They've got to draw the line somewhere so all traffic is reasonably compatible with all other traffic and it seems appropriate to me to require something more than oars be used as auxiliary power in order to achieve that.

if oars are inadequate, what exactly is "adequate"? The term "auxillary power" is not very specific.

Since you appear to understand engines better than oars, you should assume my sculling oar is equivalent to a 2hp outboard. After all, I can scull against 15 knots of wind, not (just a few knots) Is this inadequate? What if I installed long oars and a sliding seat, allowing me to move against 20 knots of wind? What exactly is adequate?

What makes an unreliable engine with a propeller than could foul at any moment more adequate than a powerful and maneuverable oar?

Also, to avoid a collision it might be necessary to use your auxiliary to maneuver into the wind.

In #68 I already explained how I can always avoid any ship in all cases. I don't need engine ever for this.

You continue to bring up futile points suggesting somehow that oars are inadequate without any basis. This is telling me only that _you_ would not feel comfortable using only the oars.

This is great, because I think we have come to the bottom of this whole thing. The person making the rules feel confident with an engine and not oars, despite the fact that actual sailors feel completely the opposite.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

Well i would find some more commercial mariners for your research, the hierarchy in this situation is and always has been human life before the environment, you will not find any rules, advises or documentation whatsoever suggesting that intentionally killing someone to prevent environmental damage is the preferred option.

There are no jail times hanging over any professional mariner that would cause him/her to chose the environment over human life.....

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as no doubt were many the comments I received. I don't doubt that most people would even go to jail rather than kill someone, but what I posted was intended to highlight what kind of position you might be putting the commercial mariner in.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

True, civil disobedience is sometimes appropriate and it is often tough to define just when it is justified, but can't we all agree that the bar is somewhere higher than mere convenience or the whim of a sailor preferring one routing over another equally safe one (to him), especially when the potential consequences of his civil disobedience to others are so terrible to consider. A ship aground or a collision or ruptured hull in the C&D Canal would have very wide ranging negative repercussions for many other people and creatures who live there. When you weigh the potential risk versus what this sailor gained, do you REALLY think this particular act of civil disobedience was "spot on?" I don't.

I didn't say the act of civil disobedience was "spot on". I wasn't there and didn't see it. If Sean was sailing safely and not impeding commercial traffic -- if his skills and the circumstances allowed him to fullfill the COLREGS -- then I don't personally have a problem with what he did. Nor do I have a problem with those who do have a problem. This is not a cut and dried situation so my opinion is no more valid or interesting than yours is. As to civil disobedience in general -- who is to judge? I think that the person exercising civil disobedience is the only one who can judge -- and they "buy" this right by being willing to cheerfully accept whatever punishment they get. As to the role of civil disobedience in society -- read Thoreau. I don't actually agree with Sean that internal combustion engines are so evil; in fact I actually think that this argument can only be made from the point of view of great privilege and lack of experience with real deprivation. In my humble opinion, internal combustion engines make the world go round and improve the lives of pretty much all of mankind, including billions of less privileged people, including such things as even bringing food to the very poorest of people who might starve if there were only ox carts, rather than battered Daewoo light trucks, to get the rice to their villages. But I respect Sean's opinions and defend his right to express them even through civil disobedience.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

.....

It is really serious irony to accuse me of something like environmental disaster, when you are doing basically everything to ruin the environment.

Said by the man sailing a hand hewn all timber vessel built with no fossil fuels. Pretty selective outrage.

[hpeer]

Don
That was a great post.

My Dad used to take me places and say “I just want to show you this before it is gone.”

And now the whol region I grew up in is unrecognizable in many, many ways. Largely is is now “gone.”

I’ve just spent some time in a boatyard full of grumpy old men, had to get out fast.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

It is really serious irony to accuse me of something like environmental disaster, when you are doing basically everything to ruin the environment.

I think it the height of arrogance to make this accusation. You are not immune from "ruining the environment".

Unless you have a wood boat made with stone tools, with no paint, no nails or metal fasteners, sails made from bark (not even cotton that requires a lot of pesticides and fertilizer to grow) use no electricity in any form and no electronics you are contributing to the environmental degradation and carbon emissions on the earth. Don't forget to eat only organic, locally grown food and stick with a pure, plant based diet.

Electronics and the batteries require toxic chemicals to manufacture. The rare earth elements used in electronics come from large mines that generate lots of contaminants and pollution. The manufacturing of solar cells likewise uses toxic chemicals and comes with an environmental impact.

Everyone has to accept the fact that just the fact that we are living on this planet comes with an environmental cost.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In my humble opinion, internal combustion engines make the world go round and improve the lives of pretty much all of mankind, including billions of less privileged people, including such things as even bringing food to the very poorest of people who might starve if there were only ox carts, rather than battered Daewoo light trucks, to get the rice to their villages.

Good explanation.

The engine can do a lot of good things; I support ambulances having them. I think they are often abused and misused. Do combustion engines really have a place on cruising sailboats? I don't see it.

I think it the height of arrogance to make this accusation. You are not immune from "ruining the environment".

You are right. I am sorry for this.

However, I am tired of the same argument repeated over again that because I myself and causing pollution, then it's perfectly fine for someone else to cause much more in inefficient and unnecessary ways.

[malbert73]

Boat alexandra- where are you at? In the blizzard? Hope youre staying warm in this cold snap...

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Boat alexandra- where are you at? In the blizzard? Hope youre staying warm in this cold snap...

She's iced in no doubt. The bright side is she has virtually no carbon footprint in that state.

[kmacdonald]

Latest info!!!!!!!!!
I sailed part of the C & D canal a few weeks ago. No problems at all. Coast Guard went by and waved as well as several ships. Current was about a knot and a half or two in my favor of course.