# Evicted liveaboard blown ashore



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

It's been a stormy couple of weeks in the BC area as many recently active threads will attest. This morning saw northwesterly gales, and four boats anchored in unprotected waters were blown ashore.

CBC News - British Columbia - Vancouver sailor blames city for Kits Beach wreckage

For those unfamiliar with the area, English Bay is the main harbour in Vancouver and is exposed to westerlies and northwesterlies that are increasingly common at this time of year. At the east end of the bay is False Creek, a small, narrow, winding inlet that offers superb protection, but is regulated by the local authorities. There are limits to how much time you can spend at anchor; after that you have to find a slip (many are available in False Creek at a number of marinas) or go elsewhere.

On the one hand, I feel like evicting these boats when gales were forecast violates some ancient maritime tradition of providing safe harbour.

On the other hand, if you knew the forecast, it's pretty unseamanlike to anchor on a lee shore when more protected anchorages and secure slips are available.

So it sounds like nobody did the right thing last night.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Well

nobody gets evicted here and we still end up with crap laying all over the place



















And much of it does a great JOB as a bowling ball on the other boats


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

Certainly, derelict boats have been a problem in the Vancouver area as well, but what can/should be about them is a question separate from whether they, or any boats, should be kicked out of safe harbor in a gale.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

I agree with evictions if slips are available, maybe even if they are not. 

The problem with these great anchorages is that they fill with boats when there is a storm (some times forcing out some of us who where there early and prepared). Most or too many boaters are comfortable with a few feet of chain, a little twine and a 2:1 scope, particularly around cities or popular small anchorages. 

As a result Vancouver is just asking for trouble now that they are responsible for False Creek. It is a great place to ride out a storm but fill it with those kind of boaters (the kind that couldn't ride it out in English Bay) and eventually there will be claims. Better to deal with complaints, than claims.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, more and more cities are taking it upon themselves to control the local waters and who can anchor in them and for how long. Many of the people responsible for enforcing these laws don't understand how dangerous a storm can be to a small boat anchored in an exposed anchorage and don't understand marine traditions such as safe harbor. 

However, this isn't to say the boaters themselves are blameless. If they choose to neglect their boats, more laws will be passed to keep them away. If they choose to have undersized ground tackle or not learn how to use it properly, then it is almost a Darwinian result if they get hurt, injured or killed in a storm.


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

It's a tricky question, what to do about boaters who don't maintain their boats, anchor improperly, and violate anchoring etiquette by crowding already-anchored boats on short scope.

The ideal situation that I see is that cities enforce traditional anchoring rules instead of making up new rules. Thus anchorage is available on a first-come, first-serve basis to boats anchored in a secure fashion. Boats insecurely anchored, or encroaching dangerously on the swinging circle of a prior-anchored vessel, may be evicted.

I recognize that municipal regulation of waterways goes against federal law; I'm suggesting that if municipalities were cognizant of anchoring etiquette, it would be reasonable to modify federal law to allow cities to take action when public safety is an issue, which is basically what city authorities are there for anyway (in principle).

I'm not so sure what is the right course of action to take when a vessel is securely anchored with priority, and simply squats for an indefinite period.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

I do not think cities should be enforcing traditional anchoring rules though it would be nice if there was some enforcement. Trouble is we need only look at the US and many areas in Canada to see what happens when we ask for enforcement. It becomes an industry that demands feeding. 

We do recall that many people pleaded with False Creek boat owners to clean up their act. They didn’t and all of us lost the resource that is False Creek. 


I see this problem of old boats being connected to those who scatter mooring balls in the best anchorages. Certainly a nice idea but one that has resulted in many anchorages being lost, even in the off season. More than once we have found ourselves anchored in or near a decrepit mooring field empty of boats but so crowded we would have to leave if the wind picked up. 

It would be nice to see some of the old boats and mooring systems cleaned up, including removing the trash (old engines, anchors and blocks) from the seabed but who will accept responsibility? Clearly not those who installed mooring points on the cheap or those trying to boat on the cheap or the level of government currently responsible for these anchorages. 

It seems to me that we should allow people to anchor, install mooring balls, or whatever but just like on land they should only do so for a short period of time. We do not allow people to camp indefinitely on crown or public land without a permit or lease so it could be on water. That way anybody could take the boat, maybe while it still had value, and clean up public areas without worrying about someone complaining about losing their valuble property (which it might be). Of course they would still complain but if the law was clear and simple they wouldn't have much of a case. 

Trouble is I do not see that happening. Instead I think we will just end up with more False Creek solutions and fewer anchorages, fewer options in a storm. 

Old style boating and rules do not adapt well to a planet with 7 billion people.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Its sad to see boaters start down this "We need laws enforced" path.

Because you are too short sided to see the eventual outcome of it. And that outcome is that nobody 'needs' sailboats to exist at all. The property owners have the right to enjoy their water view without having to look at your boat anchored there in the way. With your ugly blue solar panels, and that stupid windmill scaring away the sea birds....I mean, a boat is a floating waste of petroleum products, and an eyesore. If I spent a few million on waterfront property, I think I should be able to control what happens to my view of the ocean.

