I’m probably like a lot of you folks. I would like the effects of
licensing, knowing that the burdened vessel converging with me and
sort of wavering around in his course actually does know which way to
turn, not having my tax dollars spent looking for bozo’s, etc. I would
also like the freedom of making my own decisions about my competence.
It would also be nice not to have a system come to the waters I sail
where there is an incentive for uniforms who were told to go out and
"show that the system is working" but don’t actually know how to come
alongside or use fenders waste a portion of my afternoon looking for
little pieces of paper.

Everything about the way NJ has implemented the system strikes me as a
good example of how government always finds a way to inconvenience
people and restrict their freedoms without actually doing anything
constructive about the problem. I don’t know what’s going on in CT but
it’s probably another reason to stay north of Cape Cod.

It will probably come to Maine too but it will probably come last.
Hopefully, it will be after I’m no longer too concerned about it. If
it does come become an issue, it isn’t going to do any good to spout
some of the nonsense in the mega thread I started below. We aren’t the
NRA with a constitutional amendment backing us up. Some kind of
alternative will have to be presented. Here’s just an idea.

Establish a fee (can’t be a tax because taxes can’t be raised or added
anymore) of, maybe, 1% on the sale of every new and used boat. If the
buyer can produce a certificate from a recognized course such as the
power squadron, or maybe a no claim history from insurance of a vessel
of similar size, the seller can submit a copy of that instead of the
fee. If someone just wants the boat and is willing to pay the fee,
then it goes to safe boating education and printing more of those
silly hand outs.

I’m not advocating doing this either but, if licensing talk starts up
this way, I want some alternative to present.


--

Roger Long

I'm a licensed USCG captain and ASA instructor. Having said that, any
license that is required for boating on anything other then inland
waterways is easy to shoot down and should be shot point blank. I am
not familiar with what you are referring to and I am not in your area
for ease or will to find out but if you don't like the law, remember
that you can do something about it. If you don't you'll end up like
the lazy fools in south Florida that sat on their collective fat asses
and did nothing while illegal anchoring laws went into effect all over
the state.

Maritime law is locked into place by international treaty and no state
can override the law just because they pass a local BS law. Case in
point is the guy that was anchored out by Estero Island near Fort
Myers. The local socialist republic of Fort Myers (heavily fortified by
old, decrepit, bored and retired New Yorkers) decided to put up a
mooring ball field. No one did anything about it. There was a passage
of a law and even (supposedly) a signoff from the federal secretary of
transportation. The guy refused to move his boat from the now forbidden
zone. Local law reproachment towed his boat. He sued and won. By the
way, he was in Inland water.

Maritime law dates back 4,000 to 5,000 years - Noah probably sailed
by them! It is international and is a major body of sovereign law that
all boaters should be aware of. Your rights are only yours if you claim
them and protect them. People forget that freedom isn't free. I know
most northerners are real big on liberal heart bleeding government but
has never taken more then 10% of any population to win any revolution
against any government in all history. You're only dealing with a few
laws so stand up and burn them down.

Self responsibly may be unfashionable but it still works better then
anything else.

What problem do you have with the proposal I made, Roger--provide as
one of
the penalties for boating offenses a suspension of the convicted
boater's
right to operate a boat.

Roger Long wrote:
Because I still have to fix the hole the idiot made in the port side
of my boat. Besides, how do you suspend a right with out a license to
take away? Do you issue a piece of paper that says the person is not
permitted to operate a vessel? Do the boating police then board and
say, "We want to check if you have an operation suspension
certificate, please show it to us?"


No, it's much simpler. Just tattoo on their forehead "No
Boating For You!"

DSK

Look the thing all of us most want to avoid is anything that gives
land lubber bureaucrats reasons to put guys in uniforms out on the
water with occasional quotas of a certain number of boaters to pull
over to "show the flag", "the system is working", etc. Having your
afternoon interrupted by the Coast Guard is bad enough but, at least
they are minimally trained and almost always professional to a fault.

Do you really want someone besides the Coast Guard driving around with
binoculars looking up your boat name and registration numbers and
typing them into a laptop to decide if they should waste a half hour
of your afternoon?

I should mention BTW that I am a Harbormaster. I don't want this kind
of thing added to my duties any more than I want to be the object of
it when I'm boating somewhere else.

--

Roger Long



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:29:57 GMT, "Roger Long"
said:

Besides, how do you suspend a right with out a license to
take away? Do you issue a piece of paper that says the person is
not
permitted to operate a vessel? Do the boating police then board and
say, "We want to check if you have an operation suspension
certificate, please show it to us?"

Simple. When the person is convicted of, say, drunk boating, the
sentence
may include suspension of his right to operate a boat. If he's
stopped
again, the boating police or CG calls in to check whether he's been
suspended. If he has, he's charged with operating while his right to
operate
was suspended--just as if he had that little piece of plastic and it
was
taken away from him.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote

Because I still have to fix the hole the idiot made in the port
side of my boat. Besides, how do you suspend a right with out a
license to take away? Do you issue a piece of paper that says
the person is not permitted to operate a vessel? Do the boating
police then board and say, "We want to check if you have an
operation suspension certificate, please show it to us?"

