# Should Boating be Licensed



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Not sure whether to put this here or in the Seamanship thread. I elected here.

So, should boating be licensed? Should you have to take classes and pass a test to be able to operate a vessel. On top of that, should it be categorized like in driving a car: This tonnage rated, this tonnage rated... etc.

I bet many of you are saying: NO! HELL NO! THat is what I have always said... until my partner told me another one of his stories. Now I am not so sure.

Read on and see if you can understand where I am coming from:

He has a Sea Ray 340. Most people already know what I think about these boats. However, be as it may, he represents the typical, large, MV.

He went out about a week or so ago. ANother evening cruise through south Florida. He grabbed a single (1) Bear Claw as a snack on his way to a restaurant many miles away. He had never been to this restaurant before, and never at night. So, he blares his SR at a half plane (as all SR's seem to do) through the ICW. As you know, on that model (and most of their models), at a half plane you cannot see what is in front of you (well, except what is WAYYYY ahead of you). Although, you do get a great view of the clouds. SO, he does what he always does and steers by his Chartplotter and radar. Unfortunately, he does not know how to work them very well. If you do not push find ship, you can track off the map and not realise it, right?? Well, he did. He put that tub so far off of the ICW and the water that most of the front of the boat was not even hardly in the water.

You ain't backing off of that one... but he tried. It lasted about a minute. Then his engines overheated and shut down.

He did what every good SR owner would do... and called Sea Tow. They came out and walked to his boat as their flat bottom would not even get to him. THey were in ankle deep water by the time they got there. "Well, Captain... we ain't gettin' you off of this till the Tide comes in. And by the way, this is considered a hard grounding and that will costs you $2,000. See you tomorrow at 3:00 pm."

ZZZZzzzzzppppppppp. They were out of there!! (I am sure laughing all the way and counting the money).

Well, they now had one bear claw between him and his wife for dinner, breakfast, and lunch the next morning. Luckily they had a TV and plenty of Vodka. Thus, he decided to watch a little of the tube (after several vodkas) and flipped on the generator so he could watch his 12 volt TV (you do not need a gen to run your 12 volt TV). Oh well. You can guess how long that one lasted... not even a minute before it shut down too.

In an effort to be extra safe, he turned on all his lights (including running) that night to make sure everyone could see him (should there be hover craft out there, I guess).

There are many more entertaining pieces of this story, including the eating of the single Bear claw between them over 24 hours. But in the end, he got off, thanks to Sea Tow. Obviously his props are not looking good and his engines are not doing really well. You laugh... but this is at least the fifth or sixth time this has happened.

He is not the only driver whose seamanship skills are... lacking. His total lack of understanding of navigation, safety, seamanship, and even his boat laid him up on the hard for a day. However, no one was killed. Still, the question comes up:

*SHOULD BOATING BE LICENSED?*

I am sure the manufactureres do not want it licensed - thus, it probably never will be. But in many cases a boat can be as dangerous or more dangerous than a car. Yet, any Joe Blow can buy one (at any size) and get after it. All he needs is money. Money does not equal common sense and it sure does not mean seamanship.

Thoughts?

I think if it was up to me, today, I would probably vote 'Yes'. It should be licensed. The way I see it, it might just save my life, my family's, or yours.


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

CD,
I'm not suggesting that your partner is a wanker, but there seems to be a inordinate number of them in the boating world. Here on Hilton Head Island nearly everyone with a Sea Ray is thorough-going jackass, and that wouldn't change if they had to take a boating course. It's not that they lack common sense, but that they lack manners, everyday kindness, patience, and every other virtue. The sailing community is certainly an improvement on these pieces of boat trash, but I've heard too many sailing ****heads yelling at their wives when trying to anchor to make any hard and fast claim of their superiority. This is off topic, but you should write a book about cruising with kids. I'd buy it.
Sailhog


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

sure why not, infringe on another one of our (few left remaining)freedoms. next we'll have wind meters installed. not for monitoring the wind to sail with, but for wind usage inorder that the energy companies can regulate and charge us with wind comsumption usage. I owned my house but still had to pay $1100 a month to dwell there, i own all three of my vehicles but still have to pay $2200 (before fuel) just to use them. the only thing left free in our society is the wind. should retards be banned from boating? absolutely. they should be banned from driving too, but theyre not! any tard can pass a driving test, you see it on a daily basis.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Should Boating be Licensed??

!!ABSOLUTELY!!


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

CD, I'm one that would say absolutely yes, 15 yrs ago I had to get certified to sail charters and I was certified to charter up to 40', I could have continued and been certified for storm sail and 50+ footer, but elected not to.

I think it was the smartest thing I did, although I wish there was a refresher


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

USCGRET1990 said:


> Should Boating be Licensed??
> 
> !!ABSOLUTELY!!


What would you know about boating? Oh, I see you're retired Coast Guard... But besides that...
Sailhog


----------



## SeanConnett (Apr 20, 2007)

If everyone else were licensed out on the water, maybe I could have some comfort in knowing that the boat that is approaching me from my port side knows that I have the right of way. Maybe when fog lays over the bay, I can expect to hear some sound signals, telling me where the other boats are. Licensing will not however stop some boat operators from just being plain dumb. In the end though, I completely support a requirement for boat operators to have some kind of license.
Wouldn't the insurance companies want to support that kind of legislation? More educated boaters, less accidents and claims, right?


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

*license would help?*

I hate to dissent...but what would licensing (like we currently have, anyway) do to improve these types of boaters. It matters not what hobby these rude, inconsiderate, know-everythings move to they will continue to be a risk to themselves and others no matter what education they have to complete. As an ex-drag strip owner and motorcycle rider I can say that you have these types, often more money than brains, almost every where now. And sadly no education will help.

In Va as in MD, the "license requirement" is laughable as far as teaching anything is concerned. My wife and I recently attended the VA course, it was over two nights, about three hours each nite and a workbook. The test was a few questions, open book. Like flying, there is a great deal of practical education that the classroom just misses.

So, until the license material is pertinent and appropriate, it is pointless to require it.

Keep a good lookout! Fair winds.

dave


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

SeanConnett said:


> More educated boaters, less accidents and claims, right?


sorry i gotta call bullshit on this, 98.5% of drivers are licensed and had to pass a driver safety course...are you insurance rates going down?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

after considerable thought (beer drinking session) i might say all boat operaters should be licensed captains. providing the licensing cost would drop down to 1/2 of what it is. that would help considerably while still keeping serious boaters within price range of operation to their vessels. I was slipped within a good view of the launching ramp, at the marina we call it the entertainment dock. watching the tards rev their motors to launch or trailor, hitting other boats cursing at one another etc. something could be done to help, but within "reason".


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It's being phased in right now here in Canada. Doesn't seem to be too much of a problem to pass the test, but it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference either....


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Public Ignorance*



sailhog said:


> What would you know about boating? Oh, I see you're retired Coast Guard... But besides that...
> Sailhog


After 20 years, I have sooo many cases in point, it's unreal. One big one that comes to mind: A young fellow was "blue water" sailing with his family. They had some sort of problem (I ferget what) and their 50' s/v sank. We found his (dead) five young children floating. They had on square life cushions (throwables) backwards, hence floating face down. Putting their little lifeless bodies onboard brings tears to my eyes still, 37 years later.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Yes, but the kind of test they come up with, that all parties will agree to, is going to be a joke. Its like the modern day driving test. I just retook the test after, what 10, 15 years? What happened to all the hard questions? What happened to "slower traffic keep right"? Its not even in the book anymore! Even though the hard questions were about silly things like hazard placards, it weeded out all the idiots. Again, natural selection. 
The boating test should be very hard, but it won't be. Just more money for the states, more litigation, higher insurance bills, etc.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

USCGRET1990 said:


> After 20 years, I have sooo many cases in point, it's unreal. One big one that comes to mind: A young fellow was "blue water" sailing with his family. They had some sort of problem (I ferget what) and their 50' s/v sank. We found his (dead) five young children floating. They had on square life cushions (throwables) backwards, hence floating face down. Putting their little lifeless bodies onboard brings tears to my eyes still, 37 years later.


 sad story indeed, but would licensing have made a difference? or would we put that in the common sense boater safety category?