I sure don't need a bunch of pseudo hippies living on a plastic boat out there pooping in the water and god knows what else.


This is where this is all going, eventually. 

Let's make some more laws to enforce. then we can hire some more people to enforce them. And then once we have that increased enforcement infrastructure in place, well, we can then make even MORE laws.

Say...I don't think I like the color of that bottom paint....and I suspect a $500 fine for that slapping halyard noise might make you straigten up and follow the rules around here...


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

It IS a sticky problem without any single clearly fair/logical answer.

For a maritime city Vancouver is not particularly cruiser-friendly. There are few transient marinas, in fact no true transient marinas - the False Creek Harbour Authority (Fishermans' Docks) are the only marina really promoting transient moorage (they maintain some space for that) and all the other marinas are either short term (3 hrs - Granville Island) or simply filled up with moorage customers.

False creek is a decent, if somewhat confined/congested anchorage with much of it behind a low clearance bridge. Lots of traffic, shallow in spots, but for years it was chock-a-block with liveaboards and derelicts. That meant there was NO room for visiting boats. Vancouver's attempts to control the anchoring there was at least in part to provide a couple of weeks anchorage availability to visiting boaters, esp distance cruisers. No doubt all these non-tax paying waterfront liveaboards stuck in somebody's craw as well...

We were out on Monday, after Friday's storm and we noticed that cluster of boats anchored off Kits Beach and my first thought was concern about the next big Westerly. I wonder if those "boaters" even checked the forecasts. There's no way the authorities would have moved fast enough to evict them had they decided to move into the Creek in light of the forecast wind conditions. On the other hand it's quite possible some of these boats were not fully mobile anyway.

The cost of housing in Vancouver is pretty much out of sight, so it's no wonder people turn to cheap boats that provide a modicum of shelter, but clearly it's not an ideal solution. Its doubtful that many of those boats were insured - or that these people have the resources to recover the boats off the beach, leaving others (likely the Parks Board) with that task unless they are floatable on the tide.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

2Gringos said:


> Its sad to see boaters start down this "We need laws enforced" path.


So your position is that there should be no laws and everybody does whatever the hell they want? That would be great in an ideal world, the problem is that the real world has a high percentage of douchebags and assholes who *would* do whetever they want, if allowed to. To the detriment of the rest of us.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

2Gringos said:


> &#8230;The property owners have the right to enjoy their water view without having to look at your boat anchored there in the way. With your ugly blue solar panels, and that stupid windmill scaring away the sea birds....I mean, a boat is a floating waste of petroleum products, and an eyesore. If I spent a few million on waterfront property, I think I should be able to control what happens to my view of the ocean&#8230;...


Fact is that they have the right to feel cheated. They spend a fortune, bend some laws and move influences to have an exclusive multimillion house on a natural reserve and saw some guy with a cheap boat park just in front, have the same or better view, enjoy the same exclusive pleasures and pay nothing for it? That's not fair:hothead :hothead .

I am one of the guys that make a point of cruising every year on some of the more beautiful sceneries and as I like exclusive and quiet places I end up many times in front of some incredible expensive houses in remote places&#8230;and I wonder, why should a guy waste such a fortune to enjoy *only one *beautiful place, while I, with an insignificant amount of money, enjoy not only "his" place, but *several incredible places*, some where even the most rich guys didn't (yet) manage to spoil with a house?  

I really think they have the right to feel cheated!

Saying that I have to say that I resent the kind of sailors that instead of enjoying a nice place for a couple of days and move on to another nice place stay there, sometimes several weeks long. Many times the places are limited and they are preventing other sailors to enjoy the spot&#8230;and unfortunately there are a lot of these . So, I have to say that, at least for some months and in some places I support measures to prevents boaters to stay put for more than two or three days.

That's also regular practice on many of the Med anchorages, on the summer, even on paid marinas.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Well

For example on the south shore of Long island at sailors haven which is a PARK/marina of mostly powerboats

The place is generally used as a private club by people who know someone who can get the boat there early enough on a Friday 

The REST of us have to bring the family to shore anchor out and dingy or swim If we want to spend some time at the NATIONAL PARK


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> So your position is that there should be no laws and everybody does whatever the hell they want? That would be great in an ideal world, the problem is that the real world has a high percentage of douchebags and assholes who *would* do whetever they want, if allowed to. To the detriment of the rest of us.


No. My "position" as you put it is that YOU are not qualified to divide the "douchebags and assholes" from the rest of you.

Do the people who live on land have the right to tell people who live on the water where they can live on the water?

If I decide I want a clear view to the horizon in every direction....does that mean you need to keep completely out of my sight? If you disagree with that, do you then become the "{douchebag and *******" who needs law enforcement coming down on you?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Well, according to your previous post, your position is that boaters should not be for enforcement of existing laws. Whether or not I am qualified to sort douchebags from non-douchebags is beside the point. What would happen in your scenario (regarding boaters) is people would anchor wherever they wanted, for as long as they wanted; they'd pump anything they wanted overboard; they'd drive their boats at any speed they felt like etc., etc., etc. You know this to be true (whether you admit it or not).