I've mentioned before, but do you have compulsory third party
insurance in some or all states for certain classes of vessels?

Europe (excepting UK) has, and also the insurers run a common
database to check the 'no claims' history of clients. Anywhere in
Europe you're likely to be asked for your certificate of
insurance, and in many countries, if you have an accident giving
rise to a claim and you're not insured, you've lost your boat!

Leave it to the insurers if they want to give discounts to people
who've taken courses or got qualifications.

Any legs in this as a method of policing behaviour?
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas - N Spain recently
added.

U

"News f2s" wrote

Leave it to the insurers if they want to give discounts to people
who've taken courses or got qualifications.

Any legs in this as a method of policing behavior?

Long legs, very long legs. The insurers now basically have taken over
from the FAA policing pilot proficiency and safety. The FAA still
does the annoying, Mickey mouse, and useless stuff while the insurance
companies determine who gets to fly.

Believe it. We don't want it to come to this in boating. Despite
being a very cautious and excellent (according to everyone else with a
license who has flown with me) pilot, I am now an ex. pilot because of
the insurance climate. Run away insurance could kill boating as
surely as it has killed some branches of medicine and is strangling
aviation.

It's the eternal problem of society, the alternatives to people acting
responsibly and with care for those around them are always ugly and
burdensome, at least those that government is capable of envisioning.
Usually the attempts to curb irresponsible behavior end up costing the
responsible and considerate lots of money, freedom, convenience, and
enjoyment while the irresponsible carry on just as before.

Classic example: City reacts to a few bad incidents in a public park
by closing it at sundown. Now, without large number of law abiding
citizens to set the ambiance, report problems, and just out number the
bad apples, it becomes a jungle of addicts and muggers. City puts in
more police and diverts money from landscaping , taxes go up, real
estate values around it go down, people move out. All this happens
because the city feels that it has to appear to be reacting to a few
well publicized problems that can take place anywhere. Pretty soon,
no one is enjoying the park except the muggers and addicts and there
are even more of them because the city provided them with territory.

--

Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
"News f2s" wrote

Leave it to the insurers if they want to give discounts to
people who've taken courses or got qualifications.

Any legs in this as a method of policing behavior?

Long legs, very long legs. The insurers now basically have
taken over from the FAA policing pilot proficiency and safety.
The FAA still does the annoying, Mickey mouse, and useless stuff
while the insurance companies determine who gets to fly.

Believe it. We don't want it to come to this in boating.

You're implying that third party insurance is very rare in boating
in the states. So, how do aggrieved parties get compensation from
those who create damage? The parallel seems to me to be more in
line with motoring, rather than aviation. Or else there's
something very different about the insurance climates in USA and
Europe, which I don't think is very likely. It's a pretty
competitive market out there.

Your comments seem to prove a combination of things:

First, in USA there are a lot of high value claims against
aviation by third parties.

Second, the high values are either because lots of damage has been
done, or because your litigation climate encourages lots of
marginal claims, or both of these things.

Puzzled.
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas - and Spain too.

Insurance is common. I'm not aware of it being mandatory anywhere but
it never occurred to me to go without it so I didn't check. It is
reasonable in cost and not hard to get. They want to see a survey and
some sailing references so, if I'd said, "I just bought this boat and
I don't know nuttin'.", I might not have gotten the insurance.

I made a comment on jury behavior in another thread. Aviation
judgements go through the roof compared similar injury in other
activities. It's not just the pilots insurance but the costs past on
in the cost of everything else. About 20% of the cost of an airplane
is the manufacturer's liability insurance load.

Here's a classic (and true) story:

Kid gets his license on his 16 th birthday. The parents let him load
up the family plane with three friends his age. The go out and start
buzzing cars up the mountain canyon highways in California. The NTSB
report relates how they were followed across the state by police
reports and the state police were out in cars and other aircraft
looking for them. Finally, they flew into some powerlines that were
not marked because no one ever thought a plane would be down that low
in the canyon.

The mother spent ten years suing Cessna (the builder of the aircraft)
and won!

NTSB reports in this country are not admissible in court. This is
designed to keep the NTSB staff out making aviation safer instead of
being the full time, taxpayer paid, witnesses they would be if the
reports were admitted. The plane type had an occasional fuel flow
vapor interruption issue that was covered in the handbook and the
instructions for dealing with it by turning on a boost pump were
placarded on the panel. Never the less, a number of pilots had
previously gotten over excited when the engine stopped and forgotten
about the instructions in the book and on the panel. The mother's
lawyers just kept hammering away at this issue and these incidents
until he got a jury to believe that the plane hit the wires because it
was gliding down after the engine quit.

Yes, I suspect that things are very different on your side of the
pond.

--

Roger Long

Quite true.

--

Roger Long

On 6 Apr 2006 10:50:05 -0500, Dave wrote:

Feel free to champion
the do nothing approach if you think it'll fly.

It certainly flys with me. Don't fix anything if it isn't broken,
especially if the "fix" involves politics and government.