European Impressions of Cruising the US

[CaptTom]

I love the way this thread has meandered from a friendly shout-out to day shapes, mooring balls, customs and immigration, even world history!

[hellosailor]

"There are a great many designated anchorages in the US but very few special anchorages"
Actually, here in NY the charts refer yo to the pilot books, which explain that there are "general anchorages" (requiring a light and watch etc.) and "special anchorages" which typically are town mooring fields, not requiring any lighting, shapes, or watch, but usually requiring a permit or payment to the "harbormaster" or whoever is in charge.
This is part of a legacy that may confuse foreigners, as it confuses many natives. SOME of the underwater bottomland is privately owned, dating back to various Crown titles. Some of it is federally owned. Some of that was actually sold to various municipalities in order to raise moeny for WW2 Liberty Bonds. The bottom line (pun intended) is that it isn't all uniform or obviously logical.

As to Canadian guests...I've heard from a number of Canadian snowbirds that they CAN'T be out of Canada for more than 180 days per year, six months, because one day longer than that and they lose all their medical coverage for the year, as they are now considered "non-resident" for the entire year.

Boatpoker, other savages from the North, please do feel to correct me if I've been misinformed on that.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

However ... going back to what was said on the CBP website ... if you're going to ask for more than six months in a year you will probably be asked to prove that you are just a temporary visitor to the USA and still a genuine Canadian resident ... and that will be up to the CBP officer to assess. This, and the fact that you may have to file a US tax return if you stay more than six months, is probably why the general wisdom is "keep it less than six months".

Note Carsten and Vinni were there for 9 months. It's easy enough to prove a closer connection to your home country, and the IRS has a form for that - tourists are allowed to be in the US for up to a year without being required to file taxes there.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Note Carsten and Vinni were there for 9 months. It's easy enough to prove a closer connection to your home country, and the IRS has a form for that - tourists are allowed to be in the US for up to a year without being required to file taxes there.

True, but it might be harder to prove if everything you own is wrapped up in the boat or RV you're travelling with ... and probably impossible for snowbirds who try to do it several years in a row.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Canada and the US - Brothers and sisters.



Most other countries do not understand just how close the bond is between us.



Many of our own people have never thought about it. But if Canada was attacked the US people would react in full outrage and ... woe be unto you.



Canadians are much alike. For example when Pearl Harbor was attacked, Canada declared war. Much the same for 9/11.

This bond is indeed strong, with an indicator being the good-natured ribbing that is traded with my maple syrup brothers to the north.

I just left a sports bar in California tonight where the local Americans were ALL cheering for the Canadian Olympic speed skater and the Canadian curling team, lol. Oddly, both matches were against Norway. No, we Americans don't hate Norway. We just love us some Canadians! (unless we meet up in the Olympics, of course)

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "I've heard from a number of Canadian snowbirds that they CAN'T be out of Canada for more than 180 days per year, six months, because one day longer than that and they lose all their medical coverage for the year"

Nearly right :-) It varies from province to province because according to our Constitution which is merely a modern codification of the British North America Act, health care is specified to be a provincial responsibility. In B.C. the number of (calendar) months you can be out of province - which includes being in other Canadian provinces - is five.

TP

[ThomD]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

And it’s easy to shape this behaviour. Just stick a speed camera on every road.

It’s amazing how quickly people respect the law when it is actually enforced. But few politicians have the guts to do this.

Welcome to the future. I think the other issue is there is no justification for really high fines if they no longer form a deterrent as the cameras are omnipotent. Which should create an expectation that fines will go down in proportion to the enforcement gains, but that would leave a hole in budgets.

[ThomD]

Originally Posted by astokel

I'm a European who lives in Canada. Thank you for your post. It is something I have wanted address for at least a year.

Without a doubt, Americans are the most gracious of neighbours. I too have been offered rides to the supermarket and even the use of their cars from time to time.

It is truly sad that I no longer feel welcome in America. Yes, I am sure if I did visit, that citizens would offer free dockage and a warm welcome as usual, but recent developments have left me, as many others, feeling alienated from our closest neighbour.

Sad.

