Saga of the Sunken Sailboat - from Start to Sunk

[Kettlewell]

I've gone on record here of supporting the idea of reasonable time restrictions on anchoring. This case, and specifically how all the officials claimed to be powerless to do anything about it, only proves my point. Just one rule limiting days at anchor in one spot would have given them the authority they needed to resolve this back in the fall.

I don't think officials are really powerless. They don't want to deal with the hassles of inspecting boats, telling people to leave, and then having to arrest those that don't. How would an anchoring time limit work? Who would do the timing? I can't imagine the amount of time and effort it would take for someone to record daily the movements of hundreds of anchored boats. And, then the evidence would have to be good enough to hold up in court. In New England most harbors have a harbormaster with seemingly immense powers to tell people they can't anchor. More than once I have been told to leave a perfectly good spot because the harbormaster didn't want me there. Frankly, the same thing has happened to me in Florida with harbormasters too. I was once anchored several hundred feet off of a marina and they told me to move because I was too close. When I argued with the guy he told me I would be arrested if I didn't move. Not saying this is the ideal solution, but there seem to be available laws that work, even in Florida, when they bother to enforce them.

[CaptTom]

Wow. I've only visited the PNW, never ran a boat there. I had no idea BC is having the same problem as Florida. But it makes sense. Wherever housing prices spike, some people are going to get the idea that living on a boat is cheaper than living ashore.

Interesting that they have a volunteer "Dead Boats Disposal Society." Not sure how that would work in the US. First, who would volunteer? But mostly, I can't imagine the legal red tape involved in even touching an abandoned or derelict boat, let alone removing it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

...
Interesting that they have a volunteer "Dead Boats Disposal Society." Not sure how that would work in the US. First, who would volunteer? But mostly, I can't imagine the legal red tape involved in even touching an abandoned or derelict boat, let alone removing it.

The Dead Boats Disposal Society [DBDS] ➥ https://deadboatsdisposalsociety.ca/

Contact DBDS ➥ https://deadboatsdisposalsociety.ca/contact-us/
Tel: 250-383-2086
Email: thedeadboatsociety@gmail.com

[Sailshabby]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Well, now you know how the folks in Florida feel. Except there are thousands of derelicts, instead of just the one.

OK, that was snarky. Sorry. It's a truly sad story all around. Sad for a once-proud boat. Sad for the previous owner. Sad for the local residents and boaters. And, despite all the pain they caused, sad for the owner. As we've discussed endlessly in the various Florida and Georgia anchoring legislation threads, there are no easy solutions.

I don’t subscribe to the “sad for the owner” narrative. The owner willingly put himself in this position and, if I understand the whole story, has pretty much walked away from dealing with the consequences.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Sailshabby

I don’t subscribe to the “sad for the owner” narrative. The owner willingly put himself in this position and, if I understand the whole story, has pretty much walked away from dealing with the consequences.

Mental illness, addiction or other causes of this sort of behavior are always sad.

Yes, it's frustrating that some people simply can't learn that there are consequences for their actions. Especially when those actions affect others. Sometimes it's downright infuriating. I think these people should be held to account to the fullest extent possible.

But it's still sad there are people like this.

[desodave]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Wow. I've only visited the PNW, never ran a boat there. I had no idea BC is having the same problem as Florida. But it makes sense. Wherever housing prices spike, some people are going to get the idea that living on a boat is cheaper than living ashore.

Interesting that they have a volunteer "Dead Boats Disposal Society." Not sure how that would work in the US. First, who would volunteer? But mostly, I can't imagine the legal red tape involved in even touching an abandoned or derelict boat, let alone removing it.

It is cheaper especially when you put nothing (or very little) into the boat's upkeep. Our BC housing costs (inc rents) are among the highest in Canada and a lack of affordable housing drives people to find some kind of affordable accommodation ... and living on an old boat beats being joining the homeless population on shore. A few may have addiction or mental health issues but I believe that those are in a minority of the liveaboards.

But its not just old boats that people have been living on. The potential derelict can be from the death or incapacitation of a single person or spouse. Or the PO could have suffered some other financial or personal crisis that leaves them unable to deal with their boat. Or we've got the individual arrogance or ignorance that Kettlewell described.

Unfortunately there are social consequences as others have said. People have individual freedoms that we want to preserve but they can ultimately lead to those negative consequences. So the issue becomes how we can balance maintaining those freedoms and deal with the consequences.

There are three levels of government in Canada that are involved. Local government has very little power (if any) but is often the first involved on behalf of local residents. The DBDS has risen out of that frustration imo. The Federal gov't controls navigation and anything on the water while the Province of BC owns the seabed and controls the foreshore (BC owning the seabed stems from a long ago court decision specific to our Province). Enviro issues on and in the water are federal, on the land or the seabed are provincial. Boats are licenced/registered by the federal gov't but old boats are often transferred without an update of that system ... there is no ongoing enforcement as there is with vehicles. It quickly becomes a jurisdictional nightmare to remove a derelict.

There has been a push to amend federal legislation regarding the problem of derelicts, but a sizable proportion of our legislators ( and the public imo) think that it can be solved with increased financial penalties. Given what causes most of the problem that notion is misguided imo. It requires governments working together to protect our watercourses and imo putting some limits on the freedoms individuals have. They also have to put the resources into solving the problem, removing those derelicts. Or in the case of the original subject of this thread, overriding the stupidity/arrogance of the boat owner.

