Would mandatory licensing change things?

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Not acccording to the ColRegs.

(d) The term vessel engaged in fishing means any vessel
fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability.

This only one of 47 references to fishing boats in ColRegs.

Read it yourself:

The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.

So how is a dingy with a net -- not a vessel fishing with a net? Or are you arguing that a dingy is not a vessel?

Hauling up or placing crab pots with a dingy would also qualify in my interpretation. People do that a lot around my waters.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Pete17C

in the realm of statistics, more miles on a particular boat = more likely to have a claim (more use increases likelihood of claim and why they ask how many miles/yr with auto insurance)

I don't know if experience/training is enough to counter that. Just ask a couple Navy captains.

I see your point, I was more getting at the never stepped foot on a boat before but buys a big one, calls themselves cap'tn and causes havoc vs someone who actual has experience.

Over here, beginner car drivers pay high insurance premiums.
Those who have driven for a long time with no claims pay less.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Read it yourself:

The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.

So how is a dingy with a net -- not a vessel fishing with a net? Or are you arguing that a dingy is not a vessel?

Hauling up or placing crab pots with a dingy would also qualify in my interpretation. People do that a lot around my waters.

I have often dragged shrimp nets behind my dinghy and was never restricted in my ability to manouver.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Read it yourself:

The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.

So how is a dingy with a net -- not a vessel fishing with a net? Or are you arguing that a dingy is not a vessel?

Hauling up or placing crab pots with a dingy would also qualify in my interpretation. People do that a lot around my waters.

the part you seem to keep missing is "Restricted maneuverability " the only time that a dingy pulling a net would be restricted is a purse seiner net tender.
Also when pulling pots the pleasure vessel is not restricted in maneuvering . I am usually drifting when actually pulling my post.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by cpt_pat

Read it yourself:
The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.
So how is a dingy with a net -- not a vessel fishing with a net? Or are you arguing that a dingy is not a vessel?

Hauling up or placing crab pots with a dingy would also qualify in my interpretation. People do that a lot around my waters.

Originally Posted by newhaul

the part you seem to keep missing is "Restricted maneuverability " the only time that a dingy pulling a net would be restricted is a purse seiner net tender.
Also when pulling pots the pleasure vessel is not restricted in maneuvering . I am usually drifting when actually pulling my post.

This is exactly why mandatory licensing would not work as expected. And why the car at a 4 way intersection was apropos.

It appears that in reading Rule 3 Cpt Pat equated "vessel engaged in fishing" with "fishing vessel". And from there included all fishing vessels in the "engaged in fishing" vessel occupation.

As Newhaul noted the definition of vessel engaged in fishing requires that the vessel be "Restricted maneuverability" and specifically states but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing
apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability.

So even with licensing (90% correct to pass the rules test of a US Masters) understanding what was meant by the wording is required.

No slight intended to Cpt Pat. but this is a commonly misunderstood rule.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Referring to the photo: if the motorboat was "actively engaged in fishing" or if the sailboat was "being propelled by machinery" (regardless of whether it had a sail up) -- then the motorboat was the stand-on vessel

Not that boat. This is an unfortunately all too common misconception.


COLREGs:

"The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability. "

COCKCROFT:
The important phrase "which restrict manoeuvrability" has been added to make it clear that small vessels such as pleasure craft fishing with a few short lines or other small gear which does not appreciably affect their ability to manoeuvre are not entitled to the degree of privilege allocated to vessels engaged in fishing by Rule 18.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

In qld Australia a simple written test covering the absolute basics followed by a few minutes in a dinghy gives you all the skills required to run an 80 ft sunseeker predator at 40 knots in a confined channel and terrorize the locals.

Lots more than a simple written test and a dinghy won't do it.



https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/boating/recreational



To get a Queensland marine licence, you must:

• be at least 16 years old
• complete and pass a BoatSafe course or have a recognised and valid interstate or overseasmarine licence.

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-....aspx#boatsafe

What a recreational boat licence BoatSafe course offers

This course covers theory and practical elements including the following units of competency:

• preparing a recreational vessel for operation
• applying international and state regulations relevant to the operation of a recreational vessel
• assessing weather conditions and forecasts
• operating mechanical and electrical appliances of a recreational vessel
• manoeuvring a recreational vessel
• applying safety management processes on a recreational vessel.

...
Training and practical assessment for a marine licence is 6 hours minimum for a group of no more than 4 students. Additional time will be required to undertake and complete the written assessment.




The vessel used in training must be:
commercially certified vessel, appropriate for training and assessment for a recreational licence (for example a vessel with a Certificate of Operation for a Class 2E).

[Pete17C]

Originally Posted by evm1024

As a bold driver who insists on your right on way I offer this quote from a driving school.



So in the case of the "bold" sailor mandatory licensing would not change things. The bold will insist that they have the right of way.

Ok smartypants, you're in line waiting your turn at a 4 way intersection with stop signs on each corner, all roads are backed up a few cars deep. The car ahead of your clears through and you finally get to the stop sign. There are three cars already waiting at their respective stop signs.

When do you get to go?

After those three cars (respecting time of arrival at the intersection)?

or after everyone on your right has cleared through?

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by StuM

Not that boat. This is an unfortunately all too common misconception.


COLREGs:

"The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability. "

COCKCROFT:
The important phrase "which restrict manoeuvrability" has been added to make it clear that small vessels such as pleasure craft fishing with a few short lines or other small gear which does not appreciably affect their ability to manoeuvre are not entitled to the degree of privilege allocated to vessels engaged in fishing by Rule 18.