If you leave out the Trump related nonsense (mind our own business), the main issue to me are the degree to which the US border experience has changed, and the severe risks around that. Plus being on the ICW means you are within the 100 mile limits the whole way, I would imagine, so you are in a rights free limbo the whole way to the extent that there are losses of rights at the border. I have some long posts salted away about this. I think some people are good at keeping up with all the paper and rules, and other people aren't, and until someone wins a court case under the Americans With Disabilities act for those of us not sufficiently right-brained, or brained, it will remain uncomfortable.

Other than that, the only anecdotes about alienation I regularly hear are from families whose kids get scholarships to US universities (our contemporaries are at that stage with their children), and discover masses of armed, rifle carrying or CCW students when they go to check out the campus, and come scurrying back home. You can imagine the kinds of places, and then you wonder "Hockey"?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by ThomD

Welcome to the future. I think the other issue is there is no justification for really high fines if they no longer form a deterrent as the cameras are omnipotent. Which should create an expectation that fines will go down in proportion to the enforcement gains, but that would leave a hole in budgets.

Not sure I understand your point. This comment of mine is from an earlier drift on this thread regarding dangerous driving. The point I was making is that it is erratic speed (and associated aggressive driving behaviour) that is the cause of most accidents, not speed per se.

When everyone drives at the same speed, be it slow or fast, the highways are much safer. So the best thing to do is drive AT the speed limit. But without enforcement, some will decide they have the right to drive faster (or slower). This behaviour is encouraged b/c most enforcement is so erratic and sporadic.

A number of years ago the Ontario government installed speed cameras along North America’s busiest highway: the 401 through Toronto. Immediately produced a big drop in average speeds. And more importantly, significantly reduced the number of accidents.

Of course there was a massive political backlash, which helped bring the provincial government down. Point is though, it worked from a accident-reduction standpoint.

I’m not in favour of expanded public surveillance — there is way too much already. But it also pisses me off that some people feel it is their dog-given right to drive as fast or as erratically as they want.

[hellosailor]

Mike-
Speeding laws and speeding limits actually should be seen as a demonstration of how deceptive 'statistics' can be. When the US government proudly pointed out how changing from 65 mph to 55 mph for our national speed limit had saved something like 10% of highway fatalities...The New York Times went over the toll revenues from the NYS Thruway, and confirmed that while deaths had gone done, the actual number of miles driven had gone down by twice as much in that same year. Meaning, the actual death rate had INCREASED with the lower speed limit. Perhaps coincidental, perhaps cause and effect. But just looking at the numbers provided exactly the wrong "obvious" conclusion.
And logically, you could easily make the point that a 20 mph speed limit would be safer still. At 20 mph almost all accidents can be survivable, so what if you can't travel cross-country in a day? There are professional services (rains and planes) that can do that for you.



Until the insanity following JFK's assassination, most US high schools AND colleges used to have shooting teams. This was considered a proper and appropriate sport, since shooting (biathlon) was and is an Olympic sport, and marksmanship training was considered a matter of national defense.

Folks are mainly unaware that our NRA was not founded for political purposes. Rather, it was founded by two Union Army officers after our Civil War. Both were very upset that draftees for that war were such incredibly poor marksmen, and how badly that affected Union losses, that they founded the NRA to yes, ensure draftees would already have some familiarity with firearms.

I also know a variety of universities that had a full range of "Olympic" sports including javelin throwing. Until there was an unfortunate impalement and someone decided sharp pointy things should not be at gymnasiums or sporting fields.

The Olympic sports were, and mainly still are, COMBAT SPORTS designed to showcase combat skills. And our national football....If that's not still a defanged combat sport?

All part and parcel. Shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

As to Canadian guests...I've heard from a number of Canadian snowbirds that they CAN'T be out of Canada for more than 180 days per year, six months, because one day longer than that and they lose all their medical coverage for the year, as they are now considered "non-resident" for the entire year.

Boatpoker, other savages from the North, please do feel to correct me if I've been misinformed on that.

Health care is a Provincial matter, not federal so each Province is slightly different but .... generally correct.