Edit: damn SD, wish you wouldnt have lit my fires. but IE: the street racers here in vegas are licensed drivers. that doesnt keep them from flying down Flamingo blvd on a saturday night at 120 mph. hitting bus stop patrons, pedestrians and so forth. yeah they have a license but theyre still retards...maybe we should up the drivers license fee to $1400. think it'll solve anything? i dont think so. a tard is a tard is a tard!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It may help to force basically good people to learn what they need to. Like auto licenses, the A-holes will remain, regardless.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

> CD,
> I'm not suggesting that your partner is a wanker, but there seems to be a inordinate number of them in the boating world. Here on Hilton Head Island nearly everyone with a Sea Ray is thorough-going jackass, and that wouldn't change if they had to take a boating course. It's not that they lack common sense, but that they lack manners, everyday kindness, patience, and every other virtue. The sailing community is certainly an improvement on these pieces of boat trash, but I've heard too many sailing ****heads yelling at their wives when trying to anchor to make any hard and fast claim of their superiority. This is off topic, but you should write a book about cruising with kids. I'd buy it.
> Sailhog


SH,

Thank you for the very kind comment on cruising with kids (which reminds me I owe someone here a thread on Cruising with kids...). Hopefully more publications coming out soon. Lots of childrens books I hope! (SShhhh, top secret!). We will see. And to your other comment:

My business partner is A WANKER!!!! THat is the nicest thing I will say on a public forum where kids could read what I really would like to write. Just a word of warning to all of you: Just because you business partner with someone does not mean they are not a... well... I will not write it. But that is another story I come here to get away from... so back to the subject:



> After 20 years, I have sooo many cases in point, it's unreal. One big one that comes to mind: A young fellow was "blue water" sailing with his family. They had some sort of problem (I ferget what) and their 50' s/v sank. We found his (dead) five young children floating. They had on square life cushions (throwables) backwards, hence floating face down. Putting their little lifeless bodies onboard brings tears to my eyes still, 37 years later.


Man, that one brought tears to my eyes USCG. Ouch. I cannot imagine seeing that. I will tell you that is always our biggest fear with the kiddos. We are quite a bit more safety conscious, but as has been said before, the Sea is Unforgiving.

I took the boaters safety course. It is a joke, really and is not worth the time. I think it dropped my insurance... but I honestly think it needs a lot of revamp.

The issue that is hard for many of us to understand is that many of these people on the water WOULD NOT PASS A BOATERS LICENSE. Make them be able to get their boat IN and OUT of the slip (like parallel parking). Make them know their systems and know their boat. Make them understand all the safety aspects. HOW ABOUT MAKING THEM TAKE A VHF EDIQUITE COURSE!!!! (or just how to use the bloody thing... like not interupting a Mayday to talk to Johnny... which I have heard). How about learngin the rules of the road and keeping their tub between the markers and what the markers mean. Basic navigation.

I find many-most of the boaters out there do not have a CLUE about that. When my partner plows through the ICW on a half plane he cannot see what is in front of him. What if it was you on a day sailor???

I think there should be a limit on what does and what does not get certified... like why certify a canoe??

Anyways, wouldn't that save lives??

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

bestfriend said:


> Yes, but the kind of test they come up with, that all parties will agree to, is going to be a joke. Its like the modern day driving test. I just retook the test after, what 10, 15 years? What happened to all the hard questions? What happened to "slower traffic keep right"? Its not even in the book anymore! Even though the hard questions were about silly things like hazard placards, it weeded out all the idiots. Again, natural selection.
> The boating test should be very hard, but it won't be. Just more money for the states, more litigation, higher insurance bills, etc.


You are right, unfortunately our whole country is becoming a joke. That's why I am fixin to go live with the wombat!
Seriously if licensing will save the lives of a few children, it will be worth it...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

USCGRET1990 said:


> You are right, unfortunately our whole country is becoming a joke.


Ahmen. the only ones that would benefit from licensing would be the GVMT.
and screw them!


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

If it saves *ONE* life, its worth it. I wish everyone could see what we see at our jobs.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I am litterally heading out for a bit, but one last thought: Would it work? Would it really work?? Or would it turn into the boating safety course?

- CD


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Absolutely NOT!!
Licensing solves nothing and is just another way for the government to raid our pocketbooks. the Pirate has it right...it solves nothing in cars. What works are seat belt laws...dui laws and suspension of the right to drive when and where they are enforced. 
It seems to me that common sense laws and enforcement including suspension of the right to drive a boat and on water dui tests will save a lot more lives than some stupid license test. The stats show that boating is safer than ever.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

If we could "force" folks into the BSC, it would save lives for sure....


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

USCGRET1990 said:


> If we could "force" folks into the BSC, it would save lives for sure....


now that, i can picture!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

camaraderie said:


> Absolutely NOT!!
> Licensing solves nothing and is just another way for the government to raid our pocketbooks. the Pirate has it right...it solves nothing in cars. What works are seat belt laws...dui laws and suspension of the right to drive when and where they are enforced.
> It seems to me that common sense laws and enforcement including suspension of the right to drive a boat and on water dui tests will save a lot more lives than some stupid license test. The stats show that boating is safer than ever.


I know you don't agree with anything I post, and I for one despise legislation more than you can imagine. Alas, you've not seen the sheer ignorance I have. Mandatory licensing would be but a meer shot in the dark at decreasing the ignorance. Like everything, the politicians would dick it up.
But it would force the good, law abiding want-a-be sailers to do learn what should be learned. If this would prevent the under paid Coasties from seeing at least one dead child, it would be worth it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

it would force to law abiding responsible boaters to shell out unnecessary cash so the incompetent boaters could enjoy the water too


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Those that you speak of are rare and far and few between. You have to be on the side that sees the dead and inocent bodies that "didn't know any better"...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

USCGRET1990 said:


> Those that you speak of are rare and far and few between. You have to be on the side that sees the dead and inocent bodies that "didn't know any better"...


 I stick to my last few posts


----------



## dohenyboy (Aug 16, 2006)

I have a pilot's license--which you know takes some effort to obtain and the boater's license would be much less difficult. Pilots have to get a live test (biennial flight review) every two years as well. 
I don't fly anymore here in the Los Angeles basin after too many close calls with pilots who disregard the regulations and basic safety points. I also know pilots who have only single engine land licenses who regularly fly twins. I think you cannot license common sense or courtesy and so would oppose a boating license requirement.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Think of the craziness if there was "No Licensing" in your field.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Ok, this is my last post on the subject, CD, you've done pissed my off, you pot stirrer you, bringing up this mess. Standby you pinheads..


----------



## Hawkwind (Apr 25, 2006)

I was all set to argue vehemently against any sort of license til I read the very sad story from USCG. It sucks when children pay for an adults stupidity.

Even so, I still lean towards no licensing. I think the great majority of boaters are responsible people. In order to make a lay person into a good and safe boater, the test would have to be extensive. Also, the license or lack of a license could be used to limit activities. Would I need a special certificate to night sail? How about single handing, which many want to outlaw outright anyway?

I dread the idea of non-boaters drafting regulations for the boating community. Just wait til they hear about bosun's chairs. Those things would make a safety nazi cringe with fear. Mandatory safety inspection requiring certified experts to do the repairs. An amateur could leave a hose clamp loose so it'll now cost you $1000 to get minor repairs done to your engine. My fear of the government exceeds my fear of dumb boaters.


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

RickBowman said:


> Let's all get suction dart guns. When someone does a stupid act on the water...shoot his boat. If a coastie sees a boat with a number of darts stuck to it, the vessel will be forfeited.


Paint ball guns would be a lot more fun.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I have pictures of the dead children but have decided not to post them.
Few will witness the short comings of boating ignorance that I and a few others have. Apparently that will never be changed. Lets just take the position of Bestfriend and let the laws of natural selection sort em all out...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

USCG
*I know you don't agree with anything I post,

*I don't know where you got that idea USCG...I agree with a lot of your stuff but I only tend to post when I disagree or have additional stuff to add. What is more...I respect your opinions AND I thank you for your service and I Love the Coasties!!

That said...I can understand where you are coming from on this one but the local cops see a lot more dead kids in cars that you will ever see in boats. And the cars have licenses. 
Charge the idiot parents with MANSLAUGHTER if they broke boating laws causing the death of their kids...pass mandatory pfd wearing laws for kids in boats underway.... but don't think for one minute that the drunk in a Bayliner with a license is going to be any safer cause he passed a multiple choice test and forced us all to send in more $$.