There also has to be a more accessible way of disposing of old boats past their usable life and funding that process. A bit more contained for us in BC ... it's only one provincial gov't with the same coastline unlike the east coast of Canada or the USA. I don't have a magical answer but its a problem that's only going to grow unless we address it in a meaningful way.

[Island Time O25]

IMO not dealing with abandoned boats is the perfect example of the gov't not doing its job. How would we like if the same gov't would say - "too many criminals, too expensive to catch and imprison them all"? Oh, wait...

One of the easiest solutions would be to set up a separate "derelict boat removal fund" dedicated to that purpose. Not part of any other general budget. Funded by X% fee on ALL boats sold, both new and used. Including dingies, kayaks, etc. Similar to bottle deposits. The fee would refunded if/when the last boat owner produced evidence of proper private disposal, including a boat junk yard operator who had the boat last. Thus creating some incentive for proper disposal.

I personally believe that the incessant drive to own the newest boat on the block is greatly contributing to the problem. We need to de-insentivize this obsession when perfectly well preserved used boats are there for sale at a fraction of the cost of new ones. We need to insentivise bringing used boats to Bristol condition and to de-insentivise purchase of new boats. That would go a long way toward cleaning up a lot of problems - from environmental polution to boat derelicts on the waterways. Btw that should also apply to cars, houses, equipment, etc. We talk the environmental talk but we don't walk the environmental walk.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

...One of the easiest solutions would be to set up a separate "derelict boat removal fund" dedicated to that purpose. Not part of any other general budget. Funded by X% fee on ALL boats sold, both new and used...

A good idea. But like all good ideas, it has some practical limitations. First of all, giving any government a new revenue stream needs to be approached with caution. "Taxing those rich boaters" is a politically safe position. And a pot full of money just waiting for someone in the future to claim it is irresistible to any politician.

Then there are all the private sales of old boats which have been gathering dust in someone's back yard. The owners may have gotten ill, decided boating wasn't for them, or even died. When someone shows up with cash to take it off their (or their heirs') hands, the owners are not motivated to file a lot of paperwork.

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

...I personally believe that the incessant drive to own the newest boat on the block is greatly contributing to the problem....Btw that should also apply to cars, houses, equipment, etc. We talk the environmental talk but we don't walk the environmental walk.

I'm 100% with you on this one. I hate to see old boats, houses, cars, and especially structures like historic mill buildings and barns, abandoned and left to rot. I guess I was just brought up not to let things "go to waste."

But again, there are practical issues. Sometimes the economics doesn't justify restoring an old vessel, vehicle or structure. It's sad, but inevitable.

I wish there were boat junkyards, like we used to have for cars back in the days when people would actually do their own auto repairs. We'd walk around the yard looking for a vehicle with the part we needed, remove the part and pay the guy on our way out. Again, the economics just don't work any more. Never mind the fact that nobody bothers doing their own maintenance anymore, be it cars, boats or houses.

[deblen]

Latest news-politicians now involved
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...k_1640_1542014


Note to US readers: In Canada,Conservative politicians wear blue and Liberal politicians wear red.
Cheers/Len

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

A good idea. But like all good ideas, it has some practical limitations. First of all, giving any government a new revenue stream needs to be approached with caution. "Taxing those rich boaters" is a politically safe position. And a pot full of money just waiting for someone in the future to claim it is irresistible to any politician.

Then there are all the private sales of old boats which have been gathering dust in someone's back yard. The owners may have gotten ill, decided boating wasn't for them, or even died. When someone shows up with cash to take it off their (or their heirs') hands, the owners are not motivated to file a lot of paperwork.



I'm 100% with you on this one. I hate to see old boats, houses, cars, and especially structures like historic mill buildings and barns, abandoned and left to rot. I guess I was just brought up not to let things "go to waste."

But again, there are practical issues. Sometimes the economics doesn't justify restoring an old vessel, vehicle or structure. It's sad, but inevitable.

I wish there were boat junkyards, like we used to have for cars back in the days when people would actually do their own auto repairs. We'd walk around the yard looking for a vehicle with the part we needed, remove the part and pay the guy on our way out. Again, the economics just don't work any more. Never mind the fact that nobody bothers doing their own maintenance anymore, be it cars, boats or houses.

Precisely. That's why incentives would help. Not in all situations but "some" would be better than "none".

As far as the old school boatyards we still have them in New England but for how long that's another question. As their older owners die or retire their children cash out selling valuable waterfront to developers. The yard I use for winter storage, not waterfront but close, was halfed in size a few years ago when the owners sold some of the land to a self storage company who promptly put up a 5 story building.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by deblen

Latest news-politicians now involved
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...k_1640_1542014


Note to US readers: In Canada,Conservative politicians wear blue and Liberal politicians wear red.
Cheers/Len

I still can't understand why the US right is using for ID what the rest of the world considers communistic red.

[Hartleyg]

Island Time: "I still can't understand why the US right is using for ID what the rest of the world considers communistic red.


Actually, it was the TV networks that made that decision - initially, Republicans were Blue, Democrats were Red during election coverage, but sometime in the 1970s, they decided to switch.