# Drinking at anchor



## galernikus (Oct 25, 2008)

Hello,

I spent my holiday weekend aboard my Seidelmann 299. It was the first sail after over a year of hard work trying to restore the boat to its former glory  
After spending most of the day sailing I dropped the anchor on the Hudson river and started enjoying the rest of the day. I hardly ever drink and this weekend was no different. About an hour after we dropped the anchor we were approached by Coast Guard. They tried really hard to find something to write me up for but fortunately they failed  However, they did tell me that I am lucky that I am not drunk because I would be going with them... I rarely drink but I was under the impression that if you are at anchor you are legal to drink.
Am I wrong here or were they trying to intimidate me? I am not trying to put down CG because they are there when you need them save your life but this one guy in particular had something to prove.
I hope everyone had a great holiday weekend!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

galernikus said:


> Hello,
> 
> I spent my holiday weekend aboard my Seidelmann 299. It was the first sail after over a year of hard work trying to restore the boat to its former glory
> After spending most of the day sailing I dropped the anchor on the Hudson river and started enjoying the rest of the day. I hardly ever drink and this weekend was no different. About an hour after we dropped the anchor we were approached by Coast Guard. They tried really hard to find something to write me up for but fortunately they failed  However, they did tell me that I am lucky that I am not drunk because I would be going with them... I rarely drink but I was under the impression that if you are at anchor you are legal to drink.
> ...


I am interested in what others have to say. I honestly thought you were safe to drink at anchor also. The key might be standing watch over the anchor? I do not know.

Sorry to hear about your USCG experience. I have found them the opposite.

- CD


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Traditionally, watercops haven't cared about booze if a boat was "parked" and down for the night. More recently, BWI laws have become a big issue after too many accidents and fatalities, and BWI laws usually make no exception for being anchored, moored, or otherwise. They follow the same terms as any other "motor vehicle" booze law, i.e. if you are in a car and you are drunk--you'll be busted if the keys are also in the car. Anywhere in the car.
There are no federal BWI laws that I know of, but you'd have to check the NY/NJ ones to see what the USCG thinks they can do on the Hudson. Whether you are in a charted anchorage might also be a factor, boats have been run down by commercial traffic on the Hudson (especially at night) when they simply drop a hook, not realizing that commercial traffic sometimes NEEDS the entire width of the river.

Or, greet the nice young men with "Thank god you've come! I was having a peaceful drink in the pub, and when I woke up, here I was on this boat, I think I've been dragooned by mad sailors! Please, rescue me!"


----------



## CaptainForce (Jan 1, 2006)

We're sitting in the cockpit now on a mooring in Boothbay Harbor surfing the net and drinking schnapps and beer. Not that I'm scanning about in paranoia, but we're interested too. We do often drink at the end of a day on a mooring or at anchor. Not to excess, but to a comfort level. I'm very interested in the Coast Guard policy and the opinions of other cruisers. 'take care and joy, Aythya crew


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Having seen regular "news" reports of boating accidents and fatalities here in S.E. Michigan, nearly all of which have involved alcohol, I can see the need for strict enforcement, but I think ticketing boaters for drinking while anchored is going too far.

If I've been sailing, or stink-boating, for that matter, all day, and I want to toss out the hook and relax with my favourite mind-destroying beverage, I ought not to have to worry about being hauled off to the hoosegow for it.

Now if I subsequently up-anchor and get under way again: That's another story.

Before long, we won't even be able to drink on our own property .

galernikus, I think I'd be firing a letter off to my two Senators and my Representative about that incident.

Jim


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

see page 3
http://www.uscg.mil/D1/prevention/NavInfo/navinfo/documents/Enforcement.PDF


----------



## BOLTER33 (Apr 9, 2008)

Still unclear if operating a vessel is when at anchor. I have herd that some law enforcment would ask you off you boat , then arest you for public intoxication.


----------



## RestlessWind (Jun 4, 2008)

Not to hijack the thread, but this has me wondering about "illegal transportation" with regard to any opened bottles of alcohol in the liquor cabinet while sailing. Do you keep it locked? Has anyone ever had this mentioned during a boarding?
I remember when moving to my current residence, the local cop stopped me as I was loading a box of bottles into the back seat of my car and informed me that they had to be locked in the trunk, or I could be cited for illegal transportation of alcohol.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

BOLTER33 said:


> Still unclear if operating a vessel is when at anchor.


And if "operating a vessel" includes whilst being at anchor, what about when docked? And if docked = anchored, then live-aboards can't even drink in their own homes?



BOLTER33 said:


> I have herd that some law enforcment would ask you off you boat , then arest you for public intoxication.


Some cops give all cops a bad name.

Jim


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, some people with a badge allow the power it gives them to go to their head...and become an A$$hole with a badge... and tarnish the reputation of the good people they work with.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> Unfortunately, some people with a badge allow the power it gives them to go to their head...and become an A$$hole with a badge... and tarnish the reputation of the good people they work with.


I think this reason, more than any other reason, is why our founding Fathers thought it wise to have the second amendment. If only the gov't and its enforcement officers are "armed" - then there is absolute power.

Like everything in our gov't, there needs to be a check and a balance to the executive branch's power to "enforce" laws by overstepping their bounds. That is an armed populace.


----------



## RainDog (Jun 9, 2009)

The laws all seem to say it is illegal to "operate a vessel" while intoxicated. I do not think a court would interpret being at anchor "operating a vessel."


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Well I can see this as a vague area of interpretation. The problem with drinking while at anchor is that if you pull free you are now underway. If you are skippering the boat while drunk and this happens you could be too intoxicated to make the correct decisions that would be the correct maneuver(s). I could see it being a huge problem if several boats were rafted and everyone had been drinking.

I would tend to say that a mooring would be considered an OK place to drink but if you are just putting down the hook for lunch or overnight you should keep it below the legal limit so you can keep your wits if there is an emergency.

Here on SF Bay I find it kinda funny that the CG runabouts (where 99.9% of their activities are to aid in recovery of kiteboarders, sailboarders, and boats in distress) are packing double barrel machine guns on the bow. These CG runabout boats are INFLATABLE pontoon boats!! Who are they going to shoot at, where are the terrorist suspects, and don't they expect return fire if they did encounter a terrorist act?!?!? I wonder how often those guns need to be replaced due to the salt air and spray (probably monthly). Man I feel sooo much safer with those guys packing machine guns.


----------



## nk235 (Apr 8, 2007)

I heard if you have a Rocna it is legal to drink at anchor....


----------



## billyruffn (Sep 21, 2004)

What's happened to the concept of "reasonable suspicion" in conducting a search*. Ashore law enforcement officers can't stop and search someone unless they have a reasonable suspicion for believing a violation of the law has occurred. From the USCG document cited in post #6 above it seems that the CG can board and inspect vessels to "prevent violations", ie no reasonable suspicion required.

If there are any attorneys here present, can they reply to this question: Why do sailors have fewer rights than citizens ashore?

* from Wiki:


> Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, *frisk* a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs.


-----------------------

After doing the post (aka, shooting from the hip), I did a bit of research and like it or not, it looks like the CG can conduct "suspicionless searches".

From the US Nineth Circuit in the case of UNITED STATES </ST1v. THOMPSON



> The United States has a strong interest in protecting its borders and regulating the activities of maritime traffic, an interest first recognized by Congress early in the history of the Republic when it granted Coast Guard revenue cutters the authority to conduct suspicionless boardings; authority which has been repeatedly upheld by courts. See, e.g., lace>United States</ST1lace> v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comlace>U.S.</ST1lace></st1:country-region> 579, 592 (1983); <st1:country-region><ST1lace>United States</ST1lace></st1:country-region> v. Watson, 678 F.2d 765, 771-74 (9th Cir. 1982).


Looks like if you are subjected to a "suspicionless search" whether underway or at anchor one had best have their vessel ship-shape, gear and person in order. If one is obviously intoxicated while at anchor, it seems that they might be arrested to prevent the vessel from being operated with an incapicated crew under UC authority to prevent violations of the law.

That said, the CG document cited in #6 also says:



> *PROHIBITION TO SAIL -*
> *MANIFESTLY UNSAFE VOYAGE*​
> Under the authority of
> ​​*46 United States Code 4302 and*​
> ...




Bottom line (?): Stay sober and keep your flares and fire extinguisher inspections up to date 
​


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

billyruffn said:


> ...
> 
> If there are any attorneys here present, can they reply to this question: Why do sailors have fewer rights than citizens ashore?


I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that ashore we operate with constitutional protections and precedent derived from common law, whereas on-water activities are governed by admiralty law -- a very different body of juris prudence with far fewer protections against search and seizure.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Would not a "designated anchor watch" cover off the requirement for at least one sober operator of a vessel? A sober designated driver can, after all, transport entirely legally a van full of seatbelted drunks; in fact, this is widely encouraged. I can't see how this would be different aboard. If one person is abstaining (or "blowing legal" after a single glass of wine, say), that person is the proxy (assuming they are competent to operate a boat) for a boatload of happily snoring rum-drinkers.

Personally, I rarely drink underway, as I treat sailing like driving (and I don't drive a car). I would imbibe at anchor conservatively, because of the quite common need to maintain minimal awareness as wind and other boats "orbiting" can necessitate a 2 AM "deck check".

At dock, cooking up for a saloon table of four, I will perhaps accept a larger nightcap, but not if we are getting an early start. My experience, despite having a sturdy liver, is that a few bottles of wine at dinner and a seven a.m. cast-off do not mix, particularly beating to weather.

Law or not, I'd have to say that sailing has cut into my alcohol consumption, simply because I'm a skipper and therefore my opportunities are pretty limited. Having said that, an icy cider at hull speed on a hot day or a tot of single malt at dusk in the fall are greatly enhanced by the fresh air one gets sailing.


----------



## jkimberly (Jun 18, 2008)

It would seem to me that, with the current state of laws governing the CG, it would be prudent to be sober (at least below the legal limit), as well as having your vessel in compliance with marine laws. 

What's not common sense about the above? 

