# Police to limit size of raft-ups????



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Police want to control size of raft-ups • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)

Seems that now you'll need a permit to raft up with your friends (at least if you have a lot of friends). I understand big drunken gatherings that get out of control reflect badly on us all. At the same time, I just checked, and yep, the First Amendment still gives us the right to assemble peaceably ...


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

If they are able to require permits because the police may not have the resources to handle possible problems, that rational could apply to all sorts of gatherings on land as well. They need to rethink this IMO.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

sadly this action is all but mandated by the actions of a few, whom LLEO refuses to punish for their individual actions....it is not PC to do so, and in many cases the arrest is merely a sleep it off...they never make it to court, unless someone backs down or hurts someone, then it is the manufacturer or builder who gets punished big time...

they would rather punish everyone for the acts of a few ir-responsible, selfish, drunks....


----------



## Squidd (Sep 26, 2011)

You have the right to asemble, but you still need a permit for a parade or party in the park...


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> but you still need a permit for a parade or party in the park...


it would be interesting to see what criteria is used for issuing or denying them. I can see a permit requirement for a parade down a public street or a permit for exclusive use for a public park but I'm having a problem with the guvmint saying, no you can't assemble. Interesting topic.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

It would seem, to prohibit raft-ups, they would first have to prohibit anchoring.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

erps said:


> ... I'm having a problem with the guvmint saying, no you can't assemble. ...


I am too. It's that first amendment thing again ...


----------



## sawingknots (Feb 24, 2005)

i wonder if this is a response or pertaining to the wall st. protests


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I am a large proponent of first amendment rights as well as all rights gaurenteed by the Bill of Rights/ Constitution but come on now:

This does not mean these rights are universally unabridged.

Right of assembly does not give a bunch of skin heads or nazis the right to assemble in the middle of a synagogue, does not give people the right to assemble in the middle of I95 at rush hour, does not give people the right to assmble in the East Room of the White House, nor give 800 boaters the right to assmble and block a public waterway and break the common rules established in the commonwealth and endanger the health and safety of the citizenery. Your rights to assemble stop where it abridges my right of assmbly or freedom of movement or my and others safety. Right to assemblely does not give a company to freely build a chemical plant next to your house. We have created restrictions in the form of zoning laws.

Right to bear arms doesnt mean you can have a tank or an anti aircraft missle or a self made nuclear bomb or bring a weapon to class in high school.

Rights in the Constitution are not necessarily literal or unabridged.


This is not a good argumernt. ( But I know my comments will start a large one I think)

Dave


----------



## Squidd (Sep 26, 2011)

I agree with chef... your right to swing your arm ends at the beginning of my nose...

300 ft from a home seems reasonable and 800 in a limited area can be deemed excessive... they even have capacity limits on "assembly" halls..


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Dave, I think you're exactly right - but what if 50 boaters are assembled in a harbor, such as the SSCA gam at Rhode River, instead of 800 boaters blocking the Magothy? By this regulation, the SSCA gathering would also need a permit, yet there's no a priori reason to assume that they would block your freedom of movement or safety. (The actual text is "marine gathering" and doesn't say the boats must be tied together, as I read it.) So, is the problem that the proposed law is too vague or general, or that it is a bad idea to make a law about this altogether?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

As long as the SSCA did not violate the rules established by the citizens there is no need to make another restrictive rule. However the raft up we are talking about in past years as not only been a nusence, deposited a lot of trash in the water it has created an atmosphere of excessive drinking and noise. This can be addressed with our current laws/. They have in years passed blocked the waterway also


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

According to the article the Bumper Bash representative realized that it had gotten out of hand anyway.

I didn't catch if there was a fee to obtain a permit. If there is not, perhaps it really is just a way for local LE to make sure they have the resources available during the event. I don't see why notifying them 60 days in advance should cause a hardship, especially since some of these events occur at the same time each year. 

I'm not sure that I see this proposal as unreasonable based on the information in the article.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Donna, I think you need insurance to gather! The way the rule is written in its current form, I fear it would block the insanity on the Magothy (which is a good thing) but would also impact calmer and sparser gatherings like the SSCA gam. That's what concerns me. 

I'm liking Dave's and Squidd's points.


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

Good luck enforcing it.

See the cops coming, quickly untie a few boats to the legal limit, whatever that is.

Cops leave, tie back up.

Pretty simple.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Yea, great Idea. More laws,more regulations,more intrusion and restrictions,more more more goverment. 
Give up a bit more of your freedoms like a slow leak until it's all under water and you find yourself standing there asking "what happened to my freedom?" the answer will be - "you gave it away" 
Roudiness,trash,safety issues,drunkenness,blocking waterways , all things already addressed by current laws. No need for more reasons to be "approached" for your own "safety" and the "safety of the public". 
Oh, and if you think the permit is "free" your really disallusional.
But hey, don't listen to me just keep giving all your freedom away a little at a time and that way you'l never notice it, and your children won't either as they grow up, because we taught them it was for ther "safety" and the the freedom they'll never enjoy.

"Grampa,grampa, tell us about the old days when you had freedom"
"those were the days, all gone now kids, we just gave em' all away"


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

In all the years I have been boating, I have never seen any behavior from any rafted group that warrants a new law. We have way too many laws already. How dare those folks rafted up have any fun! Just one more example of heavy-handed government in the land of NO. Chip....chip....chip....


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Gatherings like the SSCA gam fall under "the law of unintended consequences".

It sounds like law enforcement has been willing to work with everybody up until now.

Look at it this way. I want to hold a free concert in the park and I expect 1,600 people to show up and BYOB. There will be drinking in the summer sun. The locals will be expected to provide EMS and police support. There will be fights. People will be affected by the heat. It's not unreasonable for them to want some notice so they can schedule extra folks to cover the event. it's no different for an event on the water.

Freedom of assembly means freedom to assemble for purposes of protest (at least to me). 

A sensible approach might be to involve BoatUS and local Chesapeake Bay organizations to amend the minimum number of boats that trigger the permit requirement so events not requiring that kind of official oversight aren’t affected. 

After all, I’m guessing the Seven Seas Cruising Association is probably mellower than a bunch of drunken 20 somethings 

Jim


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> Freedom of assembly means freedom to assemble for purposes of protest (at least to me).


what, no weddings? no funerals? no extended family get togethers? No political parties? I appreciate your opinion, but I'd rather not have the government in a position to decide whether the reason I want to assemble is one of the government approved reasons.

I agree that large assemblies can infringe on the rights of others and there needs to be a mechanism to address it. I personally think we have enough laws on the books already like public nuisance laws.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

> Freedom of assembly means freedom to assemble for purposes of protest (at least to me).
> 
> A sensible approach might be to involve BoatUS and local Chesapeake Bay organizations to amend the minimum number of boats that trigger the permit requirement so events not requiring that kind of official oversight aren't affected.
> 
> After all, I'm guessing the Seven Seas Cruising Association is probably mellower than a bunch of drunken 20 somethings


 Rationalize it in whatever manner and whatever "make believe" scenario you need to to justify the obvious continued march to total goverment control of every aspect of every minute of your life.
Loosing your personel freedoms is similiar to me knocking on your door and when you open it to see who it is I stick my foot in the door and then my hand, then my leg and before long I'm sitting at your dinner table telling you what to make me for dinner .
these seemingly inocuous intrusions justified by far flung "what if's" and "for examplles" are just the way to fool and convince foolish people that it's for your own good.
How is it that we survived all these years without these laws? HOW? 
how is it that we are not all dead for not wearing seatbelts,helmits,insurance safety shears,knee pads,air bags,safety goggles,child seats,anti lok brakes,etc.etc.etc.
I'm not against safety,I'm just FOR freedom. feel free to use whatever gives you the greatest false sense of security you feel you need to substitute for common sense and due diligence.
Oh, and don't forget if the safety device doesn't save you from your own ignorance you can always litigate, using the same attorny you used to impliment the laws that forced you to use the safety devises that fail to make you idiot proof.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Hmm, what would happen if they were to deny a permit for a gathering, and I come by, all unawares, and choose to anchor on the same creek that 49 boats are already in? Okay, it's a ridiculous question, and 800 boats in one small creek is a ridiculous situation that definitely infringes on others. But ... I think this law needs some more thought about how its worded and what its consequences could be. And the homeowner who wants a say in whether people can get a permit within 300 feet of his property line? Or wants the limit to be not 50 boats, but 20?


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

I think in the end it will go the way of mandatory life jackets for everyone: a lot of uproar about infringement on rights, the issue will have been aired, and then it will die.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

wingNwing said:


> Hmm, what would happen if they were to deny a permit for a gathering, and I come by, all unawares, and choose to anchor on the same creek that 49 boats are already in?


Well the permit requirement appears to put the burden on the organizer rather than the participants. That's somewhat reassuring to me anyway.



> Senate Bill 127 would prohibit anyone from holding a marine gathering of 50 or more boats without first obtaining a permit from the Department of Natural Resources.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

I represent my sail club at CBYCA and I just received an email about the delegate's meeting on 11 February with this message:

_the Guest Speaker for the Delegates meeting is:

Colonel George F. Johnson IV - Superintendent of the Maryland Natural Resources Police, to address the issue of Senate Bill 127._

I can take a list of questions if anyone is interested.


----------



## ImASonOfaSailor (Jun 26, 2007)

Why does everyone make a big deal about stuff? If ur boating and want to party go and find a island for real 800 people rafted up together! This sounds like a problem already.
by the read it seems like to me the cops want to be able to get to each other in-case of a problem of people with no common sense..


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> Why does everyone make a big deal about stuff?


concern about unintended consequences, possible erosion of rights, or just for the mental exercise of thinking some of these things over.

Would it be appropriate to require a permit to organize a two boat raft up? That seems silly to me.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

erps said:


> Well the permit requirement appears to put the burden on the organizer rather than the participants. That's somewhat reassuring to me anyway.


Well, "unintended consequences" is definitely where I was going with this. As written, I don't see where the rafted boats need to be tied to each other. So, if there were 49 boats, there would have been no obligation to get a permit. But then I come along and drop my hook, and suddenly we've reached a tipping point.

I DO think the 800 boats need to be restrained somehow. Do you think we'll be able to anchor out on the 4th of July to watch the fireworks, without a permit? I just don't think this proposed law has been thought out fully.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Everyone is aware that this is a Maryland Senate Bill

Police want to control raft-ups | MDGazette.com


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

jackdale said:


> Everyone is aware that this is a Maryland Senate Bill


Yes. But the Chesapeake Bay is a freeway stop for a lot of boaters heading up and down the east coast and, just as the anchoring issue in Florida was of interest to boaters outside of that state because they pass through at one point or the other or spend winters there, so might this be of interest to boaters outside of Maryland. And, as Jaye mentioned the SSCA, that organization's events draws boats from all over the country.


----------



## Michael K (Feb 27, 2006)

We have quite a long history of government encroachment on our freedoms here in the USA. An early example comes to mind and has long been a favorite of mine.

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was an introspective man who wandered the woods surrounding the small village of Concord, Massachusetts, recording the daily growth of plants and the migration of birds in his ever-present journal. How, then, did he profoundly influence such political giants as Mohandas Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, and Martin Luther King Jr.?

The answer lies in a brief essay that has been variously titled but which is often referred to simply as "Civil Disobedience" (1849). Americans know Thoreau primarily as the author of the book Walden, or Life in the Woods (1854) but it is "Civil Disobedience" that established his reputation in the wider political world. It is one of the most influential political tracts ever written by an American.

"Civil Disobedience" is an analysis of the individual's relationship to the state that focuses on why men obey governmental law even when they believe it to be unjust. But "Civil Disobedience" is not an essay of abstract theory. It is Thoreau's extremely personal response to being imprisoned for breaking the law. Because he detested slavery and because tax revenues contributed to the support of it, Thoreau decided to become a tax rebel. There were no income taxes and Thoreau did not own enough land to worry about property taxes; but there was the hated poll tax - a capital tax levied equally on all adults within a community.