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> So, should boating be licensed?
> 
> Should you have to take classes and pass a test to be able to operate a vessel.


NO to the first question!!!!!!
Yes to the second, already a law in Maryland, anyone born after 1972.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

No offense to anybody, just wanted to shake your tree a bit and see how passionate you actually were on the subject. It's been a major debate for years, kinda like the legallization of pot. Thanks for the input. Made an otherwise boring evening more interesting!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

camaraderie said:


> USCG
> *I know you don't agree with anything I post,
> 
> *I don't know where you got that idea USCG...I agree with a lot of your stuff but I only tend to post when I disagree or have additional stuff to add. What is more...I respect your opinions AND I thank you for your service and I Love the Coasties!!
> ...


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

It's been a sad realization for me: boaters are often lowlifes. If you could remove them from the planet's watery surface with a license, then I'd be all for it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Deadhead Removal*



sailhog said:


> It's been a sad realization for me: boaters are often lowlifes. If you could remove them from the planet's watery surface with a license, then I'd be all for it.


The laws of natural selection would fix that for us if we'd leave it alone and let it happen!!


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

As much as it pains me (g) I have to join Camaraderie in his opinion.

Currently, the only people who are licensed are merchant marine officers. Yes, your "six pack" makes you a merchant marine officer. As with all licensing, after whatever level of training required, the only purpose is an attempt to assess competency and to have something to take away from you if you screw up. The current USCG license exams do a pretty good job, not the least of which is due to the 90% pass/fail standard on critical sections of the exams. To even imagine that such an exam would be practicable for boaters in general is beyond belief and would, rightly, be considered onerous.

Coast Guardsmen and US Navy officers are not licensed. I will not get in to my thoughts on that issue. (say, "thankyou, sailaway")

Any license that would be even marginally effective would also be prohibitively expensive. Just look at the size of your state's DMV. The expectation that licenses for boating would be any more rigorous than those for driving is more wishful thinking than realistic. And we see how well motor vehicle driver's licenses are working out in terms of roadway competency.

In fact, I would postulate that driver's licenses are, and should be considered, unconstitutional. I'll not delve into my legal reasoning for such a belief. (say, "thank God for that, sailaway") Consider the fact that every form of transportation available to you, terrestially, there is no licensing required. You just saddle up and go.

In air and sea licensing, the really rigorous examination begins where you are endeavoring to do something where the general public is at risk, and where that public has a right to consider you inherently professional. And that's reasonable I would say.

A not unreasonable fear that I, and other licensed professionals, share is the chance of being cited for some type of violation and having it discovered that I am USCG licensed. I can be proceeded against, for revocation or suspension of my Masters-oceans license, for not having the proper number of flotation cushions in my row boat while perch fishing. In much the same way that a truck driver, receiving a citation whilst driving the wife's mini-van, has that citation count against his CDL. That is patently ridiculous.

USCGret1990's point about fatalities, while heart-wrenching, is not valid. Whenever one adopts the "one life saved" standard one is opening the door to irrationality. The logical extension of this point, ie.. ad absurdum, is that we ban boating as inherently unsafe. We take the same view on driving, where we say such absurd things like, "speed kills". Which is demonstrably not true, as we have the fewest accidents on the roads with the highest speeds. Of course we are not going to ban either boating or driving, nor should we. The fact is, they are both inherently risky. We assume that risk, daily, based upon it's lack of frequency and not the severity of injury when we lose the bet.

Now for the really controversial part. Licensing makes driving, and would make boating, less safe. Say what, you say? In short, it has to do with the unpredictability factor. When a lighted traffic signal goes up at an intersection, where previously there was none, the number of accidents goes up at that intersection. The severity of the accidents goes down, but the overall number goes up. The obvious reason for this is that when two roads meet, with no signal, the approaching drivers operate with extreme caution, not knowing exactly what to expect. Where there is a traffic signal, and it turns green, the driver is completely surprised by the guy running the red light who T-bones him. Having driven in countries where there is little or no control over traffic I can testify that while it may be hair-raising, it is safer in some ways, in that everyone is really paying attention. When there is a better than even chance of hitting a cow around the next bend you tend to drive differently than if the road is fenced off as are our interstates. Now mind you, I did say safer. I did not say more efficient. We'd all be driving at half the speed we do if there were no traffic control devices. The same applies to licensing of drivers. We "assume" that the other driver is a competent licensed driver. One of the reasons kids get into so many accidents is that they are very familiar with the rules of the road and the "proper" way to drive. And so, it comes as a complete surprise to them when somebody does something that their driver's ed. instructor told them never to do. Once those kids become acclimated to the fact that they cannot trust other drivers to follow the rules of the road, they become better drivers and look out for other drivers better. Of course, that is negated by the fact that they themselves now start to pick and choose which rules of the road they will obey.

So, if we license boaters, there will be a prima facie exp-ectation of competence. The "head on a swivel" condition will go down, and more accidents will be "surprises". Instead, what we have now is a group of very nervous sailors, with boats they really can't afford, watching ever so carefully for the next SeaRay screwball who may or may not be determined on ruining our day. It is not for nothing that the words, "Hard Right" send an equal shiver down the merchant ship captain's spine, while off the bridge in the chart-room, as they do the yachtsman's, who's just stepped below to use the head. They both know that something untoward has happened and that the helmsman is taking action to avoid collision. If we are the "stand-on" vessel in a crossing situation and we have reason to believe that the "give-way" vessel is piloted with competence we do not get as nervous, as quickly, as we would when we don't know who the hell is over there and if he really knows what to do. Hence, experienced watch-standers take early and decisive action, not allowing the situation to become "in extremis" through no doing of our own.

As a licensed professional, I am very leary of "you guys". And that's probably why I've never hit one of you. I have to be licensed, you shouldn't.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Ready or not, here it comes:
Boater Exam.com - North Carolina Boating Safety course and exam
Boater Exam.com - North Carolina Boating Regulations
Even in Canada!
Safe Boater - Pleasure Craft Operator Card

Boating Rules, Laws and Regulations for Boat License - America's Boating Course


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

It has been here ,you must have a boating endorsment on your Drivers Liscense..All started after many were killed by a drunken power boater..

You now have 30 days after purchase of a boat to get the endorsment and you must take a boates test ..


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

In Canada, the introduction and phasing in of our certification system is the first stage of a planned increase in monitoring and policing of the waterways. The program is being introduced over 7 years. The first group that was required to obtain the certificates were teenagers using jet-skis, and by 2009 all operators of pleasure boats, power and sail will be required to pass the exam.

While it is not anticipated that this will greatly improve the level of caution exercised by terminal idiots on the water, it will serve to provide legal grounds for prosecution in the more egregious cases. A boater will no longer be able to plead ignorance when charged with drunken driving, or unsafe operation that causes injury to themselves or others.

Offenses are/will be registered on operators motor vehicle driver records, with the same degree of consequence as automobile infractions. Hence, an operator will find it difficult, if not impossible to obtain insurance for their boat, AND quite possibly their car once they have been found guilty of something like operating a craft after having consumed ten or twelve beers.

It can be expected that charges laid for marine infractions will be subject to the same limiting factors as automobile charges, i.e.: the police will need to prove that there was some just cause for their actions, and will no longer be able to stop, board and search boats with impunity.

Overall, not a bad thing.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Licensing hasn't done much here in Connecticut; everyone has to get a "certificate". The fees aren't much, and if you take the state's course, its practically free, but we still have inconsiderate, rude and downright dangerous yahoos all over the place. I see a general lack of knowledge of basic rules of the road almost every time I sail, and gross incompetence on a regular basis. That being said, I think the effort will eventually pay off in a better educated, hopefully safer class of boaters. It's going to take time, much the same way it took years to educate people that drunk driving is a bad thing. Regardless of the sea change in attitudes on drunk driving, there are still drunk drivers and there always will be. Likewise, there will always be knuckleheaded boaters who ignore courtesy and endanger themselves and others. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things better. I think one of the ways we should try is by more dilgent and consistent enforcement of our existing rules. I would not mind an extra few bucks on my registration fee if I knew it was going towards safety enforcement.


