Boarded by the Coast Guard..Terminated Voyage

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by colemj

If this is true, it is a surprise to me. I don't think the USCG has any requirements for dinghies other than the usual safety stuff falling under small boat rules.

I don't recall ever seeing a boats name on a dinghy at my harbor just state registration numbers.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by carstenb

"Innocent passage" Does this construe, taking 6 months to sail up the east coast and then 6 months to sail down the ICW?

Yes, that would be an "innocent passage".

The formal definition of "innocent passage" is article 19 here: UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Originally Posted by Zanshin

The question isn't regarding "innocent passage" and coastal cruising, but the use of inland waterways and canals. When I got my U.S. cruising permit I asked about having to use the (nasty and large) placards required in the USA for MARPOL garbage plans and U.S. non-drug use and having to put the name of the mothership on the dinghy and they stated that it wasn't necessary, but generally once one enters inland waters comity ends. So perhaps while the lifevests may be accepted, they would need to be worn in the dinghy and that might need to be labelled as well and I'm fairly certain that a local DNR officer won't know about foreign vests not requiring a USCG certification and they'll issue a citation anyway.

Actually the further question is not about inland waterways, but about local state rather than federal/uscg requirements. The states have various different additional requirements, but many (including the dinghy name issue) do not apply to vessels that are not registered in that state. Just for instance maryland requires state number plates to be displayed, but Vermont (my home port) does not, and I do not have to display number plates in Maryland. Some of these rules can apply to out of state vessels but only after you have been in that state's waters for 60 or 90 days.

It can be a bit confusing, and the local officials often don't know the rules very well. But rarely are foreign flagged vessels hassled about these sort of things because the local officials often know at least that there are special circumstances and rules that they do not know.

DNR officers in most of the NE do know they can not require uscg Labels on Canadian flag vessel equipement.

I do not have a name on my dinghy, and have never been questioned about it.

Life jacket wear in dinghies is generally not required for adults. I am not aware of a state that requires it, but there could well be one I don't know about.

The various plaques are a federal law and US vessels have to gave them, but it is one of the things not required of foreign vessels (their flag rules apply). This is NOT comity, but explicit formal treaty.

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by colemj

If this is true, it is a surprise to me. I don't think the USCG has any requirements for dinghies other than the usual safety stuff falling under small boat rules.

States often require registration stickers and numbers if you stay past a certain time or have a certain type of dinghy/engine. I have not encountered a state yet that required the name of the mother ship on the dinghy.

Throughout the US, I have rarely seen the mother ship name on a dinghy, and have seen more novelty "cute dinghy names" than mother ship ones. However, the vast majority have no names at all.

Mark

I'm a Brit living in USA and we always marked T/T "XYZ" on our tenders back in Europe. Here however our RIB tender has to be State Registered and must carry stuck on registration numbers on the hull or in this case the inflatable tubes ( of a correct size and spacing, natch) to identify it as well as a numbered decal to show that we have paid them the tax due for the privilege of wetting it's bottom in their sacred waters. We were advised too by other boaters NOT to put the mothership name on the dinghy if we ever intend cruising out to the islands (which we do) because a potential thief might see the tender tied up ashore and realize that the mothership , so identified, would probably not be attended and could therefore be targeted for a break in.

PS adadded:-

I think if the tender has no engine it may not need State registration ( in Florida at least) if it is marked as tender to "so and so". I'm not sure if that is relevant or if it even applies in all States. Simplicity is not a normal thing over here. It may be entirely different too where a foreign vessel will not be US registered but is operating under a cruising permit of some kind.

[Zanshin]

Sorry, I should have said that dinghies need a registration number on them in U.S. - don't they? Particulary the typical yacht sized dinghy with a 9.8HP outboard on it. The "T.T. <boatname>" is often seen as well.

[Zanshin]

estarzinger - the ICW is not considered a "territorial sea" and a prolonged trip through the ICW is not considered an "innocent passage".

In the UNCLOS article you quoted, check Article 2, Paragraph 1; Articles 3,4,5,6 and 7, etc.

Specifically Article 8:

1. Except as provided in Part IV, waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the State.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Zanshin

Sorry, I should have said that dinghies need a registration number on them in U.S. - don't they?.

In some states and not in others. It is not a federal requirement. There is a federal requirement for a safe payload plaque.

Originally Posted by Zanshin

estarzinger - the ICW is not considered a "territorial sea" and a prolonged trip through the ICW is not considered an "innocent passage".

In the UNCLOS article you quoted, check Article 2, Paragraph 1; Articles 3,4,5,6 and 7, etc.

Specifically Article 8:

[/LEFT]

Hmmm. . . . Yes, you may well be correct about the ICW.

However I can tell you that the USCG acts as if it considers passages thru as "innocent". And they neither hassles international shipping nor foreign yachts (we have a lot of Canadian yachts using the ICW) about this.