Thoreau declined to pay the tax and so, in July 1846, he was arrested and jailed. He was supposed to remain in jail until a fine was paid which he also declined to pay. Without his knowledge or consent, however, relatives settled the "debt" and a disgruntled Thoreau was released after only one night.

As I understand it, before his release a close local friend who went by the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson paid Thoreau a visit and asked, "Henry, what are you doing in _there_? Thoreau simply replied, "What are _you_ doing out there?


----------



## sawingknots (Feb 24, 2005)

seems to me that theres already laws covering everything from loud disruptive noise,disorderly conduct etc,its no wonder you almost never see a cop on patrol,i expect they are too busy brushing up on all the new b.s.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Instead of talking in nublarites about this specific event, lets call it what it is...it a big drunkfest with people partying and making noise all hours of the night. Nnot just normal people enjoying fireworks and then settling in at some reasonable hour, but a drunkfest

Having seen it first hand it kind of reminds you of a frat party like Animal House. People firing flare guns in a crowded area, dinghys with kegs in them and people floating in the water all hours of the night. This event is not some esoteric exercise in civil rights for people. Its a free for all. Had Lotts wife looked in on it she too would have turned to a pillar of stone

I am not for legislation to control this, as we have enough useless unenforcable laws in our binder. however I am for the militia to break up and arrest all parties who are breaking the trespassing, noise, boater safety and alcohol laws being broken

Dave


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

Not being even a remote expert on laws in general I'm having trouble understanding why a law needs to be passed to limit the size of a raft up at all. I've thought about it and unless I'm mistaken the USCG already has the authority to deal with any hazard to navigation, whether it's a raft up of 50+ small boats or one 250' boat blocking a channel. And the local marine patrol has authority to enforce noise, intoxication, nudity, etc laws regardless of the number of boats involved. Between the two it seems that any hazard or violation is already covered by a set of laws and this would be redundant. So why is it that a permit from a local jurisdiction would be needed for 50 twelve foot Pelican sailboats (or kayaks, or paddle boats, etc) tied together, but an enormous single yacht that occupies ten times as much real estate is free to anchor in the same place with no permit required? As I understand it, and agree with, a permit is needed for a parade or something that is going to block or impede traffic on a public right of way, but can't fifty people still go set up tents in the woods or desert without a permit? God, I sure hope so.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

From what I've read so far, this seems to be a regulatory response to one specific event, rather than to a pervasive ongoing problem. An event that the organizers of, have already conceded has become too large and will be scaled back.


----------



## sawingknots (Feb 24, 2005)

i think you travel in different circles than me,maybe i would feel the same had i ever saw this


----------



## youmeandthed (Jan 19, 2012)

the permit thing seems like an excuse for politicians to make new laws to justify their position and salaries, benefits, pensions...... I don't think it really changes the fact that the police and coast guard could just roll in there a clear the party out if they wanted to. The real issue is why are tax payers hiring people to make redundant laws.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

PBzeer said:


> From what I've read so far, this seems to be a regulatory response to one specific event, rather than to a pervasive ongoing problem. An event that the organizers of, have already conceded has become too large and will be scaled back.


I think that's the problem - that its the response to one specific event, but the way the response is worded, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage/unintended consequences. And as jrd22 has so eloquently pointed out, we already HAVE the tools to deal with the problems from the one event. Which is going to be scaled back anyway. (the organizer says. but what will stop the large numbers of people from gathering on that date in that place anyway, even if there's no official organizer?)


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

chef2sail said:


> Is...it a big drunkfest with people partying and making noise all hours of the night. Nnot just normal people enjoying fireworks and then settling in at some reasonable hour, but a drunkfest
> 
> Having seen it first hand it kind of reminds you of a frat party like Animal House. People firing flare guns in a crowded area, dinghys with kegs in them and people floating in the water all hours of the night. This event is not some esoteric exercise in civil rights for people. Its a free for all. Had Lotts wife looked in on it she too would have turned to a pillar of stone


Fuggin A! Where is this? I'm in.....


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by chef2sail
> Is...it a big drunkfest with people partying and making noise all hours of the night. Nnot just normal people enjoying fireworks and then settling in at some reasonable hour, but a drunkfest
> 
> Having seen it first hand it kind of reminds you of a frat party like Animal House. People firing flare guns in a crowded area, dinghys with kegs in them and people floating in the water all hours of the night. This event is not some esoteric exercise in civil rights for people. Its a free for all. Had Lotts wife looked in on it she too would have turned to a pillar of stone


 E-gads people having FUN ! the idea and in full view? well, there definetely MUST be something done about this at all costs and immediately if not sooner, I mean really the idea. and there probably that pesky working class types, you know who I mean.

ever wonder why you never see the cops on these cop shoes busting into private gated estates and making everybody get face down in ther expesive duds and evening attire ? could it be that only the po'folk party ? or is it only the po'folk party on public use lands and waterways thereby subjecting themselves to the jackboots because they don't have the means to have a 100 acre ranch or private island/yacht club to do what people do in? 
just wondering.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

wingNwing said:


> I think that's the problem - that its the response to one specific event, but the way the response is worded, there's going to be a lot of collateral damage/unintended consequences. And as jrd22 has so eloquently pointed out, we already HAVE the tools to deal with the problems from the one event. ...


This is almost deja vu. Didn't the same series of events happen with the anchoring issue on Back Creek? Some bad eggs, local uproar, new laws proposed, local uproar shifted to newly proposed laws, etc. In the end the Annapolis harbormaster decided to just enforce existing laws.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

joethecobbler said:


> E-gads people having FUN ! the idea and in full view? well, there definetely MUST be something done about this at all costs and immediately if not sooner, I mean really the idea. and there probably that pesky working class types, you know who I mean.
> 
> ever wonder why you never see the cops on these cop shoes busting into private gated estates and making everybody get face down in ther expesive duds and evening attire ? could it be that only the po'folk party ? or is it only the po'folk party on public use lands and waterways thereby subjecting themselves to the jackboots because they don't have the means to have a 100 acre ranch or private island/yacht club to do what people do in?
> just wondering.


TOGA,TOGA, TOGA, TOGA!

Geez, folks, lighten up and have a little fun. There is a place in New Zealand, just out of Auckland that is called "Glass Bottom Bay", not because of the holding, but because of all the "Red Lion" beer bottles tossed overboard. Never seen a cop out there enforcing all those funny little laws you guys have...geez, live it up a little!


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

jrd22 said:


> I've thought about it and unless I'm mistaken the USCG already has the authority to deal with any hazard to navigation, whether it's a raft up of 50+ small boats or one 250' boat blocking a channel. And the local marine patrol has authority to enforce noise, intoxication, nudity, etc laws regardless of the number of boats involved. Between the two it seems that any hazard or violation is already covered by a set of laws and this would be redundant.


Good point. In general, you are right about the CG being able to deal with the raft up as a hazard to navigation (but so can local LE), however, is this event in the channel for that to apply? I don't have my charts at work but I don't remember the Dobbins Island area being near the channel. If it is not, the local marine police whose jurisdiction it is (and I've seen them patrolling when I've anchored near there) would have to request that the CG assist, they won't just show up and try to muscle in on local LE. Although, if the CG knows about it, they may at a minimum have on their radar the potential for a lot of drunk boaters leaving at the end of the day. On the other hand, knowing how shorthanded they are, if local LE does request assistance, I can see the CG requesting some type of formal process in order to bring in additional resources so that the rest of the Bay does not get neglected.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

aeventyr60 said:


> Geez, folks, lighten up and have a little fun. There is a place in New Zealand, just out of Auckland that is called "Glass Bottom Bay", not because of the holding, but because of all the "Red Lion" beer bottles tossed overboard. Never seen a cop out there enforcing all those funny little laws you guys have...geez, live it up a little!


I think most of us would happily send the bunch in question to New Zealand for their annual event. Although I for one would still not like to see the trash left behind after such an event in any part of the world's waters.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

DRFerron said:


> This is almost deja vu. Didn't the same series of events happen with the anchoring issue on Back Creek? Some bad eggs, local uproar, new laws proposed, local uproar shifted to newly proposed laws, etc. In the end the Annapolis harbormaster decided to just enforce existing laws.


EXACTLY. Maybe I'm just a cynic but I think the ONLY reason politicians get involved in these issues is because it gets their name in the paper and makes it look like they're doing something besides finding a state job for their brother-in-law and banking kickbacks from state contractors (here in NJ that's actually their job description).

As for officials letting people have fun, it sounds like the local water police have been pretty cool about the whole thing so far, but that they and the organizers are starting to feel overwhelmed. This doesn't sound like jack booted enforcement. Unfortunately a dumbass proposed law is the result.

Everything's not some grand conspiracy against our liberty. I'd say if you're really concerned reach out to BoatUS, go to one of the meetings with the Maryland Natural Resources Police, call and/or write to the politician who wrote the bill and to your local politician who has to vote on it. *If they start to see a negative backlash the bill will die.*

Anyone can complain. Sometimes ya gotta get off your ass and do something.

Jim


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Oct 7, 2008)

erps said:


> it would be interesting to see what criteria is used for issuing or denying them.


$$$$

It's pay to play in Maryland, baby!!


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

erps said:


> what, no weddings? no funerals? no extended family get togethers? No political parties? I appreciate your opinion, but I'd rather not have the government in a position to decide whether the reason I want to assemble is one of the government approved reasons.
> 
> I agree that large assemblies can infringe on the rights of others and there needs to be a mechanism to address it. I personally think we have enough laws on the books already like public nuisance laws.


Way to take something COMPLETELY out of context and stretch it out to a completely illogical extreme.

Go back and re-read my original post (#18). The quote was in the context of LARGE gatherings for political vs. personal reasons. Far as I know there're no proposed laws against having a wedding or a funeral.

My suggestion in that post, and the one above, is to involve BoatUS, local Chesapeake Bay organizations and officials. Attend meetings and create some noise. Cracking down on public drunkenness and bad behavior sounds like a great sound bite to a politician. If they get negative backlash it starts looking like a bad idea and the law will die.

You know it's not always a conspiracy... 

Jim


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm with JRD, this is simply re-inventing the wheel- laws that already exist and give the NRP/CG/Harbor Police all the authority they need to stop the sort of situation that Chef fears.

We should definitely fight this, but even if it does come to pass, it will be difficult to enforce. Governments at all levels are passing ever more restrictive laws on tighter and tighter budgets. The NRP can't even control rock fish poaching on the Chessie for cryin' out loud. They can hardly patrol every gunkhole, count how many boats are gathered, break them up, transport arrestees, etc, etc. In the depressed economy, they aren't going to get more funding to pursue problems like this.

Not only is this a ridiculous effort to further restrict the "unwashed masses", it's also another blatant attempt at revenue generation by requiring _everything_ to have a permit. Now you have to hire additonal government drones to process more permits, additional jackboots to enforce the permits etc, etc, etc. 

There has been a huge cultural shift in this country where law enforcement were fellow citizens who built bonds with the community they served. Now, it's an "us" versus "them" mentality. The law thinks that every citizen is a drugged out, disturbed whack-job that is guilty until proven innocent, and the citizenry thinks that every cop is a jackbooted storm trooper, looking for any excuse to hassle them.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

So many good points being made here! And like most situations, a real response would address be much more nuanced than "make a new law," or "there should be no laws." If you're in Maryland, its Senate Bill 127. If you want to contact Sen. Simonaire (the guy quoted in the original article as having concerns about vagueness, and hastiness) the first half of his email is bryan.simonaire and the second half of the email is @senate.state.md.us


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Like I don't have enough to do. 

I have a call into Sen Simonaire's office. I'll be calling Boat/US Government Affairs shortly. The SSCA CCC will be on point for us. I'll do my best to attend the hearing tomorrow. Got to get a suit and tie out again.

The SSCA Annapolis GAM was only 30 boats last year, but was nearly 90 a couple of years before that. 

We're worried about inappropriate legislation, but we're also worried about permit and insurance costs.