If you're at anchor and intending to only have lunch, you need your wits about you - stay sober. If you're at anchor and you intend to stay there for the night and move on in the morning, stay sober. There's lots of things that can and do happen that need attention while at anchor and these are all best handled sober. uke 

If you want to surpass the legal limit for sobriety, get a slip! Preferably away from the channel or fairway so that if the CG motors by, you're not in their face. 

Lastly, anyone who takes a boat out without it being in compliance and "safe" deserves to be ticketed and ostracized (preferably with a dull ostrasizer!)


----------



## josrulz (Oct 15, 2006)

nk235 said:


> I heard if you have a Rocna it is legal to drink at anchor....


HA!


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

SEMIJim said:


> And if "operating a vessel" includes whilst being at anchor, what about when docked? And if docked = anchored, then live-aboards can't even drink in their own homes?
> 
> Jim


This is what I worry about. The CG already has incredible powers unheard of in any other country. They can board you without cause or permission on the high seas, which in every other country in the world is the definition of piracy.

I had a quick read through some of their documents. So far I can't find a definition of "operating" as it relates to anchoring. Another point is that there is some weird crossover between state and federal laws especially when the CG acts as law enforcement. They will take the lower of the state BAC and federal limit and transfer custody of you to the local cops for example. In washington state you can get a DUI if you blow over .08 2 HOURS after driving. If that applies also to boating that could be a problem for those of us who the set of the hook IS the start of cocktail hour.

I appreciate the comments about the seamanship of maintaining sobriety at anchor, but the point, for me, is what's LEGAL? Should we drink to excess at anchor? Probably not, we could suddenly be in a situation where we need all of our faculties. Should we drink at home while cooking? Probably not, as we might set the kitchen and house on fire and need to act quickly but the difference is that nobody is going to barge into your kitchen at home and breathalize you!

I strongly prefer to be the ultimate judge of what I consider safe on my vessel thank you very much, and the jingoist laws enforced by the state get in my way and tick me off. It is entirely possible that if we find out that you can get a BUI at anchor, then we can all get them living aboard at the slip.

Case in point. It was a summer night years ago and I hopped in my inflatable dinghy with a 6 pack to float along the shore and enjoy the warm night and the moon. It should be noted that I was wearing my CG approved float coat, had a submersible VHF, 6 Ariel & 1 hand flares, a dye marker, strobe, submersible flashlight, whistle and signal mirror in the pockets of the coat I was wearing. Oh and I was tied into my boat. This entire event takes place with me floating and rowing within 100ft of shore but an operable and gassed up motor was attached to the craft.

The coast guard arrives and asks what I'm doing. I tell them I'm having a couple beers and enjoying the warm night. They didn't believe me so I spent the next 3 hours in handcuffs. Then they decide to give me a BUI test so first I get to do a field sobriety test on the floating dock, which I passed. Then while waiting for another boat with a BAC machine I ask the ensign a couple questions.

Me: "Sir, I understand the purpose of the BUI law as it keeps drunk speedboats from killing innocent people, but do you really think it reasonable to give me one when I'm rowing a rubber boat less than 100ft from land?"

Ensign: "Over 50% of boating accidents involve alcohol. The law is not only to protect others but like the motorcycle helmet law it protects people from themselves by keeping them safe." (Party line!!!!)

Me: "Hmmm... So did you know that I'm a rock climber? Sometimes I choose to go climbing solo, without any rope at all. (not true) Most would agree that that is much more dangerous than driving a motorcycle without a helmet. Why isn't that illegal then?"

At this point the ensign looked puzzled and dissapeared down into the CG boat. He returns with the ranking officer who says to me, "I understand you have some questions."

The end result? They "terminate my voyage" because the couldn't find anything wrong and their pride was hurt. I receive no paperwork at all at the time of boarding. Then a couple weeks later I get a letter from the district commander who reviewed my boarding and found that I didn't have a whistle therefore they wanted to charge me $5,000. I did have a whistle and after an exchange of letters they "let me off" with a warning.

Fast forward to 2 years ago. I come back from living overseas for 6 months to find another letter from the district commander in my mailbox. It accused me of boating without enough life jackets and threatened a $7,000fine. I wrote a snippy letter back with the details of the yard that still had my boat on the hard. The letter also contained the phrase "seeing as how the CG is now part of the department of homeland security _I'm sure you are already aware _that *I was in Belgium at the time of the alleged violation*."

Bottom line: I don't trust 20year old wanna be heros who are granted absolute power by law limited only by their "judgement". I want their _powers _to be properly regulated by law.

[/RANT]

MedSailor


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Now do the hard thing: Press charges against that DC for malfeasance and abuse, unless he can come up with a good reason for sending you the life jacket letter as some kind of honest error. 

If nothing else, a formal charge of misfeasance and an investigation of it will put an extra large demerit in his permanent folder.


----------



## Mark1948 (Jun 19, 2007)

Interesting posts. As to the drinking while on a mooring, I find it an interesting question as I own my mooring and have documention of ownership from the county, McKinley Marina in Milwaukee, WI. How would that play out. Virtually tied to my own piece of property in Lake Michigan. Makes another interisting twist to the questions.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

MedSailor said:


> This is what I worry about. The CG already has incredible powers unheard of in any other country. They can board you without cause or permission on the high seas, which in every other country in the world is the definition of piracy.....
> 
> MedSailor


Sorry, but that is nothing like piracy. The hallmarks of piracy are intent to harm and rob, and it is committed by non-government entities operating beyond the physical or legal boundaries of any jurisdiction. In short, violence and lawlessness -- the exact opposite of the Coast Guard's primary missions, which include law enforcement and safety at sea. And which are sanctioned by the legitimate government of our country.

As for other countries: In all the countries whose waters I've sailed, we were always told when clearing customs that we were subject to boarding and inspection at any time by the national coast guards.


----------



## Joesaila (May 19, 2007)

*tough one...*

Public officials have the right to use descretion in enforcing laws. No doubt there will be some who abuse authority. Whether on land or sea. Likely most people who are imbibed will say the wrong thing and reap the consequences. A wise person once told me to always be polite w police officers...they are judge, jury and executioner when a questionable situation exists. I absolutely hate the idea of the CG arresting someone at anchor for being drunk and because of the good explanations already offered, believe you would be found innocent of that charge in court...but a drunk is also likely to 'resist arrest' or 'commit assault' = multiple charges etc. So he may ultimately get off but it will cost big money once a lawyer enters the picture. 
Are they going to arrest an entire party? Who is the operator?


----------



## lapworth (Dec 19, 2008)

I agree with Joesaila just say yes sir no sir and wait till it goes to court. The courts won't be happy with officers wasting there time. Drunks do have a way of p---ing sober people off.


----------



## patrickrea (Aug 20, 2007)

Under Canadian law, you can drink while at anchor if;
1) There is a permenent head
2) Cooking and eating facilities.
3) Your travel for the day is complete.

Therefore, if you drop the hook for the night in your decked out cruising machine, you can have a pint or 6.

You CANNOT have a drink if you are dropping the hook for lunch in your little RIB while fishing or snorkeling.


----------



## WanderingStar (Nov 12, 2008)

It never occurred to me that drinking while anchored might be a legal problem. Maybe because I rarely drink on the boat. But realisticly, most people anchored are probably not anchored for the night. We also all consider anchoring part of navigation when local authorities try to restrict it. I think the idea of remaining sober while anchored is not unreasonable.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

JohnRPollard said:


> Sorry, but that is nothing like piracy.


*Nothing* like piracy? Did you actually _read_ MedSailor's account?



JohnRPollard said:


> The hallmarks of piracy are intent to harm and rob,


He was detained without cause and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines, in one case where he couldn't have possibly been where he was alleged to be. All of this backed by the force of the U.S. Government. You don't think that's harmful? You don't think he was robbed of his time?

It may seem minor you you, but I find it exceedingly objectionable.



JohnRPollard said:


> and it is committed by non-government entities operating beyond the physical or legal boundaries of any jurisdiction.


First of all: Nowhere does any definition of "piracy" I've seen have anything to say about "legal boundaries" or "jurisdictions." Secondly: Just because the behaviour is government-sponsored, doesn't automatically make it "not piracy." Privateers were nothing more than government-approved pirates.



JohnRPollard said:


> In short, violence and lawlessness ...


Yeah, governments *never* engage in violence or lawlessness. 



JohnRPollard said:


> As for other countries: ...


I don't really care about "other governments." I care about *my* government. I'm not much liking what I'm seeing.

Perhaps you don't mind living under the heels of jack-booted thugs, JRP, but others of us happen to be under what you probably find to be the curious misconception that what our fathers and forefathers lived and died for was a country free of such things.

I tend to be exceedingly supportive of law enforcement. But if any cop, land or sea, abuses me in a manner such as that experienced by MedSailor, my Congressional representatives, both State and Federal, are going to hear about it.

Jim


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

patrickrea said:


> Under Canadian law, you can drink while at anchor if;
> 1) There is a permenent head
> 2) Cooking and eating facilities.
> 3) Your travel for the day is complete.
> ...


Which seems completely reasonable.



patrickrea said:


> You CANNOT have a drink if you are dropping the hook for lunch in your little RIB while fishing or snorkeling.


You cannot drink at all, or you cannot drink to inebriation?

(Some following this thread are, by now, probably under the impression I'm a drunkard. Truth is: I drink very little. A six-pack will last in the fridge for weeks, sometimes. The boat gets stocked with a case at the beginning of the season, and most of it goes to guests. I generally only have a beer after she's back in her slip.)

Jim


----------



## JungleJim (May 16, 2009)

To the OP my thoughts are if someone wants to give you a hard time they can and will. On the water, they need less reason to search for violations than on land. In 30+ years I haven't had a problem with the USCG. 4 years ago I returned to my boat anchored off Oxford, MD, and I was well lit. My boat collided with another while at anchor during a nasty blow and had 4 USCG on board. My reaction was "uh-oh" but they couldn't have been more professional and courteous (neither could I). Checked for my safety on-board safety compliance and were on their way. I probably dodged a bullet but felt I did so by not being defensive and let them do their job.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

The Coast Guard boarding rights go back to when we very young country and and the new Government authorized privateer's to board any vessel with in our territorial waters. This was done to keep arms shipments from the British.