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

What would work better than a liscense is if all boaters would help each other and the newbies. Too often you see the man with expierence LAUGH at the idiot or the newbie without offering help...If we as boaters could drop the exclusivness and snobbery that is pevalent in real society and treat each other as equals and forget the the ME...then the WE would be safer


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I know it's a "Pipe Dream" that licensing would do much good. As most have said, the gov't yahoos will make a joke out of it. Case in point, in NC they can give the vehicle driving test in Spanish, so that the illegal aliens can drive around with no insurance, not knowing a lick of English. (Ooops, guess we better get the road signs changed!) Recently, it was noticed that 100's (if not thousands) of cars (driven by aliens) in NJ had NC tags. Further investigation uncovered that as many as 40-50 had the same NC address.
Then further investigation found that address to be an abandon house.
It is surely a joke, but nobody's laughing....hmmmm, reccon we need to take back our gov't.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Todays Laugh*



Insails said:


> What would work better than a liscense is if all boaters would help each other and the newbies. Too often you see the man with expierence LAUGH at the idiot or the newbie without offering help...If we as boaters could drop the exclusivness and snobbery that is pevalent in real society and treat each other as equals and forget the the ME...then the WE would be safer


Well, that would hold true to sailing folks, but it's too damn much fun watching the power boaters screw up!! (Providing they're not running into a sailboat)
Saw a fellow once that had bought a brand new twin screw 30' cruiser.
He got in it, fired that sucker up, and couldn't figure out how to get it away from the dock. (Twin screw mind you) We were sooo tempted to go letter his transom "SAR CASE" as he hadn't named it yet. To top it off, this was in Alaska!!


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Anybody know what happened to my posts? Oops, two threads on the same topic.


----------



## BlueWaterMD (Oct 19, 2006)

Personally, I don't mind the idea of being licensed. Everyone who operates a boat should have some basic knowledge. Unfortunately, what you do with that knowledge is completely up to you, and I still see way too many people (mainly with baja, fountain... printed on the side of their boat) flying through bridges at 50+mph or cruising within 25 feet of swim areas at the beach. 

WHat pisses me off is up here in NJ they recently passed a law requiring boating licenses for anyone born after some year in the 70's. Now I got a boating license back when I was 12 years old. At that time, there was no minimum age to opperate a boat, and you only needed a license if you were under 17 (at which time your boating license expired since you didn't need it anymore). Now, with the new law, I need to take the stupid courds again and pay $75 so I can get a license, even though I used to have one.


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

You should see the way the one (and only) powerboat on our Pier has his cleats tied off, I think it would take five minutes to get it untangled...LOL. 

Maybe licensing should only be required for power boaters


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

At our downtown city marina there are many boats in the water with expired registrations, some of which expired more than two years ago. Boat registration is the first level of licencsing and is not enforced. 90% of the pleasure boats on the bay pass through a single inlet to the marina, so enforecement would be very simple indeed. 
In the past year I have not seen a single coast guard, game warden, boat patrolman, etc on the water enforcing the plethora of regulations and rules we already have.
By the same token, there are very few boating accidents. Mostly open skiffs, but also one sailboat that went aground while the two guys were "down below" while under full sail. Now what was that all about?
I don't thik it is possible to go down to you boat, set out for a nice day sail and go home without breaking some law or regulation of which we are not aware, so who needs more?
John


----------



## sailak (Apr 15, 2007)

USCGRET1990 said:


> Mandatory licensing would be but a meer shot in the dark at decreasing the ignorance. Like everything, the politicians would dick it up.
> But it would force the good, law abiding want-a-be sailers to do learn what should be learned. If this would prevent the under paid Coasties from seeing at least one dead child, it would be worth it.


I think the "good, law abiding want-a-be sailers" are going to learn what needs to be learned without it being legislated for them...that's part of being a good wanna be. <G>

I'm new to the boating scene, I come from the aviation community. To fly an airplane there are many written and practical tests that must be passed, every two years you have to have a "flight review". There are more regs than you can possibly ever know... Yet there are some absolute idiots flying airplanes killing themselves and/or others. I can probably match your idiot boater stories one to one with idiot pilot stories.

You can't regulate/legislate common sense. Many of the wankers/idiots/whatever that cause the problems probably have good boat handling/piloting/motorcycle riding skills but their decision making sucks. It's hard to determine someone's decision making skills with a simple test. In the law enforcement field (a former life) the training program runs 2-3 months as they've found it takes that long to really see how someone thinks...the theory being anyone can look good/do things right short term.

Dale


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I don't know about licensing per say, just another law that probably isn't needed. And, what would you do with the millions of boats currently in operation. I would be in favor of some kind of test for first time boat owners, covering safety, radio usage, and right of way. Too many people have the money for a new boat, but not the brains to operate it safely.


----------



## Morgan3820 (Dec 21, 2006)

bestfriend said:


> If it saves *ONE* life, its worth it. I wish everyone could see what we see at our jobs.


Ah, the Nanny State in action. People die sensless, stupid deaths everyday, get over it. It is their right. I am sick and tired of all you do gooders telling me how to live, how to raise my children. Mandatory this and that. Seat belts, helmets. I wear them all but I don't need you or anyone else to tell me to. Or let's ban all travel other than walking.

My wife is an e-room nurse. Sees people make bad choices everyday. But it is their choice. She deals with it.

You live the way you want, I'll do the same


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

*Stupidity cannot be controlled with a license*

Some dip-stick "driving" his Sea-Ray, without a clue as to how his GPS, or propulsion, and power systems worked, drove his boat aground. No License would have prevented that.

How many of you have seen (presumably licensed) drivers, operating their vehicles while watching a video (laptop or DVD player), playing with their nav system, reading a book/paper, putting on lipstick, etc... . Fortunately, many of them crash, and learn a flippin lesson. Many times operators are cited after the accident for acting irresponsibly. Sadly, manny of them crash, and hurt innocent bystanders. The posession of a license does not factor into the difference.

There *are* rules about this (the bolding is mine): "Rule 5 - *Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision*. RULE 6 (SAFE SPEED) - Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account: 
*The state of visibility*; 
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; 
*The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions*; 
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights; 
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; 
*The draft in relation to the available depth of water.*"

Frankly, in the incident that kicked off this discussion, I think that the system worked fairly well! The only thing that would have been better is if in the 24 hours that this dope sat there eating his bear claw, the Coasties, or Environmental Police, or any other law enforcement agency cited them (big-time) for a violation of the above rules.

Where were the cops anyway? They had a full day, and someone must have noticed this guy.... I would have liked to have seen his butt hauled into court to explain the circumstances that led to this incident. If the explination was judged unsatisfactory, to have him told never to operate a motor vessel again.

The guys at Sea-Tow got some bucks out of him, and probably some marine mechanic as well. One could argue that these people help keep the marine indusrty afloat.

Ed


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

sailak said:


> I think the "good, law abiding want-a-be sailers" are going to learn what needs to be learned without it being legislated for them...that's part of being a good wanna be. <G>
> 
> I'm new to the boating scene, I come from the aviation community. To fly an airplane there are many written and practical tests that must be passed, every two years you have to have a "flight review". There are more regs than you can possibly ever know... Yet there are some absolute idiots flying airplanes killing themselves and/or others. I can probably match your idiot boater stories one to one with idiot pilot stories.
> 
> ...


 Please Change your name to "X-Zoomy"


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Who lifted that rock?!?!*



Morgan3820 said:


> Ah, the Nanny State in action. People die sensless, stupid deaths everyday, get over it. It is their right. I am sick and tired of all you do gooders telling me how to live, how to raise my children. Mandatory this and that. Seat belts, helmets. I wear them all but I don't need you or anyone else to tell me to. Or let's ban all travel other than walking.
> 
> My wife is an e-room nurse. Sees people make bad choices everyday. But it is their choice. She deals with it.
> 
> You live the way you want, I'll do the same


Please don't go away mad ...just go away...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Where were the cops anyway? They had a full day, and someone must have noticed this guy.... I would have liked to have seen his butt hauled into court to explain the circumstances that led to this incident. If the explination was judged unsatisfactory, to have him told never to operate a motor vessel again.


I know people drive cars without a license. But if caught, you go to jail.
How do you stop an idiot from operating a boat, if you have no license to suspend?


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

"How do you stop an idiot from operating a boat, if you have no license to suspend?"