Want to help? Let me know.

best, dave
Dave Skolnick
SSCA Board of Directors


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Already emailed Simonaire's office; interestingly I had cited the SSCA gam as an example of the "unintended consequences" that would end up regulating a boat gathering of this type, and why don't we look at existing laws. Same deal as the Back Creek anchoring last year. Sigh.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

The first question, when proposing a new law or regulation should always be whether it is necessary or not. There doesn't appear to be a necessity for this law.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

The hearing is at 1330L TODAY. Into the shower and suit and tie.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

SVAuspicious said:


> The hearing is at 1330L TODAY. Into the shower and suit and tie.


Good luck. Tell them you represent an online sailing community (at least for asking questions).

(The key here is that existing laws should be used. If they aren't enforcing existing laws, what makes them think that this new law would be enforced -- or would we need a second unenforced law, then a third, etc., until you can fill-up the creek with the paper, the permits, and the misappropriated enforement dollars.)

Regards,
Brad


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

JimMcGee said:


> Way to take something COMPLETELY out of context and stretch it out to a completely illogical extreme.
> 
> Go back and re-read my original post (#18). The quote was in the context of LARGE gatherings for political vs. personal reasons. *Far as I know there're no proposed laws against having a wedding or a funeral.*
> 
> ...


I think that's the point Ray is making Jim, that "so far" there aren't laws requiring permits for weddings, etc. But with the passage of every new law for a different type of gathering it sets precedence for another, and another... We've seen this happening for decades, not a new concept unfortunately. Not a conspiracy, but not a good trend either. Twenty years ago the thought of having to get a permit for a bunch of boats to anchor together would have been laughed at, no one's laughing now.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I have to think more about this before forming an opinion. We have one here as well. It's called Aquapalooza and it sponsored by a Sea Ray dealer. 100% power boats that assemble in Potters Cove around the end of July. I unwittingly stumble upon it almost every year, as Potters is a fav overnight anchorage. We sailboatwrs are often way off to the east, with a couple of hundred boats. Is past year, we had guests aboard (stink potters themselves) who wanted to go check it out. We dropped the dink and went over. In one raft up, I saw 50 boats tied together. There were several like that. At the center is a boat with a band.

Drunkfest for sure, but that doesn't offend me as long as no one is getting hurt or damaging property. People swimming around everywhere, not a one without a drink held above water. Impressive in some ways. I did worry about these two little kids who swam past in PFDs. No idea where their parents were. I had to shut the dink engine off to insure there was no way we could accidentally drift in to them. But where we're Mom and Dad?

I've never seen police there and I'm sure it would be a whole different event if there were. So would a permit allow the police to stay away or force them to patrol? Not sure. Also not sure if RI already has one of these laws.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

(no I'm not in it, that I could see anyway........)


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

I can see two sides of this neither of them good. 

1. You have a bunch of people having a drunk fest, last I heard this wasn't illegal. The activity while "dangerous" so far hasn't killed anybody, so how dangerous is it again?
2. The main motivation for the new law seems to be to require purchase of a "permit", and to give enough warning to police so they won't have to change their "schedules" to have "enough officers on hand to give out citations". Because God help us if we miss an opportunity to give out a citation.

I fail to see the value added to giving a drunk a citation, now you have a pissed off drunk,...with a citation.

If you think that many boats in one area is dangerous, and boat 800 shows up, ...leave.

Do gooder laws like this have all but banned private fireworks, and many other things from our society. 

We are losing our heritage, (and liberties), piece by piece.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Its a stinking hot and humid day, perfect for a float down the aquafer fed Comal river. Get the kids into the car, load the innertubes and head off for a fun family afternoon floating down a cool scenic river. Unfortunately several fraternities and sororities decided the same thing, only they packed coolers full of beer, float bongs, and all sorts of water games paraphenalia. The river becomes a bank to bank baccanalia and you are embarassed for your children and afraid for their safety. Then the fireworks start, so you leave and find some other activity for your family. But the baccanalia has only started. On into the night the party rages on. Soon it overflows onto the banks of the river which is private property and all sorts of lewd and nasty behavior confronts the homeowner or resort visitor. 
For years law enforcement has been busting some of the party goers for public intoxication, but they never seem to spend anytime in jail or pay any reasonable fine to cover the costs associated with their behavior. Law enforcement is slow, difficult and not particularly successful, so "Lets pass a new law" that allows preemptive action by LE to keep all that stuff out of the river, just you and your tube. 
That has happened here in Texas. Is it fair? A Bill of Rights violation? Heavy handed?
We need to keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was written for 18th century sensibilities and in the intervening 200+ years those sensibilities have changed and not always for the better. 
Also, Law Enforcement is difficult whereas new legislation is easy, but does not necessarily make LE easier.
We used to love anchoring out in a Chessapeake cove and let the children play in the water or in the dink. Sounds like that is becoming a little more problematic.
John


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

jrd22 said:


> I think that's the point Ray is making Jim, that "so far" there aren't laws requiring permits for weddings, etc. But with the passage of every new law for a different type of gathering it sets precedence for another, and another... We've seen this happening for decades, not a new concept unfortunately. Not a conspiracy, but not a good trend either.


John,
I get where you're coming from and I may have read a tone into Erps post that wasn't intended. So much political conversation today is overblown by extreme exmamples that you automatically assume the worst.

My point was there's a difference between personal and political gatherings. The idea behind our laws was to preserve our right to protest - something that _has_ been infringed on - but that's a whole other conversation for a thread under off-topic.

wingNwing and SVAuspicious are doing the right thing. So many times I've seen people flame away online, but they don't want to get involved and actually do something.



jrd22 said:


> Twenty years ago the thought of having to get a permit for a bunch of boats to anchor together would have been laughed at, no one's laughing now.


Sigh, too true. So much has changed since 2001.

Jim


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

The same bums would still throw their trash in the water and keep people awake , one boat at a time.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

BubbleheadMd said:


> There has been a huge cultural shift in this country where law enforcement were fellow citizens who built bonds with the community they served. Now, it's an "us" versus "them" mentality. The law thinks that every citizen is a drugged out, disturbed whack-job that is guilty until proven innocent, and the citizenry thinks that every cop is a jackbooted storm trooper, looking for any excuse to hassle them.


We can all thank Jimmy Carter and his drive 55 law for that. For the first time in US history speed limits became a matter of politics instead of safety.

And suddenly every driver was now a criminal, and law breaking became a hobby.
Suddenly the police were no longer there to "protect you", they were there for a "revenue enhancement opportunity".


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

I've had a day. Maryland was considering a bill on same-sex marriage
RIGHT ACROSS THE HALL from the committee room for SB 127. *sigh* No
matter your feelings on the issue it does raise strong feelings andthere where a lot of people.

Boat/US was a no show again. This is three times they have promised me
personally to show up and failed to do so. I'm pretty unhappy.

Over half the Senators asked very probing questions and seemed
disposed against the bill. MD DNR Police, Anne Arundel Police, and
Anne Arundel Fire testified in support. Representatives of several
communities and civil service organizations (most quite well-spoken)
testified in support. I was opposed.

The committee sent DNRP back to reconsider the wording of the legislation.

I had good discussions with the Director of DNRP and the Chief of Anne
Arundel Fire. I volunteered to help with rewording the bill so that
SSCA can stand in support. I also had discussions with reporters for
two of the local papers.

There is no question that the drunkfests are a problem. As currently worded, the SSCA Annapolis GAM, the Island Packet Rendezvous, the trawler rendezvous, the Annapolis 4th of July fireworks, pretty much every weekend in summer at Solomons, Worton Creek, Dobbins, St Michaels, and a myriad of other places around Chesapeake Bay.

The potential is there for a requirement to get a permit ($) and pay for security ($$). When asked about spontaneous gatherings of boats (they don't have to be rafted up, just "gathered") the response of DNRP was "we would respectfully break them up."

I showed up. Who is going to help me?


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Dave,

Like I mentioned in a previoius post, MD DNR will be at the CBYCA meeting in February to talk about this bill. What can I do? The venue will not be like what you attended today, but there will be a Q&A after his talk.


----------



## kjones (Aug 4, 2011)

Add Content


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I get where you're coming from and I may have read a tone into Erps post that wasn't intended. So much political conversation today is overblown by extreme exmamples that you automatically assume the worst.


That certainly wasn't my intention Jim. Part of my thinking process is to take a rule to an extreme to see how well it holds up.



> My point was there's a difference between personal and political gatherings. The idea behind our laws was to preserve our right to protest -


I certainly agree that the right to protest is supposed to be preserved although I don't agree that "freedom to associate", which has been ruled to fall under freedom to assemble, is limited only to protest. I'm pretty sure groups like the boy scouts are protected under the right to assemble.



> Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests


a sailing club falls under that IMO.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

DRFerron said:


> Like I mentioned in a previoius post, MD DNR will be at the CBYCA meeting in February to talk about this bill. What can I do? The venue will not be like what you attended today, but there will be a Q&A after his talk.


I suggest that you push them on their response to "gatherings" that exceed 50, what fees beyond permit fees might be imposed, how they propose to deal with scenarios of more than 50 boats without an "sponsor" or "organizer", and if they have followed up on the offers at today's session to work cooperatively with SSCA and similar organizations.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

SVAuspicious said:


> I've had a day. Maryland was considering a bill on same-sex marriage
> RIGHT ACROSS THE HALL from the committee room for SB 127. *sigh* No
> matter your feelings on the issue it does raise strong feelings andthere where a lot of people.
> 
> ...


Thanx for the great summary, Dave. What can I do long-distance to contribute?


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

SV- Goodonya! Hope you get some offers of assistance in your area.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> When asked about spontaneous gatherings of boats (they don't have to be rafted up, just "gathered") the response of DNRP was "we would respectfully break them up."


 A law has been requested to deal with a huge drunkfest and they have already signaled that they'll use it on other gatherings.


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

Fundamentally this comes down to a shift from government-as-law-enforcement to government-as-service-provider. When the government is providing services, it suddenly needs a system in place to regulate that provision. It can't afford to provide too much, and it can easily be overwhelmed.

I was reading the latest _Sequitur_ blog entry today and I'm really disheartened by the amount of paperwork and reporting and fees that was required to sail through Peruvian/Chilean/Argentinian waters, and really, it's not different anyplace else. So much hassle. I had read Slocum's book a few years ago and while the details are fuzzy in my mind, I don't recall anything about him requesting a cruising permit or a visa or zarpe before heading for Tierra del Fuego, nor did he have to check in with the Armada at every port. Not that the locals didn't give him a hard time, mind you. But mostly all he had to worry about was surviving and navigating. Makes you wonder if there is any adventure left to be had in the world.

Not saying that this law is or is not unreasonable, but it sure is depressing.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I tell you right now were this is going with DNR Police as i have lived on Long Island for the 45 years it went form nothing to a permit for most everything to just plane NO NOT ANYPLACE

Somehow you need to have a free permit to walk yourself, your dog or do absolutely ANYTHING on the huge amount of public land they have come to control 

While you can still drive a car You have to leave Long Island to do anything motor-sport related as they succeeded in there agenda of 100% closure of all the legal motor-sport parks save the last holdout Riverhead Raceway :hothead


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

*You haven't seen the MD police.*



JoeDiver said:


> Good luck enforcing it.
> 
> See the cops coming, quickly untie a few boats to the legal limit, whatever that is.
> 
> ...


Pretty simple--they'll tag everyone.

Typically, when enforcing serious fishing violation and things like this, they will take photos from a good distance or from shore first. You don't think the poachers are good at looking over their shoulders? You're bagged.

And this isn't a first amendment thing. That's a bunch of chatter. This is safety and stupidity thing. I saw the ruskus last year. Personally, I think the Annapolis authorities do a reasonably good job of balancing the rights of landowners, safety, and occasionally ridiculous crowds of boaters. Not everyone is happy, but it can be real madhouse. A world-famous sailing destination in a rather small town. You need to see it on Labor day.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Making new laws, rather than enforcing those already on the books, is not something new. And the end result of such actions, whether by design or happenstance, is to further criminalize behavior. All in the name of the public good.