When leaving Ontario to cruise south we are supposed to report it to Government Services Ontario

[ThomD]

Originally Posted by carstenb

by the by - I've seen wolves before a number of times so I do know what one looks like - we saw wolves

What about Wolfotees. The cross. We have Coyotes in the neighbourhood, but they are like small deer in size. We have wolves further north. I have never been with someone who could identify a cross, but dang those yotes are big.

[boatpoker]

I am going to get out my crystal ball here and predict that the number of Canadian cruisers US waters is going to decrease significantly in the coming years. That is a sad thing for the incredible NY State Canal System which would be virtually empty if not for Canadians. It will be a sad thing for the all the marinas, marine electricians, refrigeration technicians, mechanics and small town restaurants that benefit from the snow birds moving north and south with the seasons.

For over 25yrs we have been treated like long lost family in US waters by small town America and our trip south last year was no different.

The difference lies with Homeland Security. Ever since USCG Customs and Immigration were brought together under CPB and thus Homeland Security there has been a slow but gradual change in attitude towards Canadian Cruisers with a dramatic change occurring about 16 months ago.

These restrictive rules on cruisers have been in the Code of Federal Regulations since the early 60's but I had never experienced their application until the fall of 2016 while heading south. Almost overnight these rules
were applied not only rigorously but with callous venom. Being threatened because we moved from one end of an anchorage to another to escape wind. Having to call in to CPB everytime we stopped the boat. Getting a written notice of violation with threat of a $5,000 fine and/or vessel seizure because we could not get a cell signal to call in. Given a list of phone numbers to call, many of which were "no longer in service", some of which never answered the phone. When trying to explain these issues to the next CPB officer we managed to contact, the response was "that/s not my problem". Yes, according to the CPB website, the individual officer has the power to give exemptions on these rules. Thats a little funny because no bureaucrat is going to go out on that limb. Having delivered boats between Canada and Florida for 25yrs. I have had many interactions with USCG over the years and once even had a boat I was delivering arrested. Through it all your USCG were polite, courteous, professional and often downright friendly. Your CPB are a different kettle of fish altogether .... with a couple of exceptions most were (insert your own imaginative negative adjectives here) people.

We have experienced nothing but generosity and warmth from the American public for more than 25 years of cruising. Fortunately in our minds we can separate the American people from their Government who apparently no longer wants us spending our retirement income in your country.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Mike-
Speeding laws and speeding limits actually should be seen as a demonstration of how deceptive 'statistics' can be. When the US government proudly pointed out how changing from 65 mph to 55 mph for our national speed limit had saved something like 10% of highway fatalities...The New York Times went over the toll revenues from the NYS Thruway, and confirmed that while deaths had gone done, the actual number of miles driven had gone down by twice as much in that same year. Meaning, the actual death rate had INCREASED with the lower speed limit. Perhaps coincidental, perhaps cause and effect. But just looking at the numbers provided exactly the wrong "obvious" conclusion.
And logically, you could easily make the point that a 20 mph speed limit would be safer still. At 20 mph almost all accidents can be survivable, so what if you can't travel cross-country in a day? There are professional services (rains and planes) that can do that for you.

HS, I’m pointedly NOT saying lower speed limits are good, or bad. It’s a physical fact that impacts at lower speeds reduce mobility and mortality rates, but I’m unaware of any research that shows speed reduction (or increases) changes accident rates much.

The point I was making is that most accidents are caused by erratic driving, not speed. So it doesn’t really matter what the speed limit is, as long as everyone is driving at that level. Since we can’t read each other’s minds, the best way to communicate to all drivers is via posted signage.

If everyone just drove the limit — whatever that limit is — then it would better for all.

[ThomD]

Originally Posted by cyan

If the greatest invasion (with the largest armada) in the history of the world is merely listed among events of a "nasty mopping-up operation" .... well the best advice would be to search for that history book receipt. Hopefully it was Amazon. They are pretty easy to deal with.

You have answered your own question, It was the greatest seaborn invasion in history, and was able to grab a beachead. 156 000 stretched over 50 miles. Compare that to 34 million with a land bridge to Germany.