I believe that a magistrate can stipulate virtually anything (within reason) as a condition of probation... And, you can get probation for moving violations in a car (ask Paris Hilton), seems that they could apply probation to the operation of boats too. Get caught doing it and you're in violation thereof... 

IMHO - It seems that enforcement of existing rules is preferable to the creation of yet another bureaucratic process.

Ed


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

How the hell do you hold people accountable for something when there's no documentation saying they are. Licensing makes it easier and faster for the courts to wip the crap outa whomever needs it!


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

I would put Numnutz2 down in the "wip(sic) the crap out of whomever (sic) needs it" column.


----------



## Hawkeye25 (Jun 2, 2005)

There is no license that cures stupid.

When I was a very young boy, me and my friends spent a great deal of time playing around in boats, building little punts and skiffs, exploring the creeks and lakes and ponds, fishing, and sometimes just drifting and talking about Huck Finn and Jim. Those would be the first casualties of the license law. 

The second would be the taxpayer who gets the bill for this huge undertaking and enormous enforcement requirement. What good is a law if you don't enforce it? These moo-yaks can't even enforce the maritime laws we have now. No wake zones and safety equipment rules are a joke. Right of way is laughable. You're on your own. And you can't put an officer on the water in an assembly line sedan - he needs a $100,000 boat with another $50,000 in upgrades and a fuel bill that'd gag Bill Gates.

There is no cure for these idiots. We can only grin and bear it as more show up every year to replace the ones that move on to super motor coaches.

Hawk


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

It is hard to believe that any reasonable person thinks that licensing would make boaters safer. While we're at it, why don't we start issuing bicycle licenses, surfing licenses and skiing/snowboarding licenses. These are all sports where accidents/negligence sometimes hurt innocent bystanders.

Sailing is a pleasure and one of the few things a person can do and feel a little free. It doesn't need to be more expensive than it is. It is relatively safe if you approach it safely and watch for others who may not. Check out the long gun registry in Canada for an example of the kind of bull$#[email protected] that would ensue if mandatory licensing were brought in.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

In today's society, driving is no more a privelage than walking, or riding a horse. Since when did Americans start believing that their rights were privelages dispensed by the state?

There are ample laws for prosecuting those who misuse their boats. Instituting licensing for the recreational boater will do nothing to improve safety and merely transfer the sarcastic comment, "where did you get your license?" from land to sea. And, all you do-gooders, how do you imagine this system will be paid for? Just saying that your state DMV can do it does not address the fact that manpower and costs will not be inconsiderable. So we want to raise taxes to fund a system that, if it is run anything like the driver's licensing system, will do little or nothing to improve real world safety.

Peer pressure and appropriately given free education by existing boaters will eclipse anything the state does.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Why not just prosecute for the laws we already have instead of making new ones? The yahoo who grounded his boat, provided he hurt no one's person or property, is out 2k and was confined to quarters for 24hrs with "bread-n-water" ....sounds like justice was served to me. 

If you get picked up by the coasties for your distress call and it is found to be that you broke the regs or endangered a child then face charges. Justice served.

This pre-emptive thinking has no end...first is was ban drunken driving, then drinking and driving, then talking on the phone and driving....studies have already shown that futzing with your radio is just as dangerous so lets ban listening and driving....or maybe just driving, because hey if i can give up all of my rights and privileges to save "just one child" then it will be worth it. 

it wasnt always the case that liberty and wanting to be free were wrong but it sure seems the way we are going. free will and the danger that comes with it promotes far more sensible acts than any legislation ever will. the problem is that no one knows how to figure in freedom on the bottom line...look how many lives/much money we can save by making people do "X"...all it costs is freedom. 

btw, i am not a risk seeker...and i wore my seatbelt everytime i got in a vehicle until our federal government blackmailed the states into making it a law. now everytime i get my ticket i ask the police officer about the bill of rights and whether his belief in the second amendment is more important than mine in the ninth and tenth. and then i pay my ticket. ( i know the difference between civil disobedience and criminal behavior.)

am i alone in thinking that all that matters is freedom? please avoid making straw men out of my argument or arguing ad absurdem... we need laws to protect us from others...but do we really need laws to protect us from ourselves? 

mike


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Hear, Hear-Mike!

And since when did taking the driver's license away, stop people from driving?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Freedom is my choice, not slavery by legislation!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

sailaway21 said:


> Hear, Hear-Mike!
> 
> And since when did taking the driver's license away, stop people from driving?


ie: the recent arrest of the guy who just received his 38th DUI


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

doctom said:


> we need laws to protect us from others...but do we really need laws to protect us from ourselves?


Sad thing is, ya can't have one without the other


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Interesting we should have this discussion today. Guess what happened last week in my marina? They were dragging the bottom of the lake for a drunk woman that fell out of a boat that was being piloted by drunks.

Mark my words here: Licensing is coming. Not the kind of licensing that would really make a difference (I will use an airplane as an instance, contrary to what was written before, and I will explain). However, as boating seems to be the last freedom possesed by Americans where the government does little to stop us from stupidity (ie, a speed-bump law), it is coming. Here is how it will happen:

_Little Johnny Money will go out and buy his large MV with no concept how to drive it, rules of the road, etc. Little Johnny invites a bunch of his friends, who bring a bunch of alcohol, and off they go 40 knots into the horizon. Along comes Fred and Family in their sailboat. Fred is obeying the laws but is blindsided by Mr. Money. It is a mess. Lots of kids killed. Fred survives, badly hurt, but has lost everyone he cares about. Mr. Money hardly has a scratch. By chance, the media was running short on stories that day, and it makes headline news. THe politicians, whoare running a tight race, make it a point to differentiate themselves from the other. Just like the mining accident in WV, it provokes sweeping legislation. In one fail swoop, the government has expanded, is pulling in more money (though more is going out than in... that is just good government borrowing), and has the apparent control of trying to stop us from huring ourselves._

THat is how it will happen, and it will happen.

What will not (NOT) happen is a good, hard, comprehensive test like a pilots license. It will be a beaurocratic nightmare of paper and fees and little stickers you put on the side of your tub, or little letters on your drivers license. Aww hell, lets do both at twice the price.

I will tell you why it will NOT be a hard test: new boat sales would plummet (along with any boat sales), affecting so many different economical interests in the country that the economy would shudder. I would wager that it is manufacturing and special interest marine lobbyists that have kept it from emerging until now... especially a few MV manufactureres, I hesitate to name. But when the public sees little Johnny alive and well and dead kids floating in the water, the tide of public opinion will be so strong that getting elected next term will mean more than the dollars to fund against it.

However, using the above example, would Little Johnny have still gotten on that boat if he did not have a license and knew that piloting a large vessel like that attracts a lot of attention for those drinking? Would he have opted for a car or a bunch of ATV's? Likely he might have still killed others (or himself). But unlike a boat, when your car has a wreck you don't have to swim until the ambulance arrives. If you are knocked unconscious on the ground, you will not be killed by the ground. Not true on the water. Comparing a boating license to the car license is not fair. It is more dangerous than a car, probably less dangerous than flying.

Most of the comments presented, on both sides, are fair. I think it is primarily the sailors, and competent boaters, that would be highly against it. _I would like to see it on everyone else because I am a competent, courteous, knowledgeable, safe boater. Why should I have to pay for everyone elses stupidity?_ I think making a person like Cam, for example, get out and get a license to pilot his boat (considering his resume), is rediculous!!!

Although I am not opposed to good, solid, legislation that can save lives, I despise and have nothing but anipathy for rules created by our "government" meant to save us from ourselves (like a seatbelt law or a helmet law... how stupid!). By GOD if I don't want to wear a seatbelt, I should not have to wear one. The seat belt or helmet would have absolutely no effect on whether I had an accident or not, nor would it increase or decrease the potential for me to not hurt others. It is a law meant to save me from myself. As such, it should not be a law. Just so you know, I always wore a helment and always wore my seatbelt... but that really was not the point, was it?

So again I ask the question: If there had been tight licensing and regulations around boating, not as strict as an airplane license, but harder that a car license, would Fred and Family be alive? Would Mr. Money have been more careful and, even in a drunken state, know the sailboat had right of way or that on a half plane he could not see what was in front of him?

*WOULD IT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?*

- CD


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

CD,

IMHO - Helmet and safety belt laws does not only save you from your own stupdity, it saves me and fellow insurance customers from having to pay for the expensive care in the emergency room that could have been avoided/reduced had you been wearing a helmet/safety belt.