I don't attach any sinister motivation to this law, and I have no trouble thinking those who have proposed it do so with the best of intentions. That though doesn't make it a good or worthwhile law. Or even a necessary one. It just makes it one more law, in an ever growing book of laws.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

> When asked about spontaneous gatherings of boats (they don't have to be rafted up, just "gathered") the response of DNRP was "we would respectfully break them up."





erps said:


> A law has been requested to deal with a huge drunkfest and they have already signaled that they'll use it on other gatherings.


Erps I take back any defense of law enforcement from my previous posts.

This guy wants to use this to harrass people who are not disturbing anyone or violating any laws? What the hell?


----------



## ftldiver (Sep 9, 2002)

5 boat limit in elliot key, for columbus day (a 3 day drunk), last few years. (miami)

prior it was one big raft up, and police couldn't patrol, or rescue. it makes sense when you have 500+ boats. 

they can do it because its a national park. not sure about other waterways.

oh they also banned jetskis. so its not all bad


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

_Hey, look at all those sailboats bunched up over there!_

_Yeah boss, let's go bust them! _

_Yeah Junior, we'll write them all tickets and tell them to disperse._

*Off go the faithful servants to do their duty and protect us.... as they approach the large group, a horn sounds and all the boats take off.
*
_They're running away Junior!

Yeah Boss, someone warned them we were coming!

No problem Junior, looks like they're all turning left at that buoy up there. We'll head them off._

*On a PA:* _Everyone, stop immediately!_

_No one is listening Boss. Look, they're turning again at that buoy over there.

Let's go git 'em Junior.

They're trying to run away Boss, they've all put out these big giant sails now!

Junior, it looks like there's a big party over at the Boat Club, lots of flags out and people on the shore and docks. We'll go over there and get the boats as they come back in._


----------



## sawingknots (Feb 24, 2005)

while i am concerned about americans losing hard earned freedoms,this particular law/ruling doesn't concern me as i'm not a big fan of huge ammounts of people,partying out of their minds,i like joining a couple of friends and tossing back enought to make the human condition a little more palatable,besides if somene pukes on my foot i atleast like to know who it is


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I am not in favor of a new law. I do not like government in my life making new laws when they are not necessary. Use the laws which exhist. No enforvement or complaints anywhere near this magnitude are generated by the SCCA Gam or Annpolis Fireworks


I do beleive that it is necesasary to police the reckless as well as illegal behavior I saw exhibited at Dobbins with exhisting laws, and I am glad to see that some reasonable people have begun to belkeive that this gathering is a nuisence and a potential dangerous situation which will eventually end in someone suffering a tradgedy unless it is handled differently

HOWEVER I do hope the proper authorities take a heavy hand in patrolling and policing this particular gathering. Comparing it to the GAM gathering is like comparing the Altamont Concert to Lilith Faire. Using the Back Creek analogy is an extrapolation of hperbole. They are no where the same thing. 

Now my ramble:

Have any of you ever seen the mess of garbage left the next day in the water or on Dobbins Island the day after this event? Many of you "let them be they are not hurting anyone" or "blocking any channels" would be the first to cry out "where were the police and authorities" when the eventual tragic outcome of this gather occurs. 

As some of you who have met me know that I am not puritanical in nature or against partying or gatherings, but lets be realistic here, this one is over the top.

No where in this discussion is anyone seeminly concerned or defending the rights of the individual who purchased the property legally called Dobbins Island. His right to enjoy his property free of noise and tresspassers should be enforced long before the rights of the party goers to land dinghys on his property and island and trash his grounds. The rights of the many should never be allowed to violate the rights of the indivigual to his own property, safety, and the safety of his property. Maybe he should excercise his rights and hire a security force to protect his interests by any means possible. I mean if a bunch of drunks decided they were going to surround and then invade my house and yard, wouldnt I have the right to defend myself by any means possible? None of you would stand idlely by if a band of maurauders boarded your boat while you were anchored and proceeded to destroy and vomit on it. Surely I would want the police to protect me with force and all means possible
.
Without regulation somehow of THIS SPECIFIC EVENT, there will eventually be an incident. No one on either side here should use that as an excuse or oppertunity to generalize a create a new law or take a position and relate it to other gatherings such as raft ups. 

Lets be realistic and look at this specific event without creating a new law, or linking it to some first ammendment right of assemblage or free speech.

Dave


----------



## sawingknots (Feb 24, 2005)

its seems to me that ordinary folks tend to forget their normal values when "running with a pack"


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sawingknots said:


> its seems to me that ordinary folks tend to forget their normal values when "running with a pack"


That's a sociological fact.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I think Chef got this one. No new law. Some good old fashion police work should take care of this. You find the organizers and tell them that they can have great time, but no drunk driving, no garbage, no disturbing the peace, no trespassing. Those laws should be enough. That might mean finding somewhere else to do it. 

I suspect that part of the problem is that society doesn't give LEOs much discretion any longer to handle things reasonably. Elected officials pass laws that will collect more votes. Facts and reason have little to do with the system any longer. Sad really.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Elected officials pass laws that will collect more votes. Facts and reason have little to do with the system any longer- Minnewaska


-


> ]
> 
> Add to that the only law an elected official passes and votes on laws is in reaction not proactive and their always is a financial gain in either campaign money or votes for the elected official. Elected officials lifeblood is money for reelection through special interests groups.
> 
> Dave


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> I've had a day. Maryland was considering a bill on same-sex marriage
> RIGHT ACROSS THE HALL from the committee room for SB 127. *sigh* No
> matter your feelings on the issue it does raise strong feelings andthere where a lot of people.
> 
> ...


Holy ****. Are you !#$#@% kidding me?? Ok, you let me know the next time this bill is going to be discussed, and I will dress up and go with you. And keep harping on the Boat US guys. I live in Edgewater, so I'm close by. I'll take time off from work, whatever I have to do.

For years, every year, in the Rhode River we have a huge, private fireworks display on Labor Day weekend. It's hugely popular and folks come near and far. To my knowledge, no one's every been hurt or killed at this "spontaneous" gathering. This law is WAY overreaching. What next? When 20 or more people are sponaneously "gathered" in a public place on land, they're going to be broken up? Like in the old USSR, or China?

What's the difference, if you're gathered in your vessels, or whether you're gathered standing on foot?

You say the local law, NRP and fire all supported this law? No kidding? They support anything that makes their lives easier so they don't have to respond to calls, get out of their vehicles and interact with the people they're supposed to be building a relationship with and serving.

I don't _understand_ this crap. Surely there are some police, NRP and firefighters who go boating in their off-time, and do this sort of thing and realize that it would negatively impact them as well.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

There will be 7 different harbor masters on duty BUT up here the have concerts at the Huntington harbor lighthouse and encourage large crowds of boats 

Over 750 boats attended the 5th Annual Huntington Lighthouse Music Festival on
Saturday, September 3


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> I think Chef got this one. No new law. *Some good old fashion police work should take care of this.* You find the organizers and tell them that they can have great time, but no drunk driving, no garbage, no disturbing the peace, no trespassing. Those laws should be enough. That might mean finding somewhere else to do it.
> 
> I suspect that part of the problem is that society doesn't give LEOs much discretion any longer to handle things reasonably. Elected officials pass laws that will collect more votes. Facts and reason have little to do with the system any longer. Sad really.


Exactly, but law enforcement and emergency services don't want to do that. It's easier for them to just blanket ban any such event so that they don't have to respond to it in the first place.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Follow-up article in the Annapolis Capital today: Bumper Bash bill hits rough waters • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

wingNwing said:


> Follow-up article in the Annapolis Capital today: Bumper Bash bill hits rough waters • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)


Wow, glad to hear a modicum of common sense being applied here, by politicians no less!

They are right- This is unenforcable. Through cell phones and social media, these events will continue, and there will be no official "organizer".

When the NRP shows up, the response will be "Huh? I don't even know those people over there. We're all just anchored in the same cove, coincidentally", and the law will be forced to fall back on the same tools they've always had-

Busting individual people for operating a vessel while intoxicated, disorderly conduct, etc, which is as it should be.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Should event organizers be responsible for security?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Putting aside any questions of rights or enforcement, what will be the net result of this law? Increased revenue for the State of Maryland. Disguised as a public safety bill.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

wingNwing said:


> Thanx for the great summary, Dave. What can I do long-distance to contribute?


If I think of something I'll holler.



BubbleheadMd said:


> Holy ****. Are you !#$#@% kidding me?? Ok, you let me know the next time this bill is going to be discussed, and I will dress up and go with you.


Please PM me contact information and I'll send you mine. E-mail and phones please.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

PM sent.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

"For years, every year, in the Rhode River we have a huge, private fireworks display on Labor Day weekend. It's hugely popular and folks come near and far. To my knowledge, no one's every been hurt or killed at this "spontaneous" gathering."

Bubble- just be glad they haven't banned fireworks like they have here (everything, including sparklers). We live on a private island and have always had a large community 4th of July fireworks display/party on the beach in front of about a dozen homes. Not going to happen from now on I guess.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

We have been to the fireworks on the Rhode on labor day...quite impressive.



Rhode River Fireworks= Lilith Faire

Dobbins Island Drunkfest= Altamont Concert


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Yesterday I attended the CBYCA meeting where two reps from DNR spoke. One spoke about the bill, another said that boat registration fees will be increased. When I get my notes straightened out (working on them now) I'll post bullet points.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Geezus, just keep screwing me. No KY, no dinner, no music, no reach-around.

Hey, an economic recovery may be around the corner. Let's do everything we can to screw it up!


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Here's a tease (just for you, Rich):

The first speaker discussed general DNR issues.

Robert Gaudette, Director, MD DNR

•	Army Corps of Engineers will stop maintaining any channel not navigated by commercial vessels
•	5% vessel excise tax revenue down 30% in 2011; therefore,
•	Beginning 2013 there are no funds for DNR to fund projects so they are 1) increasing the registration cost based on vessel size amounting to a “significant increase,” and 2) introducing a bill to raise costs


----------



## dongreerps (May 14, 2007)

This thread reminds me of events in Ann Arbor back in 1971 or so. An organizer wanted to hold a rock concert/love festival on a farm just outside of town. He applied for a permit. The permit was denied by a court on the basis of traffic congestion, noise, trash, and public drunkedness, etc. The following fall, the organizer applied for an injunction prohibiting the Ohio State/Michigan game quoting verbatum the judicial decree prohibiting his gathering. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander, and it all depends upon whose ox is being gored, eh?


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

So, to make up for a DNR shortfall (which doesn't DNR cover more than just water?) they're going to raise fees on boaters? Or are they raising other fees as well?


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

I suppose since they were presenting this talk to yacht clubs and boating associations, they only mentioned fees that impact boaters.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

We're going to charge you more, and stop providing any services.

Oh, except for the service of breaking up any marine gatherings that you may be involved in.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Donna,

Robert Gaudette is director of DNR's Boating Services. The top guy is DNR Secretary John Griffin, who has been there for quite some time. 

For those of you who are not familiar with DNR it stands for "Do Nothing Right!" at least in the eyes of most of the outdoor writers who have covered DNR for decades on end. The agency seems to always need more money, but can never seem to be able to perform the job for which it was created--protect and enhance the natural resources of Maryland for ALL its citizens.

DNR is very good at studying things--everything. And, this takes lots of time, personnel and money. They don't, however, seem to be real good at fixing things, though. They tend to cry poor mouth at every legislative session, then say they could do a wonderful job of fixing things if the legislature would just give them more money. So, every year for decades they got more money, at least until a few years ago when a handful of legislators said "What the Hell happened to the money we've been providing all along?" So, the money tree dried up for a couple years, at least on paper, and DNR, like the State, developed a "Structural Deficit." 