One or twice a year the USCG will come to our marina usually on a Sat. If you are on your boat you are getting inspected. We believe they do this as training. Lot's of open beers and drinking going on in a marina on a Sat. afternoon, But I never have seen them hand out a ticket for drinking on a boat at the dock. I did get a warning for out of date flares once.


----------



## AlanBrown (Dec 20, 2007)

Like MedSailor I did some research and read the law which authorizes the USCG to board vessels, conduct safety inspections, observe and test operators for intoxication, terminate voyages, et al. Nowhere could I find any definition of the word "operate". Thus, the original question remains.

The best advice I found online came from a FL boating website. To quote the author:

"Also like DUI, you can be arrested for BUI even if the engine is not running. Sitting in the driver’s seat while intoxicated is sufficient. And as with DUI, you need not even have the keys in the ignition. In Florida, you can be arrested for BUI so long as you have “actual physical control” of the vessel."

His thoughts seem to jibe with most other articles that have been written on the subject. Anchored or underway, it seems to make no difference.

To summarize. Your crew can get drunk as skunks, but if away from the dock, the operator ( likey to be considerd the owner) had better stay sober.

BTW, on an Ohio legal website a distinction was made between anchoring in a designated anchorage vs just anchoring out when it came to BWI. You may wish to see if your state makes such a distinction.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> As for other countries: In all the countries whose waters I've sailed, we were always told when clearing customs that we were subject to boarding and inspection at any time by the national coast guards.


_Within their territorial waters_, yes. Only the USCG, to my knowledge (OK, maybe the Chinese, who consider everything to Japan their waters), reserves to itself the right to board not only their own flagged vessels on the high seas, but will have a crack at anyone, anywhere.

There are horror stories about Canadian and British yachts being boarded offshore by USCG vessels while carrying Cuban cigars and rum (or whatever goods from whatever country is today's enemy of the President). While some of these stories are no doubt apocryphal, illegal boardings, search and seizures actually meet my definition of piracy. This is why the NATO ships in the Red Sea aren't actually blowing boatloads of armed Somalis out of the water...you can't actually kill a pirate before he attempts an act of piracy.

The USCG has a tough, thankless job, and most of them are courteous and execute their mandate admirably. But that mandate has certain latitudes that other countries find excessive, and apparently, so do many U.S. citizens themselves.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

SEMIJim said:


> (Some following this thread are, by now, probably under the impression I'm a drunkard. Truth is: I drink very little. A six-pack will last in the fridge for weeks, sometimes. The boat gets stocked with a case at the beginning of the season, and most of it goes to guests. I generally only have a beer after she's back in her slip.)


Jim, I don't smoke pot (makes me cough and I'd have to cough have the night to get high...not worth it!), but I support the decriminalization of marijuana because I want to collect the taxes that otherwise go to criminals.

Right now, many, if not most, of the anti-drug laws in North America do nothing to discourage drug use, and enrich only criminals and expand (and thereby enrich) those who run and work for law enforcement and prisons.

Strangely, I can't recall a single instance of smelling pot smoke coming off a sailboat. Curious, that! There's sure a lot of it coming out of the park behind my house (and I would always prefer someone high than someone drunk in that park).


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Valiente said:


> _Within their territorial waters_, yes. Only the USCG, to my knowledge (OK, maybe the Chinese, who consider everything to Japan their waters), reserves to itself the right to board not only their own flagged vessels on the high seas, but will have a crack at anyone, anywhere.
> 
> There are horror stories about Canadian and British yachts being boarded offshore by USCG vessels while carrying Cuban cigars and rum (or whatever goods from whatever country is today's enemy of the President). While some of these stories are no doubt apocryphal, illegal boardings, search and seizures actually meet my definition of piracy. This is why the NATO ships in the Red Sea aren't actually blowing boatloads of armed Somalis out of the water...you can't actually kill a pirate before he attempts an act of piracy.
> 
> The USCG has a tough, thankless job, and most of them are courteous and execute their mandate admirably. But that mandate has certain latitudes that other countries find excessive, and apparently, so do many U.S. citizens themselves.


 
Schematic map of maritime zones.

*Territorial waters*, or a *territorial sea*, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea[1], is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.
The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.

Reagan, signed the order that moved our waters out from 12 miles to 200 miles. Cuba being only 90 miles off of Key West. Well you take your chances.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Valiente said:


> Jim, I don't smoke pot (makes me cough and I'd have to cough have the night to get high...not worth it!), but I support the decriminalization of marijuana because ...


Precisely my point. I'm not upset over (some) water cops' behaviour because I'm worried about getting busted (tho, after MedSailor's account, perhaps I should be!), but because I find such behaviour an unwarranted infringement on peoples' natural right to be left the hell alone!

I guess, to satisfy the nanny state, I should never even _have_ alcoholic beverages aboard.  "Land of the free," indeed! uke

Jim


----------



## drobarge (Mar 3, 2009)

WanderingStar said:


> It never occurred to me that drinking while anchored might be a legal problem. Maybe because I rarely drink on the boat. But realisticly, most people anchored are probably not anchored for the night. We also all consider anchoring part of navigation when local authorities try to restrict it. I think the idea of remaining sober while anchored is not unreasonable.


two heinekens stowed in the back of the icebox didn't hurt me or your anchor


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Remember, though, that you haven't committed an offense merely because you were drinking an alcoholic beverage while at anchor. You have to be "under the influence," within the standard set by state law. If you aren't drunk, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

A couple of weeks ago, I was stopped by a police roadblock. I was driving my car, and had previously had a scotch before dinner. I'm sure the scotch was still on my breath, but the officer didn't test me or detain me in any way, because my speech wasn't slurred, my eyes weren't watery, and my behavior didn't suggest intoxication. Most police really don't want to put us through the wringer. They just want to protect the public from drunks.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

For Federal BWI you have to blow a .1 and most states it is now .08. And if you piss off the USCG when you blew a .08 they will turn you over to the local authorities.
Now for those of us who are Licensed, it is a .04 for the BWI. So I can't even look at a beer let alone drink one.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Boasun said:


> Now for those of us who are Licensed, it is a .04 for the BWI. So I can't even look at a beer let alone drink one.


Ha! Gotja beat: For a Michigan concealed pistol license holder who is carrying, you're in violation at .02. So you can't even _think_ about a beer, let alone look at one. 

Jim


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Valiente said:


> The USCG has a tough, thankless job, and most of them are courteous and execute their mandate admirably. But that mandate has certain latitudes that other countries find excessive, and apparently, so do many U.S. citizens themselves.


This is the attitude I continue to try and cultivate towards the CG. They signed up to serve and I still think that most are good and do not abuse their power. My direct experience continues to sour my opinion of them though, which is why I believe that they should have more clear guidelines than they apparently do. I recognize that the officer's judgment is a critical part of any law enforcement encounter but I think the CG has too much leeway. I never worry about a land based officer of the law because we have clear legal protections. We do not have such protections at sea.

I should note that despite my numerous negative interactions with the CG my most recent boarding (last summer) was the picture of professionalism. They conducted a safety inspection while underway, everything was kosher and everyone was polite and professional. I even got paperwork at the time of the boarding this time!

I just don't understand how they can get off accusing you of civil/criminal offences by mail as they have done to me twice in 8 years. Can you imagine the state patrol sending you a letter in the mail accusing you of reckless driving instead of pulling you over? It offers no recourse besides hiring a lawyer, which I cannot afford. In the case of them claiming I did not have a whistle, it all could have been resolved in seconds if they would have brought that up at the time of boarding. I could have pointed to it on their deck (where they had all my possessions laid out like a drug bust) and said, "There it is." Instead I ended up in a "my word vs your sworn officer's" debate by mail. At the end of their boarding I even asked if I had done anything wrong or was accused of anything, to which they responded "no". In fact, I wonder if the "termination of voyage" they gave me was even legal as it appears to only apply to the vessel itself and not the operator. My vessel was sound and not overloaded.

MedSailor


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

SEMIJim said:


> *Nothing* like piracy? Did you actually _read_ MedSailor's account?
> 
> *He was detained without cause *and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines, in one case where he couldn't have possibly been where he was alleged to be. All of this backed by the force of the U.S. Government. You don't think that's harmful? You don't think he was robbed of his time?


Detained without cause? Give me a break. Did *YOU* read his account? He wrote:



> Case in point. It was a summer night years ago and I hopped in my inflatable dinghy with a 6 pack to float along the shore and enjoy the warm night and the moon. It should be noted that I was wearing my CG approved float coat, had a submersible VHF, 6 Ariel & 1 hand flares, a dye marker, strobe, submersible flashlight, whistle and signal mirror in the pockets of the coat I was wearing. Oh and I was tied into my boat. This entire event takes place with me floating and rowing within 100ft of shore but an operable and gassed up motor was attached to the craft.
> 
> The coast guard arrives and asks what I'm doing. I tell them I'm having a couple beers and enjoying the warm night.


To compare this incident to an act of piracy is absolutely ludicrous.

Furthermore, we are *not* talking about someone that was drinking at anchor as in the OP. And that he had safety equipment aboard his dinghy does not in any way alter the fact that he was by his own admission consuming alcohol while underway at night. If the Coast Guard had given him a free pass and he had later caused a serious accident, everyone would be pillorying and probably suing the CG for negligence.



SEMIJim said:


> It may seem minor you you, but I find it exceedingly objectionable.


I don't.



SEMIJim said:


> ... Privateers were nothing more than government-approved pirates.


Sorry, but privateering was not piracy. It has been outlawed in modern times, but during the period when it was practiced it was considered a legal form of commerce raiding between countries at war. The difference between commerce raiding and the modern equivalent is that the goods and vessels were taken rather than merely sunk to the bottom of the ocean.



SEMIJim said:


> I don't really care about "other governments."