I'm sorry if a society of laws impinges on your carefree, bohemian lifestyle. The rest of us would rather not have you living for free on the waterfront our tax dollars maintain or painting your bottom with a product so toxic the effects are still being felt 25 years after it stopped being used in this country. Or whatever.


----------



## vega1860 (Dec 18, 2006)

Tax and regulate heavily. That way, only the "Best" sort of people will be able to afford boating at all.

Problem solved.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Faced with increasing numbers of anchor-outs and derelicts calling False Creek home, the city implemented time limits for the anchorage. Summer stays are limited to two weeks out of the month, while the winter limit is three weeks every 40 days, though they are allowed to seek shelter there during storms. "The owners are responsible for their safety and property," city official Jerry Dobrovlny told The Province newspaper. "As a boat owner it's not a good choice to be in an exposed body of water during a windstorm."


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

2Gringos said:


> Its sad to see boaters start down this "We need laws enforced" path.


Your whole post is a serious knee-jerk reaction... I suggest you take some deep breaths and realize that the people in this thread talking about enforcement are not suggesting anything crazy, and are generally the same folks who are first to pipe up against government encroaching on private life.

That said there's a reason we have laws. Surely some laws are good. If somebody breaks into your boat while you're away, I expect you'd like to see some laws get enforced. I bet if a powerboater gets drunk and rams you, you'd call the police. If you think that we should not have laws/enforcement about theft and destruction of private property, you're not a lover of liberty: you're an anarchist.

But a system that only punishes wrongdoers is a failure, since most wrongdoers don't know they're about to do something wrong, or don't care that what they're doing is wrong and might incur punishment, or aren't afraid of the punishment. It's reasonable to take proactive measures to protect people and property. If government enforced reasonable anchoring laws, then people who anchor first and securely would have priority over anybody who anchors in such a way to create a hazard. This priority could be reasonably enforced.

While I understand the emotional reaction of people who spend a lot of money on waterfront property, I don't have any sympathy for them. They should have known, before they signed anything, that the law permits anchoring outside their windows. I'm not defending their interests here, nor am I crying out for the government to sterilize the world for me.


----------



## vega1860 (Dec 18, 2006)

*Well said Adam*

The real issue is simply population density. More people living in proximity require more regulation. If you can't handle the regulation, move somewhere where there are fewer people.

You simply cannot have both liberty and the safety net provided by society. IMO of course.


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

vega1860 said:


> You simply cannot have both liberty and the safety net provided by society.


Slow down there... I don't think that "regulations" against behaving in hazardous ways erode our liberty, since I don't believe I have the right to put others in danger.

But I definitely agree with your point that it's a density issue... the probability of harmful interactions in False Creek is way way higher than in a lonely anchorage somewhere far from a city.

On the other hand, it's also clearly about proximity to enforcement personnel.


----------



## vega1860 (Dec 18, 2006)

AdamLein said:


> On the other hand, it's also clearly about proximity to enforcement personnel.


I disagree. Enforcement personnel exist because the population requires regulation. Imagine any large city with no law enforcement at all.

It is the proximity of other people that is the issue because when ever people gather in groups of any size, even a family unit, there must be rules and enforcement to ensure the safety and comfort of all. There are always standards of acceptable behavior in any group. Most of us accept that if we enter into a group we must conform to the groups standards. Failure to conform will result in enforcement action. It may be a spanking from Dad, a not so friendly visit from the skipper of a neighboring boat, or ten black clad, jackbooted thugs with badges and automatic weapons kicking in your door, killing your pets and dragging you off to prison - depending on the level of enforcement supported by the population density.

I do agree, however, that once a social grouping reaches a size that will support a professional enforcement class, the enforcers tend to become a problem to be avoided as much as the criminals, unfortunately.

IMO, it is not the police one needs to avoid. It is places where the population has grown big enough to require and support a police force. That is why I live on a cruising sailboat.

But then I have always been a bit of an extremist 

latest videos


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Took a walk down there last night... still 3 boats aground, pretty high on the beach. Two are woodies, 30-35 feet long, the other looks Ferro, big and beamy - it's dug a pretty good hole in the sand already.

Hard to say what will happen to them... unlikely the owners were insured or that they'll have the resources for recovery - it's gonna take a fairly high tide for any chance of dragging them off (if they're in good enough condition to do so)


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

vega1860 said:


> IMO, it is not the police one needs to avoid. It is places where the population has grown big enough to require and support a police force. That is why I live on a cruising sailboat.


That is indeed a pretty extremist position, and one that I take up myself about once a week, until I calm down a bit.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

vega1860 said:


> I disagree. Enforcement personnel exist because the population requires regulation. .....
> 
> IMO, it is not the police one needs to avoid. It is places where the population has grown big enough to require and support a police force. That is why I live on a cruising sailboat.
> [/url]


I understand what you mean and I have always lived by that rule, but it is just a question of probability. If you live in a large community the number of troublesome people around will tend to be noticeable. If you live in a very small community, with some luck, you will not find any. But you can live pretty much alone and the only guy near to you be the sort of guy you want just to avoid....and in the end, even living pretty much alone you can need the support of a police force, even if it is less likely.

Regards

Paulo


----------