For those who are not familiar with a Structural Deficit, it simply is a proposal to spend money that you don't have. Lets say you have a $100 in your pocket, but you find a really nice dink on Ebay for $500. You and I cannot purchase the dink because we don't have sufficient funds to do so. The government, however, buys the dink, can't pay he bill, then turns to you and asks for enough money to cover the deficit. In this case, it's an increase in boating registration fees, which in reality is nothing more than a tax on the privilege to use your boat, a vessel that you've already paid a 6-percent sales tax on, and paid to have it registered two years ago.

Now, here's the neat part about Structural Deficits. Lets say there's a major uproar about the proposed increase on boating registration fees (taxes). The boating public says "DNR, we're not gonna' pay you double the amount you got last year." DNR says OK, we'll make some budget cuts instead. We'll cut 50-percent, which will lower the deficit. Of course, the cut is 50-percent of the proposed increase--not a 50-percent cut in their overall budget. In fact, their overall budget will be increased--just not as much as they would like.

The question you must ask yourself is "What will I get for my boat registration fee (tax) increase other than a new sticker and registration card? NOTHIN! The bay's not going to get cleaner and you will not see any more DNR police patrolling the bay. 

The next time Bob Gaudette spins his tale in your neighborhood, ask some pointed questions:

Provide us with a comprehensive list of the new projects you have in mind, and a detailed expense report of just how much those projects will cost?

What benefit will these projects be to the boating public in our area of the bay?

Why does DNR's Boating Service not dredge the approach channels to state launch ramps?

Why did DNR do away with the free launch at state parks for seniors with park passes or those with an annual park pass?

These and many more questions should be asked, but since I've been blackballed from DNR press conferences I no longer have the opportunity to put forth questions such as those above. Why was I blackballed from DNR press conferences? Because I asked those questions, and I recorded the answers on tape. John Griffin apparently didn't want to be directly quoted when answering a hardball question.

Get out the KY--you know what's coming next,

Gary


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Interesting comments, Gary. I think those comments from DNR that I posted earlier were the opening act to the main event which was discussion of State Bill 127 by Colonel George F. Johnson IV, Superintendent of the Maryland Natural Resources Police. That second discussion was by far more interesting and more questions were asked.

In a nutshell, the bill was introduced as a result of a few events starting with Canal Days at Chesapeake City, Bumper Bash, and Aquapalooza and the phone calls from local elected officials complaining of public drunkenness, trespassing and trash left behind after Bumper Bash.

DNR hopes the bill will, among other things, encourage large groups to hire their own security to hold those people who break the law until DNR or other LE show up.

Also, lots of _mays_ were thrown around:

DNR may require groups to set out buoys to mark their perimeter.
DNR officers may use individual discretion in enforcing the law.
When deciding whether or not to disband a group without a permit, DNR may consider the number of people on the boats in addition to the amount of boats.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Thanks Donna,

DNR has always been good with buzzwords such as: may, could, possibly, and of course, study. Glad you were there to report what happened.

Gary


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

The synopsis of Gary's rant is:

The DNR consumes ever more money, while providing ever fewer services, but ever more regulations with no positive result.

I'm inclined to agree, and disappointed. I have a list of questions and statements ready to go, if there's another public hearing on the matter. If this ridiculous bill gets passed, good luck enforcing it. Since they only have 277 officers for the entire Bay, I'll make damn sure that I'm somewhere that they aren't.

Edit: I'm not seeing when the next hearing is. If anyone knows, please post it up here.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

I'm meeting with a small group this evening to advice MD State Senator Simonaire. We're working hard to come up with something reasonable.

I'm there on behalf of SSCA. Boat/US wasn't in the room at the committee meeting so haven't been invited, but I'm coordinating with them to try and get their input.


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

The rule (as proposed as I understand it) doesn't mesh with the stated objective. If the concern is that they need to deploy LEO to cover these events, then they should want "notification" that the event is happening, not requests for permission to hold the event? And that stuff about how they "may" break up gatherings, "may" require buoys, etc etc ... the intent is to give them discretion, but at the cost of transparency (or just some officer having a bad day)? Shouldn't rules apply to all? And how would it play out in practice if, say, someone is safely anchored, and pours a glass of wine, and THEN an officer comes by and tells them to break it up and move their boat? Lots to work out here, seems like they're making it up as they go along.

Dave, many thanx to you and Sen Simonaire for your energy to try and get this right. Donna, thanx for keeping us in the loop on your meetings as well.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

wingNwing said:


> And how would it play out in practice if, say, someone is safely anchored, and pours a glass of wine, and THEN an officer comes by and tells them to break it up and move their boat?


Good point. The last time I was on a CG patrol at the 4 July fireworks in Philadelphia, each boat the CG found with an operator under the influence was taken into tow. They spent a bit of time going back and forth.


----------



## bandaidmd (Jul 28, 2011)

Update,
Bumper Bash bill hits rough waters • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

bandaidmd said:


> Update,
> Bumper Bash bill hits rough waters • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)


_"You can't legislate good judgement". _

I agree on this issue.

I can't help but add for the sake of other issues, you can't seem to elect it either.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

bandaidmd said:


> Update


Way out of date. Since then there have been a number of meetings and progress has been made. MD State Simonaire sponsored a community action group meeting that included boating groups and the sponsor of Bumper Bash as well as community groups from the surrounding area and DNR. I met with NRP on behalf of SSCA.

NRP feels strongly about the issue and they make a reasonable case. I don't like it a lot but I think they have taken input in good faith and the amendments released Tuesday this week are better. SSCA at least has two remaining issues and we are working hard to come to agreement with NRP and the MD State Senate Committee.

Of all the people reading this thread, and those who have posted, only two people have contacted me to offer to help, one of whom is a friend of mine and an active volunteer with CGAux and CBYCA. One other that I am aware of has written to protest the bill. No one has appeared at any of the venues to discuss the wording or offer an opinion.

Don't like the bill? At least join SSCA so you're represented by an organization that takes action in your interests.


----------



## jimjazzdad (Jul 15, 2008)

As a Canadian on the outside looking in, I can say I don't know much about US Constitutional law, but as my old dad used to say "With every right comes a responsibility". 

It seems that the folks here on the forum are taking their responsibities seriously - talking to their elected officals, etc. but clearly the folks at the Bumper Bash or whatever started all this were not taking enough responsibility for their actions. Thats when law abiding citizens and/or law enforcement should become involved, preferably on a case by case basis.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I e-mailed Sen Simonaire.

Of course, as has been amply demonstrated throughout the country, there is a simple way around the law, if enacted. Just call yourself Occupy _______ , and then the laws don't apply.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> Way out of date. Since then there have been a number of meetings and progress has been made. MD State Simonaire sponsored a community action group meeting that included boating groups and the sponsor of Bumper Bash as well as community groups from the surrounding area and DNR. I met with NRP on behalf of SSCA.
> 
> NRP feels strongly about the issue and they make a reasonable case. I don't like it a lot but I think they have taken input in good faith and the amendments released Tuesday this week are better. SSCA at least has two remaining issues and we are working hard to come to agreement with NRP and the MD State Senate Committee.
> 
> ...


Can you elaborate on any changes made to the bill?

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I've emailed you with a bullet sheet, emailed my state reps, kept checking for more public hearings on the matter (I haven't found any, am I doing something wrong?). I would definitely have attended these "publicity meetings" between the DNR and USBoat, SSCA and others if I had a little more notice. I admit that I'm not very savvy at searching out these meetings, I only know how to check the state legislature schedule for public hearings.

Of course NRP feels strongly about this. They'll love having the authority to deny a public gathering if they feel that it will cause them to actually do any work. If this bill gets passed, I at least hope that it gets re-written to something a little less dictatorial. :hothead


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Just another short step to remove one more freedom, then utilize the law to cash in on paying for this ridiculous legislation with the creation of MORE user fees, which are nothing more than taxes with another name. DNR and the People's Republic of Maryland is notorious for this type of activity.

Not too many years ago, anyone over the age of 62 could obtain what was known as a Golden Age Pass. It was a free pass to allow senior citizens to enter state parks at no charge. The same pass allowed seniors to use launch ramps in the parks at no charge as well. The Golden Age Pass pretty much mimicked the Federal pass that allowed entrance to National Parks for seniors at no charge. Those over age 62 were also issued a free fishing license and hunting license, but they had to purchase trout stamps, big game stamps, etc..., but the license itself was basically free. Guess what? All those things are gone.

Keep in mind that residents who have been active in the outdoors for most of their lives paid thousands upon thousands of dollars in licensing fees, stamps, entrance fees, and more during their adult years. And, these older folks were the stewards of the state's natural resources. They organized bay cleanup programs that involved sporting groups, the scouts, and other conservation organizations, spent thousands of hours removing trash from streams and rivers, planting trees along eroded shorelines, planting submerged aquatic vegetation in the bay's shallows, growing oysters and planting them in tributaries throughout the bay.

Well, the thanks they got for all those decades of tireless effort was DNR looking for another handout from the people they should be rewarding with free access to state and federal facilities. DNR refers to these licenses as user fees, and I can almost guarantee that if this legislation goes through, DNR will not be adding additional enforcement officers, but instead, enacting a special "User Fee" for raft-ups. Yep, all you'll need to do is contact the DNR or NRP at least 60 days in advance of the raft-up, then pay $8 or $10 per boat (depending on the economy) for each boat in the raft-up, and then you can raft-up until the permit expires, which will likely be 24 hours later. And, if they live up to the well earned reputation, the minimum will probably be $100, even if there's only three boats involved. Oh, and if there's more than three boats involved in a non-permitted raft-up, you can bet your jibsail that there's a hefty fine involved.

Now, this may seem far fetched, but you have to look carefully at DNR's track record. Lets look at the state parks, for example. Two decades ago you could take your family to a state park for a picnick and go swimming. The entrance fee, which at one time was free for everyone, was $3 per vehicle, and if someone in the vehicle was over age 62 there was no entrance fee charged. Today, there's a $2 fee for a child to play in the sand, a $3 charge for just entering the park, and if you want to use a pavilion picnic table get ready to shell out some hefty bucks. The last time I paid for this was at Gunpowder State Park, the pavilion was nothing more than a tin roof over a concrete pad, with 4 picnic tables and the bill was $135. Additionally, every family member had to pay $3 to get into the park, which dropped another $350 in DNR's till. And, DNR's Park Service decided it was too expensive to have dumpsters in the park, therefore they were removed, and a trash bag was issued when you entered the park so you could take your trash home with you. DNR Park Service claimed they would save $180,000 a year by getting rid of dumpster service, but by doing this it probably added 10 times the trash to the roadsides going to and from the park. If you brought your boat to the picnic and wanted to take the grandkids for a ride, add another $10 for launching.

Damned, here I am getting cynical again.  Someone posted above that NRP felt strongly about the proposed legislation. I agree. But, I think they may be opposed to the legislation for the same reasons--they would have to leave the dock (God forbid) and actually put some hours on the Whaler and patrol the bay for violators and check on permits.

All the best from a cynical, old man,

Gary


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

I think Gary's histories of DNR and what they are doing today with MD SB 127 probably proves that DNR is what it is and always has been. However, as long as they are willing to listen, the most we can do is to step up, present a convincing argument, and try to prevent additional missteps. If in the end nothing changes and DNR does what they want to do regardless, at least some people made an effort to make a change.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

BubbleheadMd said:


> Can you elaborate on any changes made to the bill?


Hi Rich,

You are the other person I listed above. I haven't forgotten you. I truly appreciate your offer. E-mail will follow shortly. Some of what we need to do is grunt work.

I'll send you the adjustments to the bill. The short version is that the threshold is being shifted from 50 to 100 boats (I'm still pushing 200). The requirement for private security to have powers of arrest has been dropped. There are some other minor advances but those are the high points.

I'm still working on "shall issue" and documentation of a permit not being required.

I appreciate the bullets you sent. You demonstrate good, common sense. The implication of that is that your bullet points have been on the table for some time. We're working those issues.