I wasn't responding to your cares. He claimed that no other countries do this and I was responding to that claim. His "case in point" was not talking about enforcement on the high seas. He was talking about enforcement in local waters, and in my experience the coast guards of many other countries exercise similar authority in their local waters.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

JohnRPollard said:


> Detained without cause? Give me a break. Did *YOU* read his account?


Yes, I did. And I continue to believe there was no cause to detain him



JohnRPollard said:


> And that he had safety equipment aboard his dinghy does not in any way alter the fact that he was by his own admission consuming alcohol while underway at night.


In a little dinghy with a pair of oars, floating along, enjoying a couple beers.

What has this country come to when a person can't float along in a dinghy and have a couple beers in peace and quiet?



JohnRPollard said:


> Sorry, but privateering was not piracy. It has been outlawed in modern times, but during the period when it was practiced it was considered a legal form of commerce raiding between countries at war.


Yes, cloaking their activities under the colour of law makes piracy not piracy, I see.



JohnRPollard said:


> I wasn't responding to your cares. He claimed that no other countries do this and I was responding to that claim. He was not talking here about enforcement on the high seas. He was talking about enforcement in local waters, and in my experience the coast guards of many other countries exercise similar authority in their local waters.


I understood that. I was only remarking that it mattered not to me what other countries do. What matters to me is what _my_ country does.

Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

Jim


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

JohnRPollard said:


> I don't.


JRP, would you clarify for me which part you don't feel is unreasonable? How the boarding was conducted I object to in some regards but it is the accusations of criminal offenses by mail that I particularly object to. Surely you don't believe the accusation of criminal action while I was out of the country was not objectionable.

I understand you believe the USCG was protecting their liability by inspecting me after I admitted to drinking. Perhaps, but exactly what "serious accident" as you called it do you think I was capable of creating while rowing my 11ft inflatable rubber boat?

Also to clarify I never referred to the incidents against me as piracy. It was the boarding of vessels by the USCG against their will on the high seas that I was referring to.

MedSailor


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

MedSailor said:


> JRP, would you clarify for me which part you don't feel is unreasonable? How the boarding was conducted I object to in some regards but it is the accusations of criminal offenses by mail that I particularly object to. Surely you don't believe the accusation of criminal action while I was out of the country was not objectionable.


Med, I'll be honest with you. From reading your description of "accusations of criminal offenses by mail" it seemed to me you were describing a second run-in with the Coast Guard, one that had nothing to do with the rafting/dinghy incident. As you say, it was two years later. If you were out of the country when the alleged infraction occurred, and they accepted that explanation, wasn't this simply a clerical error? Why belabor it?



MedSailor said:


> I understand you believe the USCG was protecting their liability by inspecting me after I admitted to drinking. Perhaps, but exactly what "serious accident" as you called it do you think I was capable of creating while rowing my 11ft inflatable rubber boat?


From their perspective, they found a guy drifting at night in an inflatable rubber boat with a six-pack of beer aboard. You were the only occupant so it's a reasonable assumption that you planned (and may have been well into that plan) to consume the six-pack yourself. Not only that, you tell them as much.

How much damage could you cause another boat or party? Probably not much. But what was likely running through their mind is what happens if the guy in the little rubber raft -- whose judgement is probably impaired -- misjudges the proximity or course of a motor boat in the darkness and then ends up as prop chop? I can see the headline now.

Do you really mean to say it never occurred to you that they have an affirmative obligation to protect you from yourself? They are bound to do exactly that, and they're certainly not going to substitute the judgement of someone they know has been drinking for their own.

I'll be honest with you, it sounds to me like you gave some young Coast Guardsmen a hassle and they pushed back. This is pure speculation, but had you taken a different, less confrontational approach they likely would have delayed you for a bit and then let you go with a warning to remain ashore for the rest of the night. Case closed.



MedSailor said:


> Also to clarify I never referred to the incidents against me as piracy. It was the boarding of vessels by the USCG against their will on the high seas that I was referring to.
> 
> MedSailor


Fair enough. I took your "case in point" as an example to support your opening statement about the Coast Guard being engaged in piracy.

But again, this thread was about drinking while at anchor, not while underway or out on the high seas. Your "case in point" doesn't seem germain.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

JRP I'll respond briefly as I feel that this thread is already wandering away from the very good question about drinking at anchor. The accusations of crimes by mail happened after both incidents, but aren't really relevant to the OP's question. Neither was resolved satisfactorily. 

My intent in writing the "the case in point" was to address the issue raised that the USCG will always use their judgment appropriately when enforcing laws. My case was meant to give an example of my experience when it appeared to not be used appropriately. 

I don't believe they should protect me from myself. Stupidity has never successfully been outlawed, nor do I believe it is the responsibility of the state to try and do so.

Here is part of my original "case in point" post:

-----------
I appreciate the comments about the seamanship of maintaining sobriety at anchor, but the point, for me, is what's LEGAL? Should we drink to excess at anchor? Probably not, we could suddenly be in a situation where we need all of our faculties. Should we drink at home while cooking? Probably not, as we might set the kitchen and house on fire and need to act quickly but the difference is that nobody is going to barge into your kitchen at home and breathalize you!

I strongly prefer to be the ultimate judge of what I consider safe on my vessel thank you very much, and the jingoist laws enforced by the state get in my way and tick me off. It is entirely possible that if we find out that you can get a BUI at anchor, then we can all get them living aboard at the slip.
-----------


My personal experience is that good judgment regarding enforcement is not always used, therefore I always try and remain within the law so it never becomes an issue. Which brings me back to the OP's question. 

I would love to find out what our rights and responsibilities are in this matter. I would love to know if you can get a BUI at anchor or living aboard at the dock. Lets see if we can answer that.

MedSailor


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

MedSailor said:


> ...Which brings me back to the OP's question.
> 
> I would love to find out what our rights and responsibilities are in this matter. I would love to know if you can get a BUI at anchor or living aboard at the dock. Lets see if we can answer that.
> 
> MedSailor


Definitely. This is still a good question, and I agree that we don't seem to have a definitive answer yet. I like the Canadian approach, which seems to show common sense. I had always assumed the U.S. had similar rules (but of course it would vary from state to state.)

Except for blatant cases of public drunkenness, I have never heard of anyone being bothered by marine police (CG or other) for drinking while at anchor.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

In regards to the situation of drinking in the dinghy; I'll say that while I agree that there is little reason for the USCG (or Sheriff) to hassle someone, I also can see where they are coming from. Just 6 months ago a boat owner in my marina returning from an evening of dinner and drinks fell overboard while exiting his dinghy to board his docked boat. He quickly was overcome by hypothermia (50 deg water) and drown right in the marina. He was not found until the next afternoon beneath the pump-out dock. Had he not been intoxicated he might not have fallen in while boarding his vessel; but he was and the consensus was that it was a big contributor to his death.

Lots of resources were spent on the SAR for him right in the marina; people put their own life in harms way diving in the black water at night looking for his body. I think if he had walked back to his boat he would probably still be alive; though he also could have fallen climbing aboard from the dock as well. But I think it was a preventable death; mainly caused by his BUI.

The presence of a six-pack with the operator in the dinghy and two empty cans is NOT, let me repeat, NOT necessarily a BUI, nor is it probable cause that the operator will drink to excess. What if the operator decided that he would sit/row in the dinghy for 3 hours and have 2 beers per hour? What would his weight corrected BAC be at the end of 3 hours? (probably legal) The question is what was the operators BAC at the time the USCG arrived? Did you blow a .06 wet&wreckless (in your rubber boat LOL) or were you below .04? I could see their concern since the boat had an outboard; but technically you were not underway since you were tied to your anchored sailboat.

It's probably the blatant drunkenness by the stinkpotters in places like Lake Havasu and in the delta areas that have upped the scrutiny of the USCG over all people who consume alcohol while on the water. Remember, those guys remain 100% dry while they are out performing their duties; and they harvest the carnage from all of the intoxicated goofballs who slaughter innocent non-drunken boaters (and drunken passengers).


----------



## rwy36 (Mar 19, 2004)

In the Connecticut Statutes, _Sec. 15-133. Rules for safe operation. Operation of vessel while under the influence of liquor or drugs. Penalties. Records of conviction._, "operating" a vessel is well-defined:

_For purposes of this section and sections 15-140l, 15-140n, 15-140o and 15-140q, "operate" means that the vessel is underway or aground and not moored, anchored or docked._

So, it would seem that while moored, anchored or docked in Connecticut, you won't run afoul of CT state law if enjoying an adult beverage (or two) after settling in for the night.

However, the earlier posts advising caution for at least the knowledgeable, responsible party (especially when anchored) would seem to be very prudent guidance since "dragging anchor" would still present a possible risk if all are partaking (as you'll likely be considered "underway" if your anchor breaks free).

Bill
O'Day 302 - "Antares"


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Michigan Statutes read similarly:


> NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
> Act 451 of 1994
> 324.80103 Definitions; M to O.
> 
> ...


However: The lake upon which we boat, Lake St. Clair, I believe is a federal "connected waterway." (I think that's the term.) So it's possible federal law preempts state law. The lake and connected rivers, creeks and canals are patrolled by county sheriffs, USCG and DHS CBP - we see them all. On the water and in the air.

Jim


----------



## roline (Apr 7, 2000)

We were stopped and boarded while returning from a winter series race at the Berkely circle. It had rained all day, temp was in the 30's surprised it did not snow. We were soaked and cold, the Coast Guard Cutter instructed us to stop and be boarded. He jumped from the bow of the little cutter and broke the fiberglass whip VHF antenna has he landed in the cockpit like a wet beached seal. Adjusting his hat and gathering himself he started to go down a check list from squeezing the life vests, inspecting flares, checking the fire extinguishers, listening to the horn........... As if the safety inspection was a justification for the complete inspection of every cubic inch of stowage. There was nothing to find but a couple cans of soup in the bilge that had corroded and started to leak. We received our copy of the inspection and he departed. It took a couple months for the C.G. to respond to the request for reinbursement for the replacement antenna, but they came through. After docking and a change into dry clothes, we chatter over a couple cups of hot coffee and we believed that they were doing an inspection for smuggled contraband based on the complete cavity search that they performed on the boat in the name of a safety inspection. This has been my only experience with the G.C. Now living inland and sailing on lakes we have the TWRA, but is another story for another day....