There may well be additional treaties that cover these sort of waters that I am not aware of. For instance in the Chesapeake bay we have lots of international shipping, which is clearly treated as if on innocent passage. San Francisco Harbour would also be in that situation. I am only aware of the treaty I posted because it was involved in the NZ case (which did not involve internal waters). The case in Chile did involve internal waters very similar to the ICW (the Patagonian channels). And the Chilean courts did rule that foreign yachts were "protected" even in those channels.

When you get to the boundary details of all this it obviously gets complex and I am certaintly not an expert.

[carstenb]

Thank you all for your thoughts - I don't suppose anyone out there has a website/agency one can ask and get an offical response? USCG? But where?

I do realize that I will have to wait until the US government starts up again.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

In some states and not in others. It is not a federal requirement. There is a federal requirement for a safe payload plaque.



Hmmm. . . . Yes, you may well be correct about the ICW.

However I can tell you that the USCG acts as if it considers passages thru as "innocent". And they neither hassles international shipping nor foreign yachts (we have a lot of Canadian yachts using the ICW) about this.

There may well be additional treaties that cover these sort of waters that I am not aware of. For instance in the Chesapeake bay we have lots of international shipping, which is clearly treated as if on innocent passage. San Francisco Harbour would also be in that situation. I am only aware of the treaty I posted because it was involved in the NZ case (which did not involve internal waters). The case in Chile did involve internal waters very similar to the ICW (the Patagonian channels). And the Chilean courts did rule that foreign yachts were "protected" even in those channels.

When you get to the boundary details of all this it obviously gets complex and I am certaintly not an expert.

[hellosailor]

Mark-
"22-calibre automatic rifle," I've never seen one of those. Semi-automatic, sure, but a full automatic 22 rifle? In military issue?

Carsten-
If you want an official ruling on anything from the USCG, you would want to send a paper letter to the Commandant's Office for a formal paper reply from the Commandant, Or perhaps their JAG (Judge Advocate General) 's office. Anything less is just an advisory opinion, issued by someone who can be overruled or countered by a higher rank in the chain of command.
And if you haven't sent it by certified or other special mail, a remarkably high percent can be expected to get lost and never arrive, much less be replied to. There's a lot of that going around these days, not just the USCG.

Of course, I'd expect the Commandant and the JAG to both be on furlough for the indefinite future. (sigh)

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Mark-
"22-calibre automatic rifle," I've never seen one of those. Semi-automatic, sure, but a full automatic 22 rifle? In military issue?

The M16, the M16A1, M16A2, M16A3, M16A4, M4 and M4A1 are chambered in 5.56 mm.

5.56 mm is close enough to .22 cal to be called .22 or .223, if you're not being picky.

All are selective fire assault rifles, except the M4s, which are selective fire carbines.

With the exception of the M16A2 (3? it's been years), therefore, (which has a three round burst instead of full auto) all have a full auto selection and to a civilian who was not a shooter could be (sloppily) termed a ".22, full-auto rifle."

The picture appeared to be M16A3s or 4s.

For my money, it's a lot more accurate to call an M16AX a "full auto .22" than it is to call a semi-auto AR 15 an assault rifle. One is an infantry weapon. The other just isn't.

[pbiJim]

5.56mm, .223, .22-250, .220 Swift & .222mag are all examples of .22 caliber center fire cartridges. These are not to be confused with a .22 Long Rifle, which is a rim fire round. When most Americans say “22 caliber” they usually mean .22 Long Rifle, however all of the above listed calibers are correctly termed as .22 caliber.

The M-16, M-4, AC556, some Bulpups, & some Galils are all examples of full auto machine guns that are available in 5.56mm/.223 caliber.

[amytom]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Mark- "22-calibre automatic rifle," I've never seen one of those. Semi-automatic, sure, but a full automatic 22 rifle? In military issue? )

M16 is .22 cal. The 5.56 NATO round is a .223 which is .22 cal.

Edit. Others beat me to it.

[pbiJim]

As for tenders, it was my understanding that under some circumstances, it it was acceptable to label a tender "TT( or Tender To) name-of-mothership" in lieu of registering the tender separately. In Florida, it is normally necessary to register most any vessel that is over 16 feet or that has a motor. There are a few exceptions. Racing hulls are one of the exceptions. I think that out of state boats get a free pass for a certain amount of time. I don't know the details on the rest of the exceptions.

I suspect that for a tender to qualify as exempt from registration, there are probably several stipulations. If anybody knows what they are, I would love to find out more about it.

[Ocean Girl]

Pbijim, I thought this was the case also, maybe documented vessels..?

[pbiJim]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

Pbijim, I thought this was the case also, maybe documented vessels..?

Maybe documented, maybe foreign flag, maybe out of state, maybe just when the small boat is used only as a tender. I don't know, but I would like to know.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Zanshin

Sorry, I should have said that dinghies need a registration number on them in U.S. - don't they? Particulary the typical yacht sized dinghy with a 9.8HP outboard on it. The "T.T. <boatname>" is often seen as well.

It's a "state's rights" issue. This is an area where each state gets to decide for yourself.

For my dinghy, I have to have a sticker on it because it sometimes has an outboard motor on it. I have in fact sold the outboard because it wasn't really suitable for it, but I think I will keep registering it and keep my options open.