----------



## ReverendMike (Aug 1, 2006)

CD

Yes, it will most likely go that way, as a knee-jerk reaction to some tragic event (perhaps if a celeb were involved?). But it's been interesting how many responders took the refrain of 'the gov't won't do it correctly'. Why do we resign ourselves to incompetence in our leaders? Have we given up?


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

A drunk with a license is just as dangerous as one without.

They are out there, and we had better be alert for them.

The government is there to take away liberty and sell it back to us as a privilege.


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

CD "would it have made a difference?"

Almost certainly not. And, if it had, there would be another drunken moron right behind him I'm sure.

I have a better Idea then licensing...confine all the power boaters to the Northeast!


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

ReverendMike said:


> CD
> 
> Yes, it will most likely go that way, as a knee-jerk reaction to some tragic event (perhaps if a celeb were involved?). But it's been interesting how many responders took the refrain of 'the gov't won't do it correctly'. Why do we resign ourselves to incompetence in our leaders? Have we given up?


Now that is an interesting question. Can anyone think of a recent example of new regulatory legislation that doesn't suck?


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

ReverendMike said:


> CD
> Have we given up?


I gave up this morning.


----------



## ReverendMike (Aug 1, 2006)

yotphix said:


> Now that is an interesting question. Can anyone think of a recent example of new regulatory legislation that doesn't suck?


I'm not saying they don't suck , just wondering if/why we've resigned ourselves to that?

(SH - I plan on giving up this afternoon, then maybe a nap...)


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

... a beer... and then a nap... Ooo-wee, I like the sound of that.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Of course this is really easy to say as a sailboater, and one who has little love for the million dollar sedan cruisers/sport fishers, but:

HOW MUCH DAMAGE CAN A SAILBOAT REALLY DO?

Sailing, in itself, is a discipline requires education, practice, and effort. It sure does not mean idiots dont grasp the tillers of a sailboat too, but you cannot just jump on a sailboat and go without learning how to sail. Agreed?

Also, with the exception of our friend Giu, most of us cannot exceed hull speed. That puts us in that 5-9 knot range. Now, I am not saying you can't smack the crap out of someones boat at... 8 knots, and maybe even sink it given your diplacement and the other tub, but compared to a Sea Ray which can cruise at 35 knots and requires nothing but the ability to steer and push the throttle forward, why shouldn't they have to be regulated/licensed??

Again, really easy for me to say... but you cannot compare the damage a sailboat could inflict on others to a large Sport Fisher. They are as much a danger to themselves as to others. We are more a danger to ourselves.

Thoughts??

- CD


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Sailing, in itself, is a discipline requires education, practice, and effort. It sure does not mean idiots dont grasp the tillers of a sailboat too, but you cannot just jump on a sailboat and go without learning how to sail. Agreed?
> 
> Thoughts??
> 
> - CD


Totally agree with most of the post but, as a former towboat skipper I can tell you that you would be amazed at how many people just grasp the tiller and go! I have had to pull boats off the beach owned by people who didn't know their boats had a keel (twice.) I have towed (again twice) people who called because they couldn't get the boat to go upwind to their destination. You really would be amazed!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Very well stated CD. Powerboats, including and maybe particularly PWCs, are very dangerous to anyone around without some training. A sailboat is generally not much of a danger to anyone trying to move it, except themselves. 

Granted, a 31' Southern Cross weighs 14000 lbs., and a 31' Sea Ray weighs 12000 lbs, but the SeaRay can going 32 knots, where the SC will be lucky to be doing six. 

The Searay might have as much as 25 times as much kinetic energy as the heavier Southern Cross in a crash... hmm...


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

Here in Oz if you get caught drinking(blood alcohol content over 0.05) whilst in control of a boat you get arrested and put befor the Court. You get fined and diqualified from driving a boat as well as having your drivers licence disqualified for motor vehicles.


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

Just realized that I have a quick story not to far unlike the OP that is very relvant to the topic.

A couple of years ago I took a job on a yacht that was leaving in short order for the Bahamas for a season. The Captain had a USCG license and claimed to have taught navigation. I saw the license but have no evidence of the claims regarding teaching.

As we left Ft. Lauderdale, I was down in the engine room and it seemed to me that we were wandering, relative to the direction of the swells. I went up to the wheel house, where I had earlier opened Nobeltec on the computer and noticed that we were describing a pretty wacky course. I went up to the flybridge where skippy was driving and, to my complete amazement, he was attempting to steer a course to Bimini by staring at the little triangle boat icon on the Furuno plotter, zoomed out so he could see the entire sixty miles! I'm not joking about this. It really happened!

I went down to the wheelhouse, snapped a course on Nobeltec, powered up the autopilot and went back up and asked the Captain if he would like me to engage the autopilot and set it to something like the bearing for bimini, accounting for the gulf stream. Err...yes, please do.

The Next morning I was pleased to see him plotting our course to Nassau on Nobeltec. When we got under way, and he was up on the flybridge, I thought that maybe I should go and check on his work, based on his previous record. Sure enough, our current heading had us steaming at 22knots straight for a shoal that would at least pull our props off! What could I do? I went up to the flybridge and informed Skippy that the nav computer was malfunctioning and would he like me to fix it?. I plotted a new safer course and kept a careful watch on him the rest of the day. I quit in Nassau.

This guy had a license. I don't.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

yotphix said:


> Just realized that I have a quick story not to far unlike the OP that is very relvant to the topic.
> 
> A couple of years ago I took a job on a yacht that was leaving in short order for the Bahamas for a season. The Captain had a USCG license and claimed to have taught navigation. I saw the license but have no evidence of the claims regarding teaching.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, this is often the case with licenses or certifications. I work in the IT field, and over the past twenty years, I've seen a lot of "certified" people that weren't worth the air they were using. Driver's licenses aren't much better, as I've seen how bad some of the drivers can be.

Finally, if the laws don't have any teeth to them, then it really is just a bureaucratic waste of money. Drunk driving laws are much like that... you can say what you want about them...but when push comes to shove, the drunks are still out there driving... rather than in jail, where they can't kill anyone.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Although I am not opposed to good, solid, legislation that can save lives, I despise and have nothing but anipathy for rules created by our "government" meant to save us from ourselves (like a seatbelt law or a helmet law... how stupid!). 

So we are basically triyng to save the actual dummies from themselves?

Too many idiots,
not enough natural selection. 
Sounds familier...

The USCG messes up the laws of natural selection by saving dummies. These dummies then procreate and produce more dummies. 

We must be talking in circles I think.. ;-)


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

Hey CD...did your business partner learn anything from the bearclaw incident? Does he know why he went aground, and why so hard aground? Does he know why his engines and subsequently his generator stopped? Does he understand now the difference between 12v DC and 120v AC? Does he get that provisions for contingencies are a good idea on a boat?

Or is he likely to repeat this scenario?


----------



## Paysay (Apr 4, 2007)

I'm going to weigh in on the side of requiring a license. I know licensing won't be a substitute for common sense and responsibility, two virtues we desperately need more of on the water. Licensing won't weed out the idiot or the habitual drunk, but it will protect the brand new, first time PWC from his ignorance.

I was out on a local lake with my wife and three daughters in our old day sailor (this was a few years ago) when I noticed another family, not far away, in what I recognized as a rental sailboat. They weren't making any headway, and I was close enough to see that the centerboard was in the up position. I moved in a little closer and explained to the dad who was at the tiller that the centerboard needed to be in the down position. He corrected the situation and thanked me for my help as I sailed by on a reciprocal course. As I looked back at his stern I noticed the rudder was up too. At this point I recognized the futility of any further help on my part. The company that rented this guy a boat he knew absolutely nothing about needed to come out and get him. There was nothing more I could do.

The least we can do is make sure that the new boater has enough basic knowledge to get back to the dock at the end of the day. We can't keep him sober, or make him wise, just educated. We should do that much.

I have to attach a link to a story on one of my other favorite web sites. It looks like it could be germane. 
Pearson 36-2 #1


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

Granted, a 31' Southern Cross weighs 14000 lbs., and a 31' Sea Ray weighs 12000 lbs, but the SeaRay can going 32 knots, where the SC will be lucky to be doing six. 

force is equalivalent to mass times velocity squared...so

the southern cross hits you at 7kts the force would be 686000lbs /sq in.
the sea ray would smack with 12288000lbs/sq in.

that give it some perspective...either one will sink either one..now if they hit each other BIG ouch!