----------



## bheintz (Jun 14, 2001)

These are the CFRs - States and other municipalities may have their own rules.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 33 Part 177

*Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters
PART 177-CORRECTION OF ESPECIALLY HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS*
This part prescribes rules to implement section 4308 of Title 46 United States Code which governs the correction of especially hazardous conditions on recreational vessels and uninspected passenger vessels on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, for a vessel owned in the United States, on the high seas . . .

*§ 177.03 Definitions.*
(d) Operator means the person who is in control or in charge of a boat while it is in use.
(e) Use means operate, navigate, or employ.

*§ 177.07 Other unsafe conditions.*
(b) That is operated by an individual who is apparently under the influence of alcohol or a dangerous drug, as defined in §95.020 of this chapter, to the extent that, in the boarding officer's discretion, the continued operation of the vessel would create an unsafe condition.

*§ 177.05 Action to correct an especially hazardous condition.*
An operator of a boat who is directed by a Coast Guard Boarding Officer to take immediate and reasonable steps necessary for the safety of those aboard the vessel, under section 4308 of Title 46, United States Code, shall follow the direction of the Coast Guard Boarding Officer, which may include direction to:
(b) Proceed to a mooring, dock, or anchorage;


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

bubb2 said:


> Reagan, signed the order that moved our waters out from 12 miles to 200 miles. Cuba being only 90 miles off of Key West. Well you take your chances.


The USCG has been found operating off Mexico and even close to Venezula on what I assume are drug-indictment missions. What the USCG does not have the right to do in such waters (or on the high seas) is to subject foreign-flagged vessels to search and seizure, or even to board them.

When outside U.S. waters, I am not subject to U.S. laws or regulations. I don't have to say where I've been, what I'm up to, or where I'm going. You'd think the bleating right-wingers, of which there are many here on Sailnet, would appreciate my stance, but freedom from government interference is only for Fox commentators, it seems, not non-U.S. sailors.

When the USCG make more than a courtesy contact with my vessel in international waters, and actually attempt to impede or board me, they are no difference from Somali pirates in my view, and in the view of other international sailors. In fact, it was exactly this behaviour by the British Navy in the Napoleonic Wars (the stopping, boarding and seizure of seaman for impressment from U.S. merchant vessels on the high seas) that was a major cause of the War of 1812.

I often hear U.S. commentators bemoaning the fact that America has a great number of expensive foreign entanglements and that it shouldn't be seen as the "world's cop".

I would agree with that sentiment. Oppress (oh, sorry..."serve") your own citizens, Coasties. I'm sure it's somewhere in your glorious Constitution.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm guilty of derailing this from "boozing at anchor" to "getting boarded on the high seas", but it's a topic that is directly affecting my passage routing in our upcoming circ. We are seriously debating the upside of entering U.S. waters (or even close to them) when it means our tightly packed passagemaker could get tossed because of some shift from "orange" to "red" in some Homeland Security bureaucrat's pocket alert meter. A lot of cruisers in Canada are fed up with some of the high-handed crap they are encountering on the Great Lakes, whereas the USCG used to be far less gung-ho and more sensible about the "cross-boader traffic".


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Boasun said:


> For Federal BWI you have to blow a .1 and most states it is now .08. And if you piss off the USCG when you blew a .08 they will turn you over to the local authorities.
> Now for those of us who are Licensed, it is a .04 for the BWI. So I can't even look at a beer let alone drink one.


Even at anchor, Boasun? I thought the issue here was a couple of sundowners at anchor, not boozing underway. I don't think anyone's trying to make a case for that.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Valiente said:


> When outside U.S. waters, I am not subject to U.S. laws or regulations. I don't have to say where I've been, what I'm up to, or where I'm going.


Damn right you don't. Tell 'em to piss off. If they force their way onto your boat, file a written complaint with your government.



Valiente said:


> You'd think the bleating right-wingers, of which there are many here on Sailnet, would appreciate my stance, but freedom from government interference is only for Fox commentators, it seems, not non-U.S. sailors.


Bah! Right-wingers are no more pro-freedom than are left-wingers--they're each just a different flavour of control-freak, convinced that theirs is The One True Way. Just watch: One of them will be along at any moment to chide you with "But if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." 



Valiente said:


> When the USCG make more than a courtesy contact with my vessel in international waters, and actually attempt to impede or board me, they are no difference from Somali pirates in my view,...


I agree with you entirely.



Valiente said:


> We are seriously debating the upside of entering U.S. waters (or even close to them) when it means our tightly packed passagemaker could get tossed because of some shift from "orange" to "red" in some Homeland Security bureaucrat's pocket alert meter. A lot of cruisers in Canada are fed up with some of the high-handed crap they are encountering on the Great Lakes, whereas the USCG used to be far less gung-ho and more sensible about the "cross-boader traffic".


Don't blame you. I'd stay out of U.S. territorial waters, were I you. It's _my_ flippin' country, _allegedly_ "the land of the free," and even _I_ don't feel secure here, anymore. It isn't terrorists that scare me, *it's my own flippin' government*!

I don't like what's become of my country. This BS about the USCG harrassing people at anchor or just harmlessly drifting along in a dinghy, enjoying a couple cold ones, are examples of why.

Jim


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

bheintz said:


> These are the CFRs - States and other municipalities may have their own rules.
> 
> ...
> *§ 177.03 Definitions.*
> ...


Nice catch-all they're rigged, there: Even if you're *in your slip*, you're "employing" your boat. Hell, one of my club-mates was over-nighting on his boat this spring while she was still on the hard. In doing that, he was "employing" his boat.

Oh yeah, and wasn't there something about the U.S. government wanting to extend their grip to state waters by re-defining basically anything "wet" to be "navigable waters?" Wonderful.

Jim


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

This is what this whole thing is starting to sound like...






Focus, guys, focus! It's about the booze!


----------



## billyruffn (Sep 21, 2004)

Very funny, SmackD


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

**** the coasties.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

SEMIJim said:


> Damn right you don't. Tell 'em to piss off. If they force their way onto your boat, file a written complaint with your government.


I think if you are a US flagged vessel you are still required to allow them to board regardless of your location (anywhere on the planet). I'd be more worried about being boarded by foreign governments (any place beyond Mexico) than the USCG...


----------



## patrickrea (Aug 20, 2007)

SEMIJim said:


> Which seems completely reasonable.
> 
> You cannot drink at all, or you cannot drink to inebriation?
> 
> ...


You could probably get away with having a beer but if the local yokel or county mountie sees you, he'll give you a breathalyzer and probably the full "safety" inspection. At least here on the Great Lakes or the smaller lakes. In particular, if you are in a "tourist" area such as Muskoka, 1000 Islands, Honey Harbour, and you are in a small boat.

Another thing to remember is that in Ontario at least, the just dropped the limit to 0.05 for a warning. This means you just lost your auto licence or 3 days if you blow over as a warning. It means your insurance is screwed, the impound your car and then charge you a towing and storage fee on it.

Thank God I have usually been out sailing this season with my cousin.
A) He's a decent sailor and fun to have a round
B) He's a cop
C) Not just a cop but Emergency Task Force! That's SWAT to you American folks. Has to carry his badge at all times, which I am sure will be handy if I get pull by the Toronto Marine Unit for not having a Harbour Licence. (another cash grab but that's fo another thread).


----------



## Landseer36i (Feb 3, 2009)

In order to get a DUI you must show the intent to drive under the influence, hence why if you have the keys in the ignition even the car isn’t on you will be charged. The key in the ignition shows intent. How does this relate to boating? In order to get a BUI you must be operating a boat. In order to be operating a boat, the boat must be “underway.” Look to COMTINSTM 16672.2D (COLREGS or Rules of the Road) to define what being underway means. According to Rule 3 of COLREGS a vessel is “underway” if a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground.” If your vessel is at anchor you are not underway. You are therefore not operating your boat. Now when you are anchored are you showing the proper day shapes and lights? How many sailors even keep day shapes onboard? Do you use them when anchoring? How about when motor sailing? You are required to. Below is COLREGS Rule 30 (INLAND) which discusses day shapes and lights for when anchored. There are exceptions for boats that don’t need to use them but when it comes to protecting yourself (CYOA) have them. 

RULE 30 
Anchored Vessels and Vessels Aground 

(a) A vessel at anchor shall exhibit where it can best be seen: 
(i) in the fore part, an all-round white light or one ball; and 
(ii) at or near the stern and at a lower level than the light prescribed in subparagraph (i), an all-round white light. 
(b) A vessel of less than 50 meters in length may exhibit an all-round white light where it can best be seen instead of the lights prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule. 
(c) A vessel at anchor may, and a vessel of 100 meters or more in length shall, also use the available working or equivalent lights to illuminate her decks 
(e) A vessel of less than 7 meters in length, when at anchor, not in or near a narrow channel, fairway, anchorage, or where other vessels normally navigate, shall not be required to exhibit the lights or shape prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Rule. 
(f) A vessel of less than 12 meters in length when aground shall not be required to exhibit the lights or shapes prescribed in subparagraphs (d)(i) and (ii) of this Rule. 
(g) A vessel of less than 20 meters in length, when at anchor in a special anchorage area designated by the Secretary, shall not be required to exhibit the anchor lights and shapes required by this Rule. 

Bottom line. If you are acting in accordance with COLREGS, are in an anchorage, in an area that is recommended as an anchorage (via local cruising guide), or most importantly not anchored in or near a channel or major shipping route then that gives you the evidence to show that you have no intent on getting underway while you are drinking or even if you get intoxicated. Better yet, file a float plan that shows that you intend to anchor overnight in an anchorage. This way you have one more item to prove your innocence. If you do the above you have the tools to prove you had no intent to operate. This can then give you tools to protect yourself.