I agree with the substance of your post. The key is restriction of maneuverability. I was taught that that was the intent of the rule. A vessel engaged in fishing may be less maneuverable than a sailboat - so just give way. You won't go wrong and you don't have to analyze the other vessel's activity. By time I get close enough that I can fully see what exactly is in the water - it may be too late.

A small pleasure craft hauling in a crab pot on a 100 foot line (I see a lot of that) can't just scoot out of my way with all that line partially aboard. They are, for the moment, restricted in their ability to maneuver. Turning one way risks entangling their prop, and turning either way at speed risks entangling the crew. It would be the height of arrogance to expect a vessel that is circling a crab pot to move out of my way. And even without gear aboard, I wouldn't want to spoil what is often a delicate approach to pick up a crab pot float in wind and swells. The Rules of the Road are for lawyers. Common courtesy is for seaman.

Try to find the phrase "right of way" in the COLREGs. You can't, except for one reference that says public safety vessels can't assume they have the right of way. No one has the "right of way," ever. No vessel ever has absolute "right of way" over other vessels. This seems to be the hardest concept to grasp for people who think legalistically instead of prudently. Pilots don't have this problem. Yes, there are quite similar rules for avoiding collision in the air, but -- a person usually gets only one mid-air collision per lifetime.

The other factor is my selfish desire to not entangle with a fishing line or net. So I just give any vessel fishing a wide berth.

But this is all rather off topic.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I agree with the substance of your post. The key is restriction of maneuverability. I was taught that that was the intent of the rule. A vessel engaged in fishing may be less maneuverable than a sailboat - so give way. That way, you won't go wrong and you don't have to analyze the other vessel's activity. By time I close enough that I can fully see what exactly is in the water - it may be too late.

Which is why vessels "engaged in fishing" in accordance with the COLREGs definition are required to display day shapes/lights (but that's a whole other thread )
I don't see any cones displayed on the powerboat in the picture under discussion.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well, to be clear Dave, I said that a licensing scheme that is rigorous, such as the one now found in most Canadian provinces for drivers licenses — this likely would improve conditions on the water. I guess it is similar to what exists in Finland and Germany, according to your description. It indeed takes a minimum of three years to become fully licensed to drive in Ontario now. And accident rates HAVE decreased.

A boaters’ license system that is similar in approach likely would improve accident rates. It is expensive, and bureaucratically cumbersome (even though much of it is outsourced to the private sector in Ontario), but it is likely worth it b/c it addresses a real problem: carnage on the roads.

Any examination of boater accident rates reveals that the problem is many factors less than auto accidents. AND, the problems are largely focused in a few categories of boat types; small open motorboats being by far the major one. The rate of sailboat accidents is two magnitudes lower, and the rate of accidents and deaths involving cruising level boats is essentially insignificant.

So a widespread boater licensing system is really a solution in search of a problem, at least here in North America (where I’ve seen the stats). But the data does support a tough licensing system for operators of these problem category boats; mostly small open powerboats.

Hi Mike. I did grasp what you were saying, and I agree. ONLY a rigorous training program will make any difference. I must say that I don't see that happening here in the U.S. for many reasons. I also agree with you that this is a solution in search of a problem when it comes to sailing.



Perhaps they should consider how they license drivers for motor vehicles. Here in the U.S., most states, if not all, have one license for a passenger car, another for a motorcycle, yet another for a tractor trailer, and so on. Maybe instead of a one size fits all system we have a general safety course that talks about the regs for all, then an additional course or courses for cigarette boats or boat that can travel over certain speeds, etc.


For the record, I am opposed to a licensing for boats however if they are going to do it, then make it meaningful or don't do it.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by evm1024

This is exactly why mandatory licensing would not work as expected. And why the car at a 4 way intersection was apropos.

It appears that in reading Rule 3 Cpt Pat equated "vessel engaged in fishing" with "fishing vessel". And from there included all fishing vessels in the "engaged in fishing" vessel occupation.

OK. If that's what you read in my post. But I did not equate "vessel engaged in fishing" with "fishing vessel." Text search the whole thread. You won't find that phrase from me. You read the word order backwards: I said "vessel fishing." I've said my piece. I'm otta here.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

OK. If that's what you read in my post. But I did not equate "vessel engaged in fishing" with "fishing vessel." Text search the whole thread. You won't find that phrase from me. You read the word order backwards: I said "vessel fishing." I've said my piece. I'm otta here.

Apologies, Looks like I took your post

There isn't a special type of boat that qualifies it as a fishing vessel.

And moved it to the more general when I should not have. At least for exact quotes.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

Try to find the phrase "right of way" in the COLREGs. You can't, except for one reference that says public safety vessels can't assume they have the right of way.

No you will not find "right of way" anywhere in the International ColRegs.
Please state the section.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by StuM

Lots more than a simple written test and a dinghy won't do it.

.Mate, I was forced to do one even though I had over 50,000 logged miles under sail.

I can assure you, it was a simple written test , after sitting on my arse for half a day being told stupid amateur hour stuff like, " you only need a boat length of chain to securely anchor" and , "don't worry about these channel markers, no one here will go far enough out to see one" even though, I see them regularly.
Then 5 minutes in a tinny, yes, it may have been a tinny with a class 2e piece of paper but a tinny none the less and in no way similar to the 80 ft 40 knot sunseeker it would allow me to operate.

Any mouth breather with a pulse and some money will pass, 100% success rate, no fails allowed.

Having a quick look at this
https://www.amsa.gov.au/vessels-oper...-survey-regime
Vessels less than 12m, in smooth waters (we were on salt water lake) and less than 4 passengers seem to be exempt from your 2e survey rule