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

forgive my ignorance Insails, but how did you calculate that without knowing the surface area of the contact? The inertia is easy but to give the force in Lbs/square in. requires that you know the surface area no?


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Well here's one for ya, this sh*t happens all the time, but since it's the topic, I'll pass it on

Yesterday a dock neighbor and I sailed to Newport Beach from Dana Point The neighbor left about 20 mins prior to us ( wife & I ) as we left the harbor mouth we saw this huge sport fisher at the fuel dock.

We had sailed up approx. 3 miles offshore, shortly before reaching Newport we were watching this huge sportfisher come up on us to port, passed and cut in front of us about 75 yds, well needless to say, that made for a rough time of it.

About 15 mins later we hear " Renagade,Renagade,Renagade ( the sportfisher ) this is " Wonderer ( dock neighbor ) ........No reply, 30sec later it was repeated, this time the reply was " Get over it Wonderer " end of communications

This morning as I was leaving for work I asked about it and He had done the same thing to them passing to starboard @ about 20 knots.

Had either one of us not been prepared for what we knew was coming, someone could have been hurt.


Like I said, this is pretty common BS, but what blows me away is, it's an open ocean to port and 2-3 miles to shore on the starboard, why then do these idiots feel the need to come so close ???


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

> Hey CD...did your business partner learn anything from the bearclaw incident? Does he know why he went aground, and why so hard aground? Does he know why his engines and subsequently his generator stopped? Does he understand now the difference between 12v DC and 120v AC? Does he get that provisions for contingencies are a good idea on a boat?
> 
> Or is he likely to repeat this scenario?


Did he learn anything??? No. He will never learn. He just does not get it. He can play golf, I cannot. I just don't get golf (in more ways than one as I think it is an absolute waste of time and family... but that is another story).

He is currently selling his boat. I think I have told you this before. He had a 310 (Sea Ray) that they nicely took as trade (same dealership) to put him into a 340. Yes, that three feet makes a big difference. Stop thinking that, it really does make a big difference. Still don't get it, huh?? Well, at 34 feet you are in a yacht and a more exclusive crowd... or something like that I guess.

So, he called up the salesman about getting out of it. He knew boats lose a little money over time and he might have had 'some' negaive equity on the trade-in. But, after all, Sea Ray DID approve him for it, right? They would never do anything that was bad for their customer and not a good investment on their part. THus, when he called the broker that he bought it from, the broker asked him what he owed:

"$153,000," I think. "Whatcha think we can get for it?"

"Ohh, about $90,000," was the answer.

"$90,0000!!!! That, that.... er, that is like $63,000 difference!!!" he screamed.

"Well, there is also a 10% brokers fee on top of that, so you will not realize $90,0000. Oops, gotta run, another sucker, I mean, customer just drove up in his Mercedes. See ya at the country club."

I bet you think I am making up those numbers? Nope. I am not. On the positive side, there is a Sea Ray 340 for sale should any of y'all want to buy it. It has a really shinny strip right down the middle of the hull. For the right buyer, I might even be able to throw in a bear claw and a half bottle of vodka.

- CD

PS Nah, forget the vodka. I think that was used up when he started getting this really bad vibration on the way home from one of his (replaced twice now) props. No, I am not kidding about that either.


----------



## Insails (Sep 6, 2006)

How to explain...force is mass times velocity squared ,it dont matter the area it figures the force over a square inch...

so for every MPH you increase in speed the amount of force is squared....same way they figure the Saffir-Simpson scale for wind damage for Hurricanes


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

As much as I think peop;le need to be more aware of the rules I agree with Nima Just more money for the good not much help for the @@[email protected][email protected]@[email protected]$ and yes save children but Licensing IS NOT the SOLUTION unless we get Money Back for the effort and a very diffficult test and that lower insurance and money back for the safety effort just wont happen Yes it is sad morons on the water and roads and in life in general. Taxing us wont help them or us!!


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

Insails said:


> How to explain...force is mass times velocity squared ,it dont matter the area it figures the force over a square inch...
> 
> so for every MPH you increase in speed the amount of force is squared....same way they figure the Saffir-Simpson scale for wind damage for Hurricanes


Ahhh...thank you! My limited onboard computing power was slightly overwhelmed there!

That also indicates that when the wind increases from 10 to twenty knots that that it applies 10 times the force, not double? (apologies to CD for wandering )


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

you've done pissed my off.............................You've done pissed my WHAT OFF??????????????????????? quoting USCGRET


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

conrat66 said:


> As much as I think peop;le need to be more aware of the rules I agree with Nima Just more money for the good not much help for the @@[email protected][email protected]@[email protected]$ and yes save children but Licensing IS NOT the SOLUTION unless we get Money Back for the effort and a very diffficult test and that lower insurance and money back for the safety effort just wont happen Yes it is sad morons on the water and roads and in life in general. Taxing us wont help them or us!!


Maybe we should bring back the stocks! Put guys like Mr. bearclaw on public display and let children throw rotten vegetables at them for one beautiful sunny weekend whenever they do something stupid!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

> Well here's one for ya, this sh*t happens all the time, but since it's the topic, I'll pass it on
> 
> Yesterday a dock neighbor and I sailed to Newport Beach from Dana Point The neighbor left about 20 mins prior to us ( wife & I ) as we left the harbor mouth we saw this huge sport fisher at the fuel dock.
> 
> ...


Pappy,

I have had that happen SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many times. It is so infuriating. It is even more infuriating when you are navigating a narrow entrance or a narrow ICW and they blow by you at a half plane.

On our 380, the ac T-hull was about a third the way down the hull from the stern. They would leave such a strong wake behind them I would lose prime on my air conditioner. No kidding. It happened so much we finally got to the point that we would not run it unless offshore or well outside of the ICW.

Other than the fact it is completely discourteous and not a good use of their fuel, when a 4+ foot, 1 nanosecond period wave takes you on the stern qtr and you cannot change course to make it ride better, everything down below that was not secured well is in the floor - including supper, toys, and kids.

For about a year or two, I would get on the VHF and explain to them how they were responsible for their wake. For about a year after that, I got on the VHF and described their mothers mating habits. Finally, after years of boating and seeing more close calls then I can count (though never hit), I just yell down below for everyone to hold on and wave to them as they pass me at 20kts, 3 inches from my stern - radar turning, music blaring, follow me tv flashing.

You see, it took me years to realise that their VHF IS NEVER ON UNLESS THEY SEE JOHNNY IN HIS 50 FOOT HATTERAS PASSING BY!! That is when you call them and talk about golf on channel 16, even when a Mayday is going on (which I have witnessed). The USCG was even on there screaming at them... but they did not care.

Incredible. What say you to that, USCGRet1990?????

And you wonder why I asked about the licensing.

- CD


----------



## yotphix (Aug 18, 2006)

If you had to have licensing, I would like to see it COMPLETELY financed by a modest (<1%) tax on marine fuel. That way the people who cause the most trouble would have to pay the most!


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

Paintball guns is the only solution.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Cruisingdad said:


> I got on the VHF and described their mothers mating habits.


 Do tell
What were basically discussing here is boater safety, courtesy and rules of the road. thats what will help save lives. enforce the current laws. licensing is just like saying *ie: it's illegal to drive under the influence, you will have your license revoked. but hey, we made a law and people are still breaking it, so why dont we make another law stating its illegal to drive illegally,* *and if that doesnt work we make another law stating it's illegal to drive illegally,illegally*

maybe USCG boater safety should be a requirement for obtaining boat registration(enhances boating knowlege and safety and also saves on insurance) you can license everyone, the govt loves the extra cash but the the tards will still be there regardless, wont solve a thing. they always have been, always will be around us. boating safety is the key! nuff said!


----------



## rtbates (Jan 30, 2007)

Yes, for all vessel that can go over 20mph. AND for all numb nuts. The first is easy to measure. the second a tad harder. BUt we do all know a numb nuts when we see him, right?


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

In New Jersey you now MUST take the boaters Safety Course. I look at it this way if 1 in a 1000 takes the course and says " I didn't know that". Can it be a bad thing ?