Even if you do all of this, you may still be harassed by law enforcement. IT happens. It sucks but it does. You have every right to record who the boarding officer is, just like you get the name of the cop that writes you a ticket. And if they treat you unfairly, file a complaint and seek redress. Write to your congressman. Send an editorial to your local newspaper. Sue for harassment. And if you win that then you can get Uncle Sam to pay for your boat. The USCG wants to ensure safety. SO be safe. Don’t drink to excess and know and follow the local regulations and laws accordingly. 

And if you can’t stand to follow any of the local laws, or regulations and you want to live your life by your own rules then leave. Weight anchor and go to another country. No one forces you to live in America. It’s that simple.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> I think if you are a US flagged vessel you are still required to allow them to board regardless of your location (anywhere on the planet).


That sounds vaguely familiar. I think you may be right. But Valiente would appear to be Canadian.



KeelHaulin said:


> I'd be more worried about being boarded by foreign governments (any place beyond Mexico) than the USCG...


Don't know as I'd care to be boarded by Mexican "authorities," either, given the levels of graft and corruption that's widely reported to exist in that country.

Wasn't there a story here, a year or so ago, about a power-boat that had run over an (improperly marked, unmarked?) commercial fishing apparatus, was trapped inside the thing, outside Mexican territorial waters, and Mexican "authorities" wanted to board him? He had to be rescued by the USCG or Navy or some-such?

Jim


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

KeelHaulin said:


> *Lots of resources were spent on the SAR for him right in the marina. people put their own life in harms way diving in the black water at night looking for his body. *I think if he had walked back to his boat he would probably still be alive; though he also could have fallen climbing aboard from the dock as well. But I think it was a preventable death; mainly caused by his BUI.


I have often wondered why anyone would risk a life looking for a body. (individual cases may differ slightly - this gets me off the hook  If you are looking for mine after 2-3 hours of assured immersion in 50 degree water you can take a break and do it slowly, or just wait for nature to take it's course.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

bheintz said:


> These are the CFRs - States and other municipalities may have their own rules.
> 
> Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 33 Part 177
> 
> ...


The wording of this is quite slippery. The operator is the one in charge yes, but what exactly does "in use" mean? By my read it does not necessarily mean the same thing as "underway" which is clearly described in the COLREGS (thanks Landseer36i). You could perhaps be "employing" your vessel or it could be "in use" while you're sitting there minding your own business with the wine and cheese.

After Landseer36i's post I feel much better about this whole situation. According to the COLREGS if you are at anchor and properly indicating so (GET AN ANCHOR BALL!) you are explicitly NOT underway. That, plus (if you felt it necessary) a log entry concluding your day, would fare well in any interaction with the coasties or in any court, I would hope.

Adding a log entry stating that you're anchored for the night, backed on the anchor, have appropriate scope, noted the nearby vessels and are displaying your shapes will go far in any incident that may befall your vessel at anchor. I admit I rarely do this myself but last weekend after a boat anchored right on top of us I noted in my log that he had done so and that I had talked to the captain about it (ie that we were there first) and legal.

In a discussion with a dock mate of mine he brought up the point that it would be madness to say that an inebriated sailor should be given a BUI at anchor considering that boats are routinely left UNATTENDED at anchor. Drinking to "impairment by the officer's judgment" is surely no worse than leaving your boat alone on it's mooring. Though "reason" is not really what's being discussed, compliance with the law is what's most relevant to our discussion as none of us really think we're a danger to others at anchor.

Here is a link to the COLREGS definition of "Underway" straight from the USCG: Rule 3: General Definitions

MedSailor


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

*Mre definitions...*

Here is a relevant part of the federal code as it relates to BUI:
PART 95-OPERATING A VESSEL WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR A DANGEROUS DRUG; § 95.015 Operating a vessel:
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

" For purposes of this part, an individual is considered to be operating a vessel when:

(a) The individual has an essential role in the operation of a recreational vessel underway, including but not limited to navigation of the vessel or control of the vessel's propulsion system.

(b) The individual is a crewmember (including an officer), pilot, or watchstander not a regular member of the crew, of a vessel other than a recreational vessel.

[CGD 84-099, 52 FR 47532, Dec. 14, 1987, as amended at USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11211, Mar. 16, 2009]
§ 95.020 Standard for under the influence of alcohol or a dangerous drug."

Okay, so I'm still a little unclear about part (a). If I'm the captain and I'm down below and under the influence am I still "operating a vessel" because I have "...an essential role in the operation of a recreational vessel" _if it were to be underway_ or am I NOT operating because in order to be an operator under (a) I must be said person on a vessel that _is underway_? I believe it means the latter as "...a recreational vessel underway..." is a freestanding phrase in part (a).

Confused.... Anyone else better at reading legal language?
MedSailor


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

KeelHaulin said:


> I think if you are a US flagged vessel you are still required to allow them to board regardless of your location (anywhere on the planet). I'd be more worried about being boarded by foreign governments (any place beyond Mexico) than the USCG...


We have a federally registered, safety gear-complaint _Canadian_-flagged vessel. The USCG seems to have "mandate creep" in that they show up in the oddest, non-U.S. places, and have been known to request "safety inspections" ... ha! fishing expeditions, more like!...where they don't have jurisdiction. All part of the War on Freedom, or Drugs, or People Who Frighten Us, or something.

As for foreign governments, if I am in their waters, I have to play by their rules, like it or not. But I have heard of very few accounts of high-seas stoppages or boardings by non-U.S. governments. Even Canada will wait for a Spanish over-fishing trawler to get to the 199-mile mark before pulling them over, and we hate those guys.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

All this legalese is making me reach for the rum...


----------



## rigamarole (Apr 25, 2008)

Authorities locate body of man missing after boats collide; female passenger in stable condition - Muskegon News - The Latest News, Blogs, Photos & Videos - MLive.com
and
Boater Found Dead In Monroe - Detroit Local News Story - WDIV Detroit

Two deaths this weekend with booze involved. There are cops on our lakes all the time. If they spent as much time checking the people driving out of bar parking lots there wouldn't be a problem with a law enforcement budget. I can't say how much beer we've drank on boats over the last thirty years but it's a lot. Have I drove a boat intoxicated before, well, let me count - uh no I don't have that many fingers and toes. Not anymore though. I'm not proud of the past but glad I've changed my ways. There is a difference between intoxicated at .08 and drunk as a skunk at .2

As far as getting arrested while at anchor or docked, it would be EXACTLY like arresting a camper for drinking in their RV. I've never heard of either before and would doubt there have been any convictions.

Regardless, I'll always give the Coast Guard their due respect. If they want to board my boat, no problem. For all you that want to give them the middle finger, I can only hope they return it when you need them.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Valiente said:


> All this legalese is making me reach for the rum...


Finally! We're back on topic!


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

Figures this thread would have like 3500 views in 4 days, that must be some kind of a new record.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Sailors need a hobby, too....


----------



## jesselee (Jan 27, 2012)

live free or die trying


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

galernikus said:


> Hello,
> 
> I spent my holiday weekend aboard my Seidelmann 299. It was the first sail after over a year of hard work trying to restore the boat to its former glory
> After spending most of the day sailing I dropped the anchor on the Hudson river and started enjoying the rest of the day. I hardly ever drink and this weekend was no different. About an hour after we dropped the anchor we were approached by Coast Guard. They tried really hard to find something to write me up for but fortunately they failed  However, they did tell me that I am lucky that I am not drunk because I would be going with them... I rarely drink but I was under the impression that if you are at anchor you are legal to drink.
> ...


Holiday weekends are the worst time to be on the water IMHO...but..if you are...be safe, be sober and be away from the channels...I live in south florida but the same goes for so many areas...the weekends in general are to avoided if your going to be in channels or passes down here...unless you can do so at off-peak periods...(midnight,early morning,etc). Living in a more remote areas sounds better and better to me with every passing day...I'm researching though...

Btw...on a slightly different but related note:

The feds (Border patrol) are trying to exert their power over the park rangers in Arizona...will Marine sanctuary's be next..? Boaters in the Florida keys will tell you it's already been a state of martial law there for years...you can go online and send a letter protesting this action in AZ...

http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/04/20/32106/border-patrol-national-parks/

I honestly don't know all the details but I happen to think that park rangers are a good lot and can take care of their own turf/ without the Feds trying to usurp authority ...the days of Ranger Rick are gone..the new Park Rangers will likely be packing 9 mm and tazers...but let's support them in their bid to retain control of their turf and not be pushed around by Govt agencies like Border patrol...because park rangers and the public who use the parks are the best folks to regulate the lands/waters they know so well...andif they arent pushed around..I am sure the National park service will coordinate with Border Patrol in many situations depending on the issues at hand...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

If throwing the hook somewhere, with the distinct possibility of having to react to slipping, other boats slipping, unpredicted thunderstorms, etc., it seems to me that it would be really stupid to be drunk, or hung over when anchored out. Waking up in the middle of the night and having to quickly react to some occurrence with cobwebs in your head is not good. A cold beer after sailing is great but you really need to limit it regardless of what the legal definition might be. I consider myself on-duty 100% of the time when out sailing. On a mooring is a different story. Has anyone ever been hassled/boarded when at a mooring?


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I work in the commercial side and hold a 200 ton and drinking is strictly forbidden. I've lived aboard my sailboat, on the hook, since I was 8 years old and have spent a large amount of that time drunk ( or worse ) at anchor. The hair stands up on the back of my neck everytime I see the COAST SCOUTS zoom by in the fancy orange dingy. Those kid's from landlocked states that the COAST SCOUTS recrute are the most un-seaworthy, pencil push'n, land lubb'n, son's o' b's out there!! :hothead. I don't mean to be negative, but jeez, what gives?!! Can't a sailor safely moored bed down with a glass of rum and watch the sun set any more?!!


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Was'n it Sir Chichester that when asked about all the booze he was loading on his boat reply something like "Any idiot can sail around the world, it's the truly great one's that can do it drunk" I'm not advocating drunken sailing, but drunken anchoring is a family tradition for me.