The next hearing has not been scheduled yet. I'll e-mail you when it is.

best, dave


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Ok Dave, sorry if I came off as sensitive.  I didn't realize you were including me in the "functional" group, lol. You've made important progress on the bill!


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

BubbleheadMd said:


> Ok Dave, sorry if I came off as sensitive.  I didn't realize you were including me in the "functional" group, lol. You've made important progress on the bill!


You came across as "what is going on?" which is fine. NP. You and Donna are THE TWO people who have actually stuck their hands up to help. Donna has pulled in contacts from Chesapeake Bay Yacht Club Association; I'm waiting to see how that works out.

If you have some time to do a little research check this page: Maryland Senate Education, Health & Environmental Affairs Committee - Members and read the bios on everyone on the committee. See if any represent you. Look for anything "boaty." Pay attention to Ms. Montgomery - her interest seemed to be in a new revenue stream. Super duper extra credit for cutting and pasting with pictures, bios, and your comments in a Word document. This is intelligence analysis. *grin* If you're really bored, Google the names of the staff people and see if anything interesting pops up. The whole task should only take a couple of hours.

Can you make short phone calls during the day? I have one call I'm making a couple of times a week to make sure that we don't miss a schedule.

I really do appreciate your offer of help. Let me know if I ask too much.


----------



## BumperBash (Mar 3, 2012)

It comes with great sadness to announce we have cancelled the annual July 2012 BumperBash. Due to pending legislation and heavy political pressures, we feel it best to drop back and get things on the square and level. We are looking at ways to continue bringing you entertainment and fun on the water and will post more as it becomes available. Please keep using your voices and votes to support our freedoms. Thank you all for your 6 years of loyalty and we hope to see you all somewhere soon!

Thanks for the reasonable thought put into the last few posts on this. We fully support law enforcement and work with DNR on this and many events. The people involved in planning BumperBash in particular (I cant speak for the numerous other large free events) have been avid boaters on the Bay for many years and are on the square. We work with AACO, DNR, USCG, and make sure everyone knows what to expect. An op plan is made, drawings, and schedules posted. This helps make an event successful AND as safe as possible. For the thousands of people we had last year there were 40 something citations and a handful of arrests. Probably less than a football game or any given weekend in Fells Point. (Baltimore downtown for the non locals) The bars dont pay a fee for the Police every time they advertise an event, have a band, or show a game. The fact that there is a concentration of boaters is the only difference from weekend boating on the Bay.
BumperBash is FREE to all. The only items sold were TShirts and ALL profits went the Maryland Special Olympics.
The problem with this legislation is the "fees" are not specified and the "enforcement" is up for anyones interpretation. We were told the "fees" for our event could be at least $20,000 this year. Not exactly reasonable for a charitable, non profit event. 
This also will affect ANY boat club, raft up, or other event of 50 or more boats. 50 boats raft any given weekend around here. We should get a "permit?" crazy.
The issue is the knee jerk reaction by regulation. This is a valid concern but to stop any and all events by passing a poorly thought out law is becoming the norm. We fully encourage any and all boaters to offer suggestions to Maryland legislators on how to do this REASONABLY.
Here is where to find your reps:
Who Are Your Elected Officials
Here is the unreasonable bill
http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/sb/sb0127f.pdf

Thanks for your considerations.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Just change the name to Occupy the Bay. Works everywhere else 

Kidding aside though, there are some of us who only travel through that have sent e-mails to legislators. And this isn't just about BumperBash or any of the other large events, it's about boating in general.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

From the Baltimore Sun



> Organizers have canceled the 2012 Bumper Bash, a rowdy annual summer boat gathering in the Magothy River near the privately owned Dobbins Island.
> 
> "Due to pending legislation and heavy political pressures, we feel it best to drop back and get things on the square and level," a statement Thursday night on the event's Facebook page said. Organizers did not respond to an email request for comment Thursday night.
> 
> ...


First, I agree with the hard work done by Auspicious, DFerron and Bubblehead in the effort to prevent and infringement on the boaters rights concerning raft ups.

The posting above by BUMPERBASH is a complete fraud. To the first timer you would think it was some non profit organization raising monery for Special Olympics. Nothing can be further from the truth. Lets remember the premise for the beginning of the the gatheingr, it was to protest the fact someone boiught Dobbins Iskand and refused...yes actually refused to alllow a bunch of drunk people traveling by boat from landing on their yard and island and littering their house and property with liquor, beer bottle s,and used condoms. How dare someone defend their property as gaurenteed in the Constitution. This went as far as the Supreme Court of Md ( the right to buy the property) as the party revelers cound not beleive that someone would be allowed to buy their party spot.
Bumperbash was organized to protest this and stick it in the ear of the people who purchased Dobbins.

My second point is this....many of you rail about the price of government in MD and higher taxes. If the organizers of the event do not have to pay for the police presence and added security at this drunkfest who will foot the bill to protecty people from each other there and provide the emergency services which occur as a result of this. I guess the taxpayers. So I guess this is a Catch 22. Either way the the government is wrong in this whether by having increased costs or by enacting legislation to make it a "user fee" where the poeple who incur the costs actually have to pay for them.

While I do support the extrapolation of the intent of this law to apply to the otherwise peaceful gatherings and raft ups. I am not convinced that this is not hype and that it was truly going to be enforced this way. Sopme of my best friends here on Sailnet have worked hard to make sure this does not happen, and I agree with them.

Bumperbash is a drunken free for all and I for one am glad it is cancelled.

Dave


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Chef, I appreciate the fact that this "event" may have been a problem but aren't there enough laws in place to deal with the idiots who get out of control? If this particular event is a problem, I'm sure there are adequate ways to deal with it on an individual basis rather than by penalizing everyone in the foreseeable future. Governments pass laws without thinking about the long-term consequences or anything so nebulous as personal freedom. Unfortunately, the majority of people in America no longer take pride in being independent. They want government to protect them from everything, supply their every need, and relieve them from their responsibilities. Well, they are being relieved....of their independence and rights.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Agreed like I said its Catch 22.

I dont like adding laws and having the gvt intrude in my life. Yes there were enough laws in place to enforce the drunken party I beleive, but not pass the costs on for enforcing it. I dont like my taxes increasing, or a law passed which if it was carried out to ultimate enforcement would prevent raft ups of more than 50 boats in an anchorage

On the other hand I dont like my taxes going up because a certain group of drunkards decide they want to party, have a concert, which causes the "police or authorities to have to provide added protection or services which costs extra money for the taxpayers.

I beleive in user fees. You drive over a bridge you should pay for the priviledge. You utilize a service you should pay for it. You contribute to a service being provided for the public welfare and well being which otherwise was not need, you should pay for the services.

Dave


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Yes, I agree that if the taxpayers are going to have to pay for extra clean-up, L.E. boats, emergency personnel, or anything related to a big, organized event then there should be a way to recoup the $ from the folks using the services. So, how to determine what is and isn't an organized event of this nature would seem to be the problem. Obviously, a few boats rafting up to have a get-together should not be in this category and should be in the category of "business as usual." I wonder if MD approached this issue from that standpoint or just decided they needed some new laws to collect more fees from the general public who all pay (grudgingly)for these services already?

I guess an on-water event does not benefit local business like a land event, being more or less self-contained, but bringing in lots of tourists is usually very beneficial to local economies.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> I wonder if MD approached this issue from that standpoint or just decided they needed some new laws to collect more fees from the general public who all pay (grudgingly)for these services already?- smurphny


Or a maybe even a few people cried wolf and overeacted and said they would enforce this with just normal boats rafting up vrs a raftaplaizza drunkfeast.

I am not sure when the cry went out this was going to apply to "normal" events. Our state representative here James Brochin and Susan Auman when I approached them and called them and spoke to themn said the bill was never intended to police all boating and would not vote for that if it did.

Dave


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Up here in North Creek, we've had a Whitewater Derby for many decades which used to be a raucous, drunken, fun weekend, with cars lined up along the Hudson River for miles. I thought it was fun when I was 20. In subsequent years the event has been tamed and no longer attracts so many people but I wouldn't give up the memories of the wild times we all had back then for anything. How does the line go in Brad Paisleys "Alcohol"....the best times you'll never remember.  There was less law being applied then, fewer people looking to sue each other, a more laid back state of being. No one expected to ever be harassed because they were having fun. The same can be said for New Hampshire's Laconia Bike week. I wonder whether we live in a better environment now what with Big Bro. watching our every move and legislating out the uncontrolled fun "for our own protection?"


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

smurphny said:


> ...I wonder whether we live in a better environment now what with Big Bro. watching our every move and legislating out the uncontrolled fun "for our own protection?"


The U.S. has a reputation for being the most litigious society in the world. I wonder if, in certain cases, we have only ourselves to blame?

There's a reason instruction manuals caution against doing what most of us would deem to be basic common sense.


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

> The bill wouldn't require permits for races, regattas, parades, exhibitions or other marine events for which permits already are required by the Coast Guard.


They don't need to pass a new law. Just define a large raft up as a regatta and they will have to get a permit from the Coast Guard.


----------



## bandaidmd (Jul 28, 2011)

Looks like the bill passed out of the commite stage and is on its way to a vote. Have not seen the final wording posted anywhere as yet.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

It's spreading:



> On Tuesday, the city council will consider an ordinance that will ban the linking of more than two boats. Police think it's this "rafting" of boats that promotes the disruptive and reckless behavior, sometimes including the ramming of other vessels as these rafts of boats drift.
> 
> The new law would also restrict sound from audio systems that can be heard more than 50 feet from the watercraft.


Kirkland wants crackdown on noisy boat parties - Seattle News - MyNorthwest.com

in commentary on the proposed law, it was pointed out that a home owner could complain about loud noise from a boat, but a boat could not complain about loud noise from a nearby home.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

What? No music that can be heard for more than 50-feet. I can hear cellular telephone music playing at greater distances across the water. Kind of makes me glad I got out of Washington when I did. Besides, Spokane's winters can be downright dreadful for an old codger like me. 

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## wingNwing (Apr 28, 2008)

Yikes, erps! No more than two boats?


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

I guess the city council was a little surprised by the turn out to speak out against the proposed law and have sent it back to committee for a new paint job.



> The proposed ordinance would prohibit boats from rafting or drifting or anchoring within 25 feet of each other. Additionally, it would prohibit boaters from playing loud music and making "public disturbance" noise.


Pacific Northwest Boating News: After pushback from boaters, Kirkland backs off on proposed rafting ban | Three Sheets Northwest


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

Seems a little bit of overkill. If they pass this, which probably won't happen now, what would happen every year at Seafair, when there are huge raft ups on Lake Washington for the Hydroplane races. If some waterfront property owner complains will Seattle ban the huge raft up along the race course? Not very likely! They make too much money from it.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Pelkenberry,

I think they will not pass this as there was a lot of consternatioin and they got the results they wanted which was the cancellation of the organized drunkfest. See this event started out as a protest of a man who purchased an island that many people had access to before in the middle of the river far away from the land police so they would party there with no problems.

When he purchased the land these people became distraught as they would have no place to leave their used condoms as the new owner had the nerve to put a fence around his property to protect his dwelling there and to keep intruders and tresspassers off his property because people would just land their dinghys and boats there and trash his grounds even after he bought it.

They then organized this protest every year which had become an unruly mess. In their infinate wisdom ( oxymoron) the legislators felt they need to enact a law to "police" this raft up.

Some individuals beacame alarmed that our DNR (enforcement arm of the state) would overreact like it can sometimes and start policing all gathering and raft up over 50 boats in other area of the state. They organized and the law they were intending on passing seems moot now. The irony was that there was enough laws on the books to enforce the drunken mess, but none of those laws addressed the monetary extra cost in manpower the state would have to spoend to maintain a proper presence in case an incident emergency took place. The law addessed that and would have required a type of fee placed to pay for any contingencies.

The organization has since canceled the "Bumper bash" with some lame annoucement hiding behind the guise that this was some charity event for Special Olympics. The organizers have yet to come up with an alternative event to raise money for the special olympics and never will.