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

I agree with a BSC being a must prior to purchase and/or registration renewals


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I think CD might break a record for the most posts on one thread!!!


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

I think licensing would be useless. It's just another form of regulation and hassle and wouldn't have any impact on idiotic behaviour. I was in Norfolk this weekend...They had a big fireworks show and afterward there were several small boats with no running lights. I was praying the CG would find them, but they didn't.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Paysay said:


> I have to attach a link to a story on one of my other favorite web sites. It looks like it could be germane.
> Pearson 36-2 #1


 I believe this guy had a "license" to kill


----------



## cockeyedbob (Dec 6, 2006)

No cost state sponsored Boating Safety Certificate for all ... stuff the license crap, 'cept for ...
CD, he's got a license to grill ... snicker!


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

Need to weigh in here. I wish that I believed that a license would help, but I don't. I do think that a boating safety or some such class should be mandatory for boats over a certain size- say24'. Power or sail. A license is just an excuse to create another state bueracracy in states that are already broke. Especially in Michigan where we alrady have a governor that can't quite figure it out.

What I really believe is that we need to enforce the laws that we already have. But, we don't. Where is the enforcement? No wake means slow to 25 MPH? Enforce the laws we already have, tie them to the Motor Vehicle License, and then you get reaction. You also create some revenue with the tickets without much manpower by any one jurisdiction. Hopefully you will get enough attention to save some of those lives you are talking about. CD's partner should have been ticketed for reckless driving, endangering others, and destroying the environment (and boat). 

No license is going to stop stupidity. Just drive around for a day and you can witness much of it. Stupid people do stupid things. Catch them and hang a few. Gets everyones attention and the problem begins to solve itself. Oh, and unfortunately sailors are not much better than power boaters. Two weeks ago I was motoring down the fairway at 2 Kts and out comes a 36' sailboat backing into the fairway. Never looked! Never say me. At two knots I could have done some serious damage to his midships. Fortunately I was in control.

My slip is the perfect place for the 4th of July. No way I am going out there with all those idiots. However, my stern faces a 3 lane launch about 150' away. They start lining up at about 6:00 AM to get in. Most are in by noon. The line sometimes stretches a mile. You get to witness fights, learn new words, watch at least one car go into the water, and a lot of jumping around when they realize they forgot to put in the drain plug. Last year there were at least 2 arrests in the morning.
Come back about 8:00 PM and watch the sight. Great place for a cop to get double headers. Drunk driving of boat and vehicle. More interesting language, more fights, families that are probably not going to boat together again, and at least one more car in the water. 

CD, with or without a license, your partner would do the same. Sorry! He is just an idiot!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

tommyt said:


> Need to weigh in here. I wish that I believed that a license would help, but I don't. I do think that a boating safety or some such class should be mandatory for boats over a certain size- say24'. Power or sail. A license is just an excuse to create another state bueracracy in states that are already broke. Especially in Michigan where we alrady have a governor that can't quite figure it out.


A <12' PWC can do a hell of a lot of damage, due to the excessive speed that they are capable. of. A 25' full-keel Cape Dory 25D can't do anywhere near that much damage, since it is only capable of a top speed of 6.5 knots or so. It also can't turn on a dime and dump the operator off the boat, while it rockets off into the distance.



> What I really believe is that we need to enforce the laws that we already have. But, we don't. Where is the enforcement? No wake means slow to 25 MPH? Enforce the laws we already have, tie them to the Motor Vehicle License, and then you get reaction. You also create some revenue with the tickets without much manpower by any one jurisdiction. Hopefully you will get enough attention to save some of those lives you are talking about. CD's partner should have been ticketed for reckless driving, endangering others, and destroying the environment (and boat).


Unfortunately, the enforcement of laws on the water is generally pretty weak. Most jurisdictions don't have enough manpower or resources to properly police the waters, even for the laws we already have. I doubt that having licenses is going to change anything beyond the costs of boating. I started boating when I was a kid. Licensing might make this less available to kids, especially ones whose families don't own boats. If you were out on vacation for a week, would you need a license to boat for a week's worth of fishing or waterskiing? Yes. Would you have one if your family doesn't normally boat? No, probably not.



> No license is going to stop stupidity. Just drive around for a day and you can witness much of it. Stupid people do stupid things. Catch them and hang a few. Gets everyones attention and the problem begins to solve itself. Oh, and unfortunately sailors are not much better than power boaters. Two weeks ago I was motoring down the fairway at 2 Kts and out comes a 36' sailboat backing into the fairway. Never looked! Never say me. At two knots I could have done some serious damage to his midships. Fortunately I was in control.


Getting the stupid people out of the way is tough... In the race between God and man, where man makes something foolproof and God makes a better fool, God is clearly winning. Hanging a few would probably work, but isn't realistically going to happen.



> My slip is the perfect place for the 4th of July. No way I am going out there with all those idiots. However, my stern faces a 3 lane launch about 150' away. They start lining up at about 6:00 AM to get in. Most are in by noon. The line sometimes stretches a mile. You get to witness fights, learn new words, watch at least one car go into the water, and a lot of jumping around when they realize they forgot to put in the drain plug. Last year there were at least 2 arrests in the morning.
> Come back about 8:00 PM and watch the sight. Great place for a cop to get double headers. Drunk driving of boat and vehicle. More interesting language, more fights, families that are probably not going to boat together again, and at least one more car in the water.


I wish you could get a cop there... it would help a lot IMHO.



> CD, with or without a license, your partner would do the same. Sorry! He is just an idiot!


Licensing and laws don't prevent stupid behavior, just like they don't stop drunk drivers from driving. The only thing that I think licensing would do, in the case of boating, is close off water recreation for a lot of people and increase the costs of boating for everyone.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

My stern faces the onslaught as well. Here NO WAKE is 5mph or less! After stirring the pot for several days, I seriously would like to see a mandatory boating course implemented in all states at no charge to the consumer. The CG Aux. would gladly do this. All we could hope for is that some folks would absorb at least some of the knowledge. We NEED however to at least try to educate these pinheads!! If it doesn't do any good, then the "Laws Of Natural Selection" should take over..!


----------



## CosmosMariner (Dec 21, 2006)

Tommy and USCG...can you guys set up web cams?.....Please.  

Also I think a safety/seamanship course should be a prerequisite for getting the vessel registered...no course cert...no registration. I don't like licensing or AIS for pleasure craft.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*you do iz besz*

Hi

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!

G'night


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SeanConnett said:


> If everyone else were licensed out on the water, maybe I could have some comfort in knowing that the boat that is approaching me from my port side knows that I have the right of way.


* Sean,

There are very, very few instances where any boat has the "right of way" the correct term is "stand on". Perhaps we all need refresher courses.

Below is one of the ONLY areas where the USCG give an actual right of way!
* 
_(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(i) and Rule 14(a), a power-driven vessel __operating in narrow channels or fairways on the Great Lakes, Western Rivers, or waters specified by the Secretary, and proceeding downbound with a following current shall have the right-of-way
 over an upbound vessel, shall propose the manner and place of passage, and shall initiate the maneuvering signals prescribed by Rule 34(a)(i), as appropriate. The vessel proceeding upbound against the current shall hold as necessary to permit safe passing.

_* Here's a little refresher MANY sailors DON'T grasp..**Rule 11 *
Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another. 
*Rule 12 *
(a)When two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows:

when each has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other;
when both have the wind on the same side, the vessel which is to windward shall keep out of the way of the vessel which is to leeward;
if a vessel with the wind on the port side sees a vessel to windward and cannot determine with certainty whether the other vessel has the wind on the port or on the starboard side, she shall keep out of the way of the other.

(b)For the purposes of this Rule the windward side shall be deemed to be the side opposite that on which the mainsail is carried or, in the case of a square-rigged vessel, the side opposite to that on which the largest fore-and-aft sail is carried.

* One more that MOST boaters don't get! A boat involved in fishing such as a lobsterman or crab fisherman is the stand on in most instances other than a draft situation where the sail boat is restricted.
* 
Except where Rules 9, 10, and 13 otherwise require: 
(a)A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: 

a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing;
a sailing vessel.

(b)A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: 

a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
a vessel engaged in fishing.

(c)A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of: 

a vessel not under command;
a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

_(d) _

_Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28. _
_A vessel constrained by her draft shall navigate with particular caution having full regard to her special condition. _ [Intl