----------



## WanderingStar (Nov 12, 2008)

Capt.aaron said:


> I work in the commercial side and hold a 200 ton and drinking is strictly forbidden. I've lived aboard my sailboat, on the hook, since I was 8 years old and have spent a large amount of that time drunk ( or worse ) at anchor. The hair stands up on the back of my neck everytime I see the COAST SCOUTS zoom by in the fancy orange dingy. Those kid's from landlocked states that the COAST SCOUTS recrute are the most un-seaworthy, pencil push'n, land lubb'n, son's o' b's out there!! :hothead. I don't mean to be negative, but jeez, what gives?!! Can't a sailor safely moored bed down with a glass of rum and watch the sun set any more?!!


A strong argument for sobriety and enforcement.


----------



## KIVALO (Nov 2, 2011)

While in college, majoring in Criminal Justice, I worked summers for our local Sheriff's Office doing navigation patrol. We would routinely stop boaters for safety checks using a section of admiralty law as our justification. Of course now that I am trying to remember it I am drawing a blank, go figure.  Anyhow, we did this at our own discretion and 99% of the time only looked for the basic safety gear and to engage the public in a conversation. We didn't even look for DWI's or the like we merely wanted to talk with the boater and let them know to flag us down or use channel 16 if they needed anything. I think this is one of the reasons, coupled with our mandated helpful as opposed to enforcement attitude, we were never questioned when we stopped people "for no reason." My Sheriff made it clear to us that the public was blowing off steam from the week and as long as they weren't posing a threat or overly rude we were to issue verbal warnings and send them on their way.

My concern for this tactic was our constitutionality of stopping a boater merely because "I felt like it", our Sheriff made it clear we were there to serve but what of others who are there to enforce? We also had to patrol Lake Ontario and used the same tactics on pleasure boaters there. Was that legal? Our constitution does not become null & void at the shoreline. It always bothered me but I was able to overlook it because of our helpful role.

As for how this relates to this thread, if you weren't visibly drunk, I didn't even bother to ask how much you had. Only time we asked was after an accident, which oddly enough are few and far between on the lake in question.

Brad
s/v KIVALO


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

I am not a maritime lawyer, but prosecuted hundreds of DUI cases in traffic court when I was young, and from the comments and quotes here, it appears that motor vehicle laws and boating laws are generally alike.

If you drive your own car to a bar and become intoxicated, and give your car keys to a designated driver, who is sober, and are then stopped on the way home by the police, you can't be cited for Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, because you weren't operating it.

Likewise, you can't be cited for being in physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, because the designated driver has the keys, is behind the wheel, is operating the vehicle, and is in physical control of the vehicle.

If you become intoxicated while on your boat, I suggest you give your keys to an adult who is sober, and make them the designated skipper. To eliminate any doubt as to who is in control, the drunken skipper should go below and stay there. If the coasties do a check while the boat is under way, then they will see that the boat is under actual control of the person at the helm, that the person at the helm is sober, and has the keys. If the maritime laws mirror the motor vehicle laws, then the intoxicated owner should not be arrested for operating a vessel while intoxicated.

Moreover, if the boat is at anchor and the owner becomes intoxicated, give the keys to a sober adult and designate him/her the skipper, and go below and stay there, to eliminate any doubt as to who is in physical control of the boat. If the maritime laws mirror the motor vehicle laws, then the intoxicated owner should not be arrested for being in physical control of a vessel while at anchor.

Thus, whether under way or at anchor, if you become intoxicated, give your keys to another, sober adult, designate them as the skipper, and go below and lie down. The practice of using a designated driver of a car protects one from a DUI citation, and I see no reason why it shouldn't have the same effect on a vessel.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

of course in a car the designated person just drives, in a boat the designated person actually has to know something about it. the term Ive seen this side of the pond is "in control of the vessel", which is of course different from "operating the vessel". This is also the term used in my insurance. My 10 year old could be "operating" the vessel, but I am clearly in "control".I very much doubt throwing the keys to a newbie whom then crashes into something, would get the skipper off. There is a whole bunch of law that prevents skippers from disassociating themselves from control of the vessel.

Vessels arnt cars and are in general covered by a completely different body of law. furthermore in a unlicensed situation pertaining in boats ( i.e. anyone to an extent can drive) the law does make these differences.

I suspect all these arguments are moot and would be decided on a case by case basis by a judge.

As to the USCG, well sorry folks Ive lived there, The US is one of the most heavily policed countries Ive every lived in and the USCG just reflect that. Can you imagine in the south of france the Gendarmerie Maritime trying to concern themselves with BUIs, they'd have to arrest half the population!!!.


Most countries have given their coastguards similar rights, but few exercise it like the USCG. of course the USCG is a branch of the military , in most countries the coastguard is an agency or a part of the police.

The other comment was made that the USCG operates in waters outside its own. In international waters it generally seeks in advance such permission to board( not from you but your flag state) or it may be operating under various treaties that allow it to board other countries vessels. Countries of the world have large numbers of mutual treaties that allow all sorts of things. I would suspect that outside of war, The USCG is on very firm legal footing when it boards anyone.

Dave


----------



## Tim R. (Mar 23, 2003)

Hmmm, I live full time at a slip. The first place I go when I get tipsy at a bar is home.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Dave, if the boat is anchored, the person who is in control of it doesn't necessarily have to know anything about operating the boat. That person can just let it sit there until you sleep it off and sober up enough to operate it. Think it through logically. In that situation, if the coasties board the boat and find you below, passed out drunk in a quarterberth, and your wife is sober, and has the keys, and you don't represent a danger to other boaters, or to yourself and your wife, what are they likely to do? They can't charge you with operating a boat under the influence, because you aren't operating it. It is anchored. If you gave the keys to your wife, they probably won't charge you with being in control of it, because you aren't on deck, or behind the wheel, and you don't have the keys, which are generally regarded as an indication of who is in control. The person who has the keys is usually considered to be the person who is in control. The likelihood is that they'll tell your wife to not let you have the keys or operate the boat until you are sober, and then they'll leave.

If you get drunk while under way, I didn't suggest you turn the boat over to your 10 year old son. I suggested you turn it over to an adult. If you were so stupid as to get falling-down-drunk when you were the only person on the boat who was capable of operating it safely, then you deserve to go to jail, and there's no advice that any lawyer can give you to shield you from such stupidity. But, if your 30 year old brother-in-law is there and can safely operate the boat, then turn it over to him, give him the keys, and go below and sleep it off. If the coasties do a safety check, and find a sober, capable sailor at the helm, operating the boat safely, and a drunk down below in a berth, they aren't likely to arrest anyone, unless the drunk decides he wants to get loud and argumentative with the nice officers.

I prefaced my previous post by saying I'm not a maritime lawyer, but using common sense and good judgment can save you in most cases, if you exercise them.


----------



## delite (Nov 2, 2009)

In Canada something similar was decided by a lawsuit a number of years ago. The cops arrested a fellow for drinking outside his trailer in a campground then entered his trailer and found some pot. The trailer was deemed to be his temporary home and the cops needed a search warrant to enter. Since he had rented his camping spot he was not on public property and was free to drink as if he were at home.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

Sailermon, certainly this is not the view my insurance company takes and its not been the view in several admiralty law cases this side. A captain ( skipper) has unique responsibilities to the crew, passing the keys around ( err, its a sailboat there are no keys !!), I don't believe would absolve the skipper of the duty of care etc.

Im not talking about jurisdictions where there is a specific BUI laws, but many jurisdiction have various maritime satefy laws that use terms like " in control" or "operating" under the influence of drink or drugs. I know the UK is or has considered a specific blood alcohol level for leisure boaters 

heres the relevant section in the UK

"
17.Section 80 therefore applies to any person on a qualifying vessel who takes part in ‘navigating’ the vessel, or in ‘navigation’. The definition of navigating is so wide that it is hard to imagine circumstances in which someone on board is not subject to the section.
On a motor vessel the section would apply to anybody who was steering or taking any part in operating the engine, radar or electronic navigation aids; ‘participation in the control or direction’ would also apply to, for example, an owner, skipper or anyone giving commands to the helmsman, and to any persons who are keeping a lookout or taking responsibility for course, speed or safety in any other way.

18.In relation to a sailing vessel, almost all activities affect course and speed, and from a practical perspective everyone on deck is responsible for keeping a lookout. Taking any part in controlling any sail would come within this definition; in other words pulling a sail in or letting a sail out, helping hoist a sail or any activity connected with the sail would affect both course and speed. Obviously helming would be covered. On smaller vessels course and speed are significantly affected by the movement of personnel. Taking an extreme interpretation of the 2003 Act, it is conceivable that if people were merely invited to go and sit on one side of the vessel or the other, they would be participating in the navigation of that vessel. This would therefore mean that everyone on board a racing yacht or sailing dinghy would be included."

Hence unless the person or people acted completely alone, not requiring any input from the inebriated skipper, I doubt he or she would be protected. Equally a skipper giving up command as such by virtue of being incapacitated by drink would actually then fall foul of many existing admiralty and port laws in reation to being in charge. In fact it could be argued that it would be self -incriminating. " I was too drunk to be in command M'lud, so I can't be prosecuted under BUI law", agh so thats dereliction of duty then Mr. Captain.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Dave, the materials from which you quoted are not "law." Those are someone's notion of what the law means. That person might be correct, or he might not be. I once interpreted a state law to mean something quite different from what the author of that law intended for it to mean. The question rose to the State Supreme Court, and the Justices agreed with my interpretation of the law. The author of the law complained to the press that he didn't intend for it to have that meaning when he wrote it, and my response was that he should have said what he meant.

In this thread, people are looking for a way to protect themselves from a situation in which they are found intoxicated on their boat, so that they won't be arrested, and their boat won't be impounded. The simple solution is to not drink, but most of us enjoy relaxing with an adult beverage. The next solution is to not become intoxicated, but unfortunately sometimes we make that mistake too.

