Our shrinking rights and the fight in Oriental NC

[Sand Castle]

Originally Posted by Wrong

I'll be nice and simply say I detect an air of arrogance.

So, if not wishing to potentially paddle in someone's waste products is "arrogant" - count me in. You win.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Sand Castle

The arrogance is not mine. That's pretty much from other cruisers I have read or talked to who WANT to anchor in Oriental, but feel a little afraid to do it - citing the boats.

My own experience is I paddle the area and became aware that one or more of the boats might not be pumping out at pump out, but in the harbor where I paddle.

So that's not arrogance, that's UGH!!!

What about the fish poop? Then there's the domesticated and wild animal poop that gets washed into the bay. Considering your aversion to poop maybe you should retire to playing pool or something. Paddling with poop of every sort around must be a mind numbing experience for you.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Doodles

I've seen some where it would be hard to distinguish.

Yeah, from your profile pic I can see what you mean.

[marujo.sortudo]

We were in Oriental twice this last year. Spent time at the dock at at anchor with the 3 boats at question in the inner harbor. In my assessment, the inner harbor has room for about 6 boats (YMMV, of course) protected from a good southerly blow. Of those 3 would be in the deeper water closer to the breakwater/channel and with possibly worse holding. 2 of the boats in question are in shoal enough water that I wouldn't want to take their place if I could with my 5' draft, but 4' would probably be fine. We chose to anchor in the outer harbor both times, because it was less crowded, mainly. We were there for a nice 20 knot blow from the south that lasted a couple of days, and it's definitely not a "choice" anchorage in such circumstances. The holding seemed adequate, though.

The red boat seems to be a big part of the problem: panhandling, lying, shoplifting, etc. Fortunately, when we were in Oriental we met lots of lovely folks and didn't get involved with any of this politics. There is also a movement to expand the free dockage available in Oriental which seems a much more constructive solution to this "problem.". Regardless, I do hope the Oriental somehow continues to be known for its hospitality to sailors, and not some kind of lame anchoring restrictions.

[marujo.sortudo]

Originally Posted by David M

I just don't see what the big fuss is over three ugly boats. Some people get their panties in a bunch far too easily.

+1

Oh and on the subject of waste, anyone truly concerned about sewage in the water would investigate were most of it comes from....the land. I seem to remember someone dumping a hundred hog carcasses in a creek somewhere in Pamlico County when I lived there in the early 90's, how's that for UGH?!?

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

Well, one answer might be that the only boats squawking about it in Oriental have been anchored since January and wash up on shore now and then.

Wrong The pink boat has not been there since January, or February, or March, it was moved there around April. I have not seen any of those boats washing up on shore.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by ShaktisBoy

Im not demanding anything Cat. Im saying the anchorage was there first. The town effectively stole it.

Unless it was a fluke of nature, it looks to me like someone built that breakwall, which makes it possible to anchor long-term in safety. Without that breakwall... that wouldn't be much of an anchorage.

So that point won't fly, sorry.

(btw, has it been mentioned whether the 3 boats in question pay any sort of fee at all? Cos if they're not, they definitely are imposing somewhat on the property-owners and renters of Oriental.)

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

Well....that's how it works on land.....why should the water be different?

How about Admiralty Law, Law of the Sea and more than 3000 years of convention going back before the Phoenician?

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

Then settle your boat away from a harbor that someone else pays to maintain. And land your plane away from houses.

Let me point you to the lease that Bainbridge has signed allowing them the right to administer Eagle harbor.

http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/d.../dnr_lease.pdf

Bainbridge does not own Eagle harbor. They lease it. And there are rules and requirements to the lease.

Sad that you think that you have more of an ownership in it than any other Washingtonian or Citizen.

Just don't want those squatters in your back yard.

[GothVanhellsing]

Originally Posted by Sand Castle

So, if not wishing to potentially paddle in someone's waste products is "arrogant" - count me in. You win.

Aaaaa one of the better strawman arguments, If you are Then pass a law that requires land based septic systems get inspected more often. It's fact that more then 85% of our water contamination comes from land. But don't take my (or the dnr's) word for it, just look at the water out in the middle of the harbor and then look at it near the shore. not to mention have you seen the large scale sand blasting out there lately? and lets not even get into the runoff water from people's lawns, and agro, all those chemicals and that pig poop goes somewhere when it rains. Maybe I don't want to be in water that has runoff from the weed killer people on land spray around their yards all the time.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by ShaktisBoy

Valhalla360 Heres the question , Why would you differenciate? Why do you care where or how someone choses to live? Is a liveaboard somehow on a lower station in life? What if he/she works shorside? It's ok for them to be harrased for the simple act of not conforming to your normal? meanwhile under your system someone lving in a house or apartment gets a pass even though he/she may be a total lowlife. I just dont get the predjudice.

My grandpa always told me I have no right to not be offended so dont lookif it offends you. He was wise.

Because there is a difference between cruising and someone taking up residence on a derilict boat. No different than when a city condems a house because it's not kept up or the taxes aren't paid.

We've always felt welcome anchoring out (even in supposedly cruiser hating florida) but we are actually cruising. Usually anchoring for a night or two a couple weeks at most.

So by your logic, if I have no right to be offended, the OP has no right to be offended that they are trying to get rid of derilick boats?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by David M

I just don't see what the big fuss is over three ugly boats. Some people get their panties in a bunch far too easily.

absolutely, +100. If its was or is legal to anchor there what is the issue, ( they dont like the look of you!!!). If there was shoplifting or whatever, then prosecute them , if not its only hearsay, innocent until proven guilty , remember that one.


This is just a worst case of NIMBYism, its the same argument used to create "gated" communities, segregation and elitism.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

So by your logic, if I have no right to be offended, the OP has no right to be offended that they are trying to get rid of derilick boats?

Who said they were derilick, I mean they have occupants, owners,etc. How are they derilick, They may be ugly but thats a different story.

dave

[Julie Mor]

der·e·lict
ˈderəˌlikt/
adjective
adjective: derelict
1. in a very poor condition as a result of disuse and neglect.
"The boats in the harbor were derelict and pink"

2. (of a person) shamefully negligent in not having done what one should have done.
"He was derelict in his duty to his county"

noun
noun: derelict; plural noun: derelicts
1.a person without a home, job, or property.
"Derelicts who could fit all their possessions in a small boat"

It's so easy to throw away as trash those who we do not like. We label them, then let the mob dispose of them. The idea of sharing or helping is rarely broached.

Our politicians voted thinking only of their own jobs and in doing so created a shift in wealth we haven't seen since the Great Depression. And once again, 50% of this country's wealth lay in the hands of the uber-rich. These same politicians cut the taxes so deeply that local, state and the federal government are going bankrupt.

In the meantime we are spending trillions fighting wars. And once again, those politicians who are in the pockets of defense contractors are happily spending our hard earned tax dollars to keep their campaign war chests fat.

Where's the outcry?

But here we have a fellow American (handicapped war vet?) possibly getting something for free and the outcry is deafening. And now Americans fight amongst themselves for the scraps our elected officials left behind. Why not turn that animosity towards the people who got us here in the first place?

[captain58sailin]

That would require in depth insight and thinking, few Americans have an attention span longer than the news cycle, and they believe what the TV tells them. If you wake up too many of the general population and have any influence over them, you will be labeled as a cult leader, terrorist, pick your term, and then executed.