Dave

Bumper Bash | MDGazette.com

Bone in Its Teeth: Dobbins Island: High court restricts access

BumperBash 2011: Fun, but with more law enforcement • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)

Summer 2012 Bumper Bash canceled, organizers say - baltimoresun.com


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

Sorry for the confusion but I was referring to this one;


> Pacific Northwest Boating News: After pushback from boaters, Kirkland backs off on proposed rafting ban | Three Sheets Northwest


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Good information, Dave. Never knew the entire story behind the massive raft ups there.

Gary


----------



## BumperBash (Mar 3, 2012)

Chef Dave,
First you seem particularly bitter about BumperBash and go out of your way to pass less than genuine sounding information. Being involved in the organization of the current event, I am not aware of any of the "story" behind the start as dramatically as you put it. 
If you care to give supporting information or probable cause for your displeasure? I would actually be interested. 
The event has gone on for 6 years now and the original founder has since moved on. If there was some scandal as you portray it has long since disappeared. Guys this was a big old party and not some in your face display.

Ok on to what really matters. This bill negatively affects all boating events STATEWIDE, not just ours. There are plenty of laws on the books to enforce any violations on the water already. At the 2011 BumperBash we had approximately 1000 boats, over 3000 people, and the police issued maybe 40 minor citations. Not exactly what I would call dramatic. Yes it was wild, but this is boaters on the water in summer. Its supposed to be fun! We have decided not to continue the event based on several issues, the least of which is getting the permit.

The boating community as a whole, even if they dont support large gatherings needed to stand up against this bill and others. There are others in the works like the proposed "luxury" tax and gas taxes we need to pay attention to now also.

I would like to share a statement from Senator Bryan Simonaire on MD 127 and how it came to pass:

"Let me state up front: I am for Bumper Bash! When SB127 was introduced, I opposed it vehemently. It was overreaching in undefined and unlimited government regulations, a gathering was defined as 50 boats or more, it was estimated that the fees for the Bumper Bash would have been around $25,000, advance notice would be 60 days, jail time was associated with a sponsor found in violation of the permit, there were open ended terms and conditions that would allow DNR to deny permits and the list goes on.
I had a choice: Vote against it, shout how bad it was and watch our rights disappear as it had the votes to pass; OR work with DNR and others to improve the bill to a workable piece of legislation. I chose the latter and formed a workgroup of local community associations, Bumper Basher organizer and attendees, DNR, NRP and sailing clubs.
The end result: I was the sponsor of the amendments to make the bill much better (not the sponsor of the bill). In summary, regulatory powers were stripped from the bill, a boat gathering had to be at least 100 boats now, the $25,000 fee went down to $0, the permit should only cost approx. $50 to $100, advance notice went down to 45 days, jail time was removed, open ended terms and conditions were removed, a permit now MUST be granted if a limited set of requirements are met (which were basically already being done last year) and if you already got a Coast Guard permit, this bill would have no effect.
I ensured this law would not stop Bumper Bash, if people wanted it to continue. The organizer of the previous Bumper Bashes was financially liable for the actions of the event. I am not sure if he was aware of that prior to our meeting, but most individuals would not want that type of financial risk. Other events have a corporate sponsor. I am working with community members to put together a group of businesses to sponsor the event next year.
I want your input. I wrote articles in the newspaper requesting input, but unfortunately I only received a handful of input prior to the committee vote, mostly positive. I am here to serve and welcome your input.
Senator Bryan Simonaire"


----------



## BumperBash (Mar 3, 2012)

Thenewbumperbash Bumperbash's Photos | Facebook

Pic of BumperBash 2011. Yes we paid out of pocket for the 70 foot barge, band, DJ, generator and cleanup afterwards.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Great photo, but doesn't appear to be anywhere neat 1,000 boats in the photo. A couple hundred maybe, but not 1,000. Sure looks like a mob of people there, and I'm sure they were all having fun.

Cheers,

Gary


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Chef Dave,
> First you seem particularly bitter about BumperBash and go out of your way to pass less than genuine sounding information. Being involved in the organization of the current event, I am not aware of any of the "story" behind the start as dramatically as you put it.
> If you care to give supporting information or probable cause for your displeasure? I would actually be interested.


So you have arrived here out of the blue with your thrid post to this forum to which you have no wanting to improve the boating experience for all of us, just to gain support for your drunkfest.

I am not bitter at all about Bumperbash, just passionate about your misrepresentations. Your insinuation that I am giving less that genuine sounding information is a nice way of saying that I am lying or distorting facts .Nothing can be further than the truth. You are now hiding behind the cloak of this bill that was proposed and even went so far as to insinuate that you should be continued to allowed to do this because " you gave all your profits to the Maryland Special Olympics". Was that to lead us to beleive that you have pure interests in having this event? Tell me sir/ mame what have you done to continue to contributions to Special Olympics because if that surely was your driving force you would have either tried another way of fundraising or you would have found a way to obtain the permits and special needs the DNR and regulatory agencies asked you to provide to continue your drunkfest. I am quoting what you said here.



> BumperBash is FREE to all. The only items sold were TShirts and ALL profits went the Maryland Special Olympics.Bumbperbash


You asked for prooof of what this event was and I will repost the newspaper articles I posted earlier in this thread

http://www.waterfrontlaw.com/dobbins-island-dispute

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...0120_1_clickners-dobbins-island-7-acre-island

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-bumper-bash-canceled-20120301,0,7044597.story

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/GOV/2012/03/08-14/Committee-approves-Bumper-Bash-bill.html

BumperBash 2011: Fun, but with more law enforcement • Top Stories (Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, News, Sports, Features, Information, Entertainment, Events (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital) - The Capital)

Summer 2012 Bumper Bash canceled, organizers say - baltimoresun.com

See sir/ madam you can spin doctor the free for all public nusence drunkfest you organized and created to appear to be some nice folk music festival get together to aid Special Olympics, but no one is buying it. You can dress a pig top look like a model..but it still is really a pig.

Its rare you see all of the news media unite in calling it rowdy and out of hand as they have with all print and television media . It is even rarer to see them agree with the police and regulatory authorities in determining that this drunkfest needed special attention from law authorities, a large amount of resources to control the fights as well as public drunkemess, operatining vessels while intoxicated and lets not forget the real reason this party started originally as a protest to the man who bought Dobbins Island- the police needed to protect the property owner from vandals and tresspassers from landing and destroying his bought property ( his castle) from your invited party goers.

These are facts not some spun up story of attempted camoflaouge you have tried to present here. Stop hiding behind the hystrionics of a bill developed in the legislature and riling people up to think it will apply to peacefull weekend activies and raft up we all have without incident, because we all can control ourselves, dont need to break the law by invading someone elses property or need to display our drinking abilities to the whole river.

If in fact you are for real and this is a legitimate enterprise,,,step up to the bar...get the required permits... pay for the state to have added policing and emergency services at the event... stand up for what you present to us that it is...dont go slinking away in the night. I for one should not have to pay one extra penny of overtime to law enforcement to permit this event to continue...pay the user fee.

Prove me wrong, put your money and meanings where the rubber meets the road. But we both know this will never happen.

Dave

__________________


----------



## BumperBash (Mar 3, 2012)

Wow I see this is going to get nowhere, you obviously have another agenda. Although the media has shown and agreed only to it being a big party, I see nothing you have presented that gives any weight to your tale as to the start of why? Conspiracy theory at best?
Or maybe the alleged condoms were left on your deck? Thats a pretty personal comment, someone without first hand involvement rarely comes up with detail to that level.
The wild story you spun, (or in your words, lied about) have no truth, no proof, no merit and sound more like YOU own the island that anything else.
Your cleverly designed redirection has drawn attention only to the media stories but still has not addressed the question previously asked. Personal knowledge on your part? Anything? No? Just speculation?
Hiding behind the bill just not the case. The financial issue here is not just the permit. Find me an insurance company that will give a liability policy for an event of this magnitude. On top of all the out of pocket expense already incurred make this an unsustainable venture. You cannot run a business with expense and no income, neither can we continue. legitimate enterprise, no this was never designed to earn a profit for the organizers and never has either.
Have you petitioned to stop the police from responding to the "occupy" movement protests yet? You likely paid lots o overtime for that mess! Oh but their permit fees should cover it. Westboro Baptist in Glen Burnie? Overtime there?

There are more incidents of people passing the high water line any given weekend than the one day a year where the police are actually on the beach. That point just does not hold water.
Your concern and articulation for protecting the uninhabited island and owner are well stated. No one is questioning this.
BumperBash has ended just so you wont have to pay for it. Call it why, I know you will regardless of what is said here.

The original bill was designed to get rid of large boat events. Period

I am afraid this has become a personal attack and I am finished defending rumors here.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> I am afraid this has become a personal attack and I am finished defending rumors here.


Yes you have regressed to this. Now its time to slink back into the shadows of annonimity for you. Bumperbash poof be gone:laugher:laugher:laugher


----------



## BumperBash (Mar 3, 2012)

Huh. Wild stories with no supporting evidence. Big surprise. But with what 12000 posts you must be credible. 
Oh poof...Im sure..did you waive cute little your wand?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Huh. Wild stories with no supporting evidence. Big surprise. But with what 12000 posts you must be credible.
> Oh poof...Im sure..did you waive cute little your wand


?

You have regressed even more. And you want people to believe in your cause, beleive you contributed to Special Oympics. So tell me how much did you contribute? Do just tell us...show us with a legitamate signed document or check. What are you doing to contribute to this cause now , surley you wont let a little formallity like a permit or insurance deter you?

The only reason there is any relation to you in this is that most of us felt there was no need for additional legislation to control your drunkfest. Mosy of us prefer to use the water and enjoy nature and not pollute it with either garbage, condoms or liquor bottles. Most of us are respectfull of each other and our neighbors during raft ups and in an anchorage to the poiint that some of us dont even like hearing an onboard generator running to disturb our peacefullness or our neighbors anchored. Most of us operate our boats with safety and it is our first concern. We also respect each others property in general and would go out of our way not to trespass either on someone elses boat, or home.

Bumperbash...thats the group you have staggered into here. You promote and defend something which goes against a lot of ourr grains and we certainly would not want it to happen in our creek, anchorage or next to our home.

We are not dumb enough to ignore what you stand for and see through the ruse you have promulgated by tying it to the Special Olympics or even the legislation which was clearly aimed at making events like yours pay for the extra services needed to police them rather than make all the public do so. None of us want our quiet raftups policed, nor was there ever intention of the law doing this as we dont break the law or promote public drunkeness or tresspassing on other property. Most of us dont want more laws just for the sake of a special event where the laws already exhist to regulate the event. Thats where a great number of us stood and some even lobbierd their representatioves on behalf of the boating industry, but certainly not in behalf of your event.

How about letting us real sailors and those who enjoy the water get back to our peaceful yet informatove forum and enjoy each others company and yes even difference of opinions graciously. See in case you noticed thats what this forum is about...its called Sailnet and yes I have quite a few posts....and friends/ aquaintances on here and by the way have read many more posts than I have ever written.

Skulk away as you really have nothing in common with us or anything new to share about boating information, safety, or commradiere. Bumperbash is dead, a thing of our past, and DOA.

Dave


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

chef2sail said:


> I am a large proponent of first amendment rights as well as all rights gaurenteed by the Bill of Rights/ Constitution but come on now:
> 
> This does not mean these rights are universally unabridged.
> 
> ...


Dave,
I follow your logic on this, and agree, as do the courts--in the instances you provide as examples. But they do not translate into non-obstructing, voluntary, non-politically provacative, non-hate-mongering, good ol' fashioned rafting.....wouldn't you agree?

All your examples create a public nuisance or are highly provocative towards mayhem. People who live around those areas have no choice whether to be involved. Out on the water, in a party atmosphere, with a relatively good to excellent overall safety record, I do NOT see how your exceptions to rights exist? There is no threat to public safety, all participants are willing, and assuming they're not rafting in a shipping lane, are not impeding commerce or anyone else's freedoms. Ergo, let them be!