Your answer seems to be that there is no solution. You contend that a skipper who is found intoxicated on a boat is criminally liable, even if he relinquished all control of the boat to another person. That might or might not be technically true. I'll repeat, for the third time, that I am not a maritime lawyer, but I have long experience in dealing with law enforcement officers in similar situations, and I know how they think, and they are not out looking for an opportunity to put a small boat sailor through the wringer for no good reason. I have suggested ways that a drunken sailor can take himself and his inebriated condition out of the equation, as a practical matter, and thereby ameliorate any concerns that the coasties might have for the safety of passengers on the vessel, as well as the general public. If you think those measures won't make any difference, then, the next time you get a little drunk, just stay behind the wheel, shouting out commands for the crew.

For the rest of the sailors who want some suggestions on how best to ameliorate the situation, I think appointing a designated skipper, and giving him your keys (my sailboat has a diesel engine and a set of keys) makes a great deal of sense.

Even when you don't know for sure what the law is, you can usually stay out of trouble just by using good sense. Police generally respect people who use good sense.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

Sorry I should have made that clear its an interpretation, I used it to illustrate that the argument about "handing keys around" I believe has little validity. Of course until we see a body of case law it remains conjecture.

I do believe that a captain, in particular ( i.e. a skipper or owner) is in a very invidious position as regards drinking and boating. The onus on him or her is quite large and not easily set aside. where boating law has been extended to drinking, these issues are to the forefront. 

I agree that "you can usually stay out of trouble just by using good sense. Police generally respect people who use good sense.". however that might be interpreted as not drinking when at anchor.

I think the key issue is the anchor or mooring one, i.e. not a affix to a permanent structure . The issue is the boat finished for the duration. One could cogently argue that anchoring and or mooring requires the skipper to remain in control as action could be needed. Hnce I suspect it would be hard to argue that the comatose skipper has absolved himself from command merely by saying so.

In my own case offshore I run a dry boat, even anchored I certainly frown on the consumption of drink to the point of inebriation or anywhere near it.( glass or two of wine or a bottle of beer kind of thing) . Docked .and ( 'all done with engines") I don't care a damm. I have huge problems with specific blood alcohol limits, I think they don't work for boats.


----------



## nccouple (Jun 11, 2011)

Moral of this story. Coast Guard can jerk your chain for drinking at anchor but not likely??? Just got done pre icing the beer for my up coming trip. climbed out of the boat and logged on to sail-net and had to read all of this.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

treilley said:


> Hmmm, I live full time at a slip. The first place I go when I get tipsy at a bar is home.


And if you lived aboard on the hook, home would be out on the anchorage. We don't endanger any body by sitting in our cockpits, anchored in a nice protected place with good holding, or sitting in a slip, properly tied to the dock and having our evening grog. I've sailed in many foriegn waters and this would not even be a discussion. Going 30 miles an hour in skiff is a different story. I think cop's and the type of people who are attracted to law enforcement as a career are intimidated by the the self sufficiant live aboard sailor. We represent a life they don't understand, so they F#$%K with us every chance they get.
I bet I've rowed back to the anchorage from the bars in the Key's, Bahamas, Caribbean, 2000 times over the last 20 something years. Any body ever anchor off Club Nautico in Cartagenia, Columbia? It's hard to adapt to the B.S. here in the states after living on the hook abroad.


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

Ah, another 'the CG and the gov't is evil' thread. Let us know how you feel about them when they haul your soggy bottoms out of the ocean when you've screwed up. No trouble with the CG with us at all. Interestingly enough, when they're out and boarding, it's almost inevitable that they pull over boats underway that still have their fenders out.


----------



## jesselee (Jan 27, 2012)

I understand the difference between drinking and drunk I was wondering about a couple drinks after dinner at anchor


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

For the record, I have been doing this since 1995ish and I have never been harrased by the USCG while at anchor. FIsh and Wildlife... that is another story. THey didn't understand what the big black ball was flying above my boat for and what it meant. Anyways...

Brian


----------



## LauderBoy (Mar 15, 2010)

goboatingnow said:


> One could cogently argue that anchoring and or mooring requires the skipper to remain in control as action could be needed.


If this was true then it'd be illegal to leave a boat unattended at an anchorage.

The result of a drunk skipper vs a boat moored unattended is the same. No one is in control of it.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

lauderboy said:


> if this was true then it'd be illegal to leave a boat unattended at an anchorage.
> 
> The result of a drunk skipper vs a boat moored unattended is the same. No one is in control of it.


exactly!!


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

There is at least one place I know of that prohibits leaving the boat if anchored: Newport Harbor. I don't know if they actually give out summonses but it's clear in the town ordinances that leaving an anchored boat with no one aboard is n/g. It's a tight anchorage. I have, on occasion, gone up into town when anchored out to have a beer. I wonder if I could be arrested for drunken rowing of dink on the way back?  Let's face it, there is a concerted effort by busybodies everywhere to take the fun out of EVERYTHING and to make the world safe for everyone at all times and all wildlife and the planet too.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

My freind got drunken rowing in Key West, but he was rude and beligerant to the cops. I think Northern cops and community's are stricter than down here. Our Sailing season is 12 months, 24/7, lot's of liveaboard on the hook/ work in town people. The OP was about The Hudson River. We still have our "Fun Police", but the actual offending officer is usually from some northern landlocked state or county. They like to keep officers from out of town and rotate them often to avoid familiarity with the locals. I grew up in the Key's aboard a sail boat on the hook and watched houses and community's go up and designated anchorages disapear. Landlubb'n snow birds don't like look'n out at people living on the sea from their new condo balcony.


----------



## LauderBoy (Mar 15, 2010)

smurphny said:


> I wonder if I could be arrested for drunken rowing of dink on the way back?


It's very possible, yes. I know a guy who got a DUI on a bicycle. In Florida you can get a DUI on a horse.

I don't believe the BUI laws in Florida require an engine. Other states probably handle it their own ways.


----------



## grandcapri (Jun 29, 2009)

Coasties, as they're referred to by other service members, generally are pretty supportive of boaters, especially sailors because they know we're not out screwing around creating havoc.
Seems to me, I'd consider it a safety check by those guys, sure some of them and cops are power nut jobs, but few and far between.. Swallow your pride and with it another drink and bid them farewell with the universal sign..


----------



## ottos (Aug 12, 2008)

Capt.aaron;875271...I think Northern cops and community's are stricter than down here. [/QUOTE said:


> If you're not sure, come on up for a visit... :laugher
> 
> I'm a somewhat frequent visitor to KW. It seems like Spring Break all year long in some parts of town.


----------



## youmeandthed (Jan 19, 2012)

If this is what the USCG is doing, it might be time for some budget cuts.

By the way in a historical sense drinking has always been a part of seamanship, rum kept the British fleet in comtrol of the worlds waters for hundreds of years.

If your drinking is putting others in danger, than that is negligence, captains included. However, anyone can buy and operate a boat, I for one can operate a boat plastered better than most of the lunatics I've seen out on the water on a long weekend. 

US waters have too many enforcers of ambiguous rules. I'm glad to be out of there.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

ottos said:


> If you're not sure, come on up for a visit... :laugher
> 
> I'm a somewhat frequent visitor to KW. It seems like Spring Break all year long in some parts of town.


We are professional party people. With that comes a sense of how to, when to, and why it's time to drink, and how much. There are sections that have the sensation of spring break, but that's where the ammetuer's are hang'n out. You need to hit the neighborhood bars to see what's really going on. Last call is at 4 a.m. wich means your leaving the bar at 5, which means your putt'n, or rowing out to the anchorage at first light. At least that was before I grew up a little..... Oh, and I'm sure community's and cops are more up tight north of here, even before you get out of the Key's. It's hard to live other places once you've become Key's-afied


----------



## ottos (Aug 12, 2008)

Oh, I do get off of Duval...a friend is a fresh water conch.

My favorites vary - The Afterdeck, Green Parrot, Blue Heaven, and mojitos at El Meson de Pepe. Always open to suggestions....


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

ottos said:


> Oh, I do get off of Duval...a friend is a fresh water conch.
> 
> My favorites vary - The Afterdeck, Green Parrot, Blue Heaven, and mojitos at El Meson de Pepe. Always open to suggestions....


Finnegan's Wake, Don's Place. Loui's back yard, Half Shell Raw Bar, Prime, Tatoos and Scars, Shot's and Giggles, The Hog fish, Kraft, Schooner Warf, the Bottlecap.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Capt.aaron said:


> Finnegan's Wake, Don's Place. Loui's back yard, Half Shell Raw Bar, Prime, Tatoos and Scars, Shot's and Giggles, The Hog fish, Kraft, Schooner Warf, the Bottlecap.


Wow! Those names sure bring back some old memories. Been to the Half Shell Raw Bar, The Hog Fish and I think everyone has been to Captain Tony's at least once. When I was a young kid in the employ of Uncle Sam's Navy most of those places didn't exist. I do remember, though, doing some guitar pickin' and singin' at a hotel bar on Duval Street called the Southern Cross, but that was nearly 55 years ago. I'm not sure if that place is still in existence. I'll have to check it out when I get back down there in November or December.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

It's still there.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

In most USA legal venues you dont have to be actually driving a VEHICLE when intoxicated to be arrested for DUI. 
If youre Inside or on the VEHICLE (car, truck, horse, riding lawn mower, boat, roller skates, etc., etc.), are the 'apparent driver' or logical 'potential' driver, the DUI laws in most venues will apply. 
Doesnt matter if your sleeping, unconscious, in your enclosed garage, etc. etc. ... IF 'behind' the wheel or 'operating' (a boat anchored and under command is usually considered 'operating') and if you have exceeded the proper blood-alcohol level = DUI arrest.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

Na, sailors have been drink'n 'em selves to sleep on the hook for thousands of years. You'd be arresting 200 people a night in Key West. Responsible, hard working people, who live aboard year round and have a couple of cocktails while they watch the sun go down. Not weekend warrior, up tight, 4 month, fair weather, flat water, W.A.F.I.'S ,but Salty, blue water, international, take all comer, sailors who can handle their grog.


----------