Dave F


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The troops need a chance to blow off steam once in a while. They can't all be officers. I will bet there are people in that crowd that would be willing to run into a burning building, or other noble professions, that the raised pinky crowd would never.

On the other hand, there is no excuse for lawlessness. I've been to many events with 1000 attendees, where zero citations were issued. I have no problem with a safe law abiding drunkfest. To each there own, I've outgrown it (or just lost the stamina). But, no breaking laws doing it. Find them a place to go. I don't care whether they raise money for anything. The fact that they did is gravy. It doesn't help their cause, only the SO. They have no obligation in my book to continue to do so.

I'm not sure if this has been considered. The event that seems similar here is a daytime event. They all arrive early and are nearly all gone by sundown. It would not be good to limit these to daytime, as that would encourage drunk driving. However, I thought I read that BB went on for days. It seems a 24 limit should be reasonable. Sleep it off, but you must disperse by the following morning.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

I agre Dave (dnf777) wholeheartedly. I also agree with Minnie.

My position has been that this event should be allowed to occur. That the proper permits are obtained. That organizer and the event pay for the extra police EMT there to keep all safe, including the owener of Dobbins Island. The event usually is a one day one night one.

My problem with the poster was that he did came on like some poor victim of the authorites and never recognized that the event had morphed to out of hand. You always run the risk when assembling a large group together of possible mayhem, but the nature of the event sometimes dictates the chances of that occuring. For example when we get 100 poeple together at the MYC for the 2012 Chesapeake Sailnet Rondevous there is little chance for destruction of property, disturbing neighbors and the peace, etc., Getting 1000 quilters togther at a park will probably not need a huge police presence. BUt it seems 1000 boaters to party, drink and anchor together, some to protest the Dobbins Island decision ( the original reason for the gathering) has morphed into an event which needs to be watched carefully. I am sure the original organizers, and yes even Mr Bumperbash here does not want or condone the lawlessness and deteriation of respect for others that has happened at times. The fact us though that it does happen now and it must be addressed.

As far as the legalities of requiring permitting as well as restrictions and possible payment of services need when there is an organized gathering, the precedent of the same thing occuring oin most of the cities where you live is there for a similar event. The right to assemble under the Constitution is there, but not absolute. No one is telling these people not to have Bumperbash, just get a permit which does not seem unreasonable in light of past events.



> People who live around those areas have no choice whether to be involved. Out on the water, in a party atmosphere, with a relatively good to excellent overall safety record, I do NOT see how your exceptions to rights exist? There is no threat to public safety, all participants are willing, and assuming they're not rafting in a shipping lane, are not impeding commerce or anyone else's freedoms. Ergo, let them be!


I truly understand this statement and for the most part agree, but the "party" has morphed the last few years. Most goers are fine, but there has become a fringe of people who have now gotten out of hand. Should all of us have to pay for the police presence? See it is not just as simplistic as rafting in a shipping lane, it is the garbage, the tresspassing, the public drunkenness and the emergency services required that differentiate this from just a normal gathering. I for one do not really want to pay for the extra police presence or emt services required.

Lastly, consider this does your opinion on this change at all if this is held at YOUR cove or river. It very easy to make general broad sweeping statement about allowing this, but how would you feel if this was held in your neighborhood and your were forced to put up with the drinking, lawlessness, and trash. Imagine how you might feel if you came down to your boat and found it surrounded by a bunch (1000) of drinking teens and early 20s, all in the water with cases of beer floating behind them. Imagine how you would feel if when the had to releive themselves they just climbed on to your marina, beach and went to the bathroom in public or all over you buildings. Imagine how you would feel if you woke up in the morning ( as you spent the night guarding your boat and property from damage and found 5 used condoms in your cockpit or on the boat. Imagine how you would feel if the day after there was a sea of trash, empty beer cans and bottles floating next to your well kept boat or dock. Contemplate this before quickly answering the call to the freedom of allowing this without a permit and restrictions. Most like me would answer let them have this as long as its not in my yard or neighborhood.

I suggest those of you who would promote this without permit and restrictions step forward. Lets have the rubber meet the road here. Let us know ehere you live so we can tell Mr Bumperbash where specifically you are located so he can survey the area and see if it meets his criteria of the next available site to have his Bumperbash event. he is obviously looking for a place to continue his donations to Special Olympics as well as have a peacefull fun gathering where people can blow off steam. Why not in your neighborhood now.

Dave


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Is every single cove or inlet in the Chesapeake populated along every foot? There has to be somewhere appropriate. Where this is done up here, the beach is so rocky and full of broken clam shells, no one wants to set foot on it. I do wonder what the residents of Prudence Island think about it.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

> Is every single cove or inlet in the Chesapeake populated along every foot?


Good question here. The answer is yes...on the western shore. The creeks,coves ,rivers every inch is owned and developed. In fact the property is very expensive. The houses are all 700,000- 5,000,000 plus along the Magothy where this is held. I kid you not every square inch of land not a park...is owned and developed and is expensice, Not sure that it would suit the organizers purpose though, cause as I have pointed out this ORIGINALLY and still a fairly large component of the people who are comming are there to still protest the decision to allow the man who bought Dobbins Island the ability to do so and fence it off to tresspassers. This in spite of a many year protracted fight throughthe state Supreme Court.

Maybe they should have this is a state park lets say Wye River which would bother no one but the animals. Who cares about trashing the environment there. Who cares if they trample the habitat of the bald eagles, migratory birds, and incredible indiginous plant life. Why dont the organizers decide to have this there. I am sure they wouldnt be allowed for the same reasons a lot of us dont want it on the Magothy, trash and pollution.

Maybe they should have this in Annapolis...plentry of anchorage spaces behind everyones boats in Back Creek, Spa Creek, College Creek and in the outer anchorage area to accomadate this crowd. There is plenty of infrasturcture in place already there to handle this gathering as they have the boats shows there every year and there are harbormasters, DNR, maine police and EMT services already in close proximety. Proabably wouldnt have any problem for the organizers to convince the residents there to have Bumperbash as another "festival" in Annapolis. I say this tounge in cheek as I am sure the poeple there dont want this.

The real question again for the organizers is who will pay to clean up afterwards and for the support needed when this large a group gets together. It is not realistic to beacuse the has not been a major incident ( I guess they meant death) yet that this is not something of concern. Anytime you have a gathering of this many people, alcohol and anyone who has ever attended knows there must be a police presence as well as emergency medical. The first incident that happened and no one was there would bring a huge outcry.


----------



## BumperBash (Mar 3, 2012)

Dave,

You referred back to the original reason for gathering and were quite dramatic with the story. This was not how BumperBash started and even though you keep going back to this, have not shown anything to support your position. By reading into your descriptions one would be led to assume you live nearby and were negatively impacted, which is unfortunate.

Everyone else,

All bickering and blaming aside this impact was a major reason we decided to cancel it. A majority of the trash throwing and fighting was caused by the "dozen people in a 17 foot center console". This is also a sign that they are from the local Magothy River area because they didnt come far to get there! Boaters have bad apples like every other group that tend to ruin things for the majority.

BumperBash was held on a Saturday from around noon to 6pm typically. Many people, including myself, would come Friday and stay on hook through Sunday. This was both to avoid drunk boating and to clean the beach afterwards. More than half the boats left by dark, others stayed through the night. Any given summer weekend there are a few hundred boats in the cove or at the beach and similar problems still occur.

Remember this bill will have a statewide effect. There are half a dozen boating events in the Chesapeake Bay that are similar and will all be affected. Aquapalooza, Canal Days, Sandy Beach Days, Magothy River, etc. We dont need more boating regulations or new taxes, Maryland has plenty of both already.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Bumperbash-

This taken from your website promoting the event.



> In cooperation with AACOPD, MD DNR, and USCG, there will be double the patrol and enforcement presence at the event, compared to last year. There will be Police and Fire Rescue representatives on the island as well. MD DNR will establish a 40 foot wide float free channel directly to the center of the beach to allow for safe emergency response. There will be a zero tolerance policy for unsafe or illegal activity and everyone is asked to give full cooperation to ensure a safe and fun filled day.
> 
> Last year BumperBash volunteers provided trash cleanup of the entire beach including the hauling off and dumping of garbage. We encourage everyone to pitch in and take out what you bring in. This event is based in the waters surrounding the beach and everyone is reminded that the island is private pro]perty. We thank you in advance for helping us do our part to protect the Bay.


This seems reasonable. I still do not understand why you canceled and did not get the permits and continue on if this was how it went. Were there problems>

Dave


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Must be a rowdier bunch of boaters down in the lower Magothy than up here in the frozen northern reaches of Chesapeake Bay. We have a couple, similar raft-ups every weekend of the summer, mostly powerboats, and a few sailboats. One bunch spends the day at what is known as The Sand Island, located near the southern end of the Havre de Grace channel across from Fishing Battery Island. Usually, there's about 40 to 60 boats there, lots of drinking and swimming, but no fights that I know of. Labor Day weekend usually sees about 100 boats a day there, a live band or two on the island, some bonfires, and lots of booze.

The second raft-up usually takes place at the northern end of the Susquehanna Flats near the VA Hospital. Lots of jet skis, lots of smaller boats, some sailboats to 30 feet, lots of skinny dippers late evenings, and probably enough booze to float the QE2. Once in a while you might see a floating beer can or two, but that's pretty rare. No fights here either, but lots of lovin' when the sun goes down. There have been a few bands there on party-barges, but when the sun goes down the bugs take over and the party usually ends.

The loudest music I've encountered usually comes from onshore locations. Gibson Island's beach house out on the point can get pretty loud when they have summer, weekend parties. Same holds true for the Tiki Bars along the bay. They're jamming till 2 or 3 in the morning in Fairlee Creek and the volume is usually somewhere in the vicinity of ear bleed--not a good place to anchor up on summer weekends.

As for isolated locations to hold Bumper Bash, not many on the bay's western shore until you get above Carol Island. From there north is nearly all federal property. As long as you stay out of the restricted area you can party-hearty and no one would be bothered. Of course, you may have to put up with an occasional artillery shell passing overhead and exploding along the beaches of Spesutia Island. Hmmmm! Bet that might add some excitement if you were not anticipating the shelling.

There's lots of incredible mansions along the Eastern Shore, and I would venture a guess that nobody there would be happy if there was a raft-up taking place within eyesight or earshot of them. South of the Bay Bridges, however, there's a brand-new island that was just created by DNR--Poplar Island. Nobody there but some sea gulls, lots of skeeters, gnats and a few other critters. I'd bet DNR would be more than happy if Bumper Bash were to take place there and someone was designated to remove the drunks and trash at the end of the fest.

Just another fun day in Paradise! 

Gary


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

chef2sail said:


> I suggest those of you who would promote this without permit and restrictions step forward. Lets have the rubber meet the road here. Let us know ehere you live so we can tell Mr Bumperbash where specifically you are located so he can survey the area and see if it meets his criteria of the next available site to have his Bumperbash event. he is obviously looking for a place to continue his donations to Special Olympics as well as have a peacefull fun gathering where people can blow off steam. Why not in your neighborhood now.
> 
> Dave


Very good points, and well taken. Certainly nobody would like this in their back yard, that goes without saying. If that is the case, then it has been ruined by a few bad apples, it sounds like. But also, those very activities, trespassing, littering, dumping, etc...are all illegal already and can be dealt with. There are lots of examples of events that require police, emt, etc that we as taxpayers foot the bill for, and am unhappy about. Its the cost of a free society. I don't want to enter into a debate without any first hand knowledge. We had rafting parties very often on Texas waterways, and always wrapped up with a hung-over, very quiet and delicate litter patrol! But we're not everybody, I realize. Hope this works out somehow.

Dave


----------



## BumperBash (Mar 3, 2012)

2011 went well actually. The police presence was heavy but that was a choice they mandated and it kept most of the trouble makers away or at least in check. We did work with all agencies involved for months in advance and kept everyone in the loop. 

It was a good run and now part of the history books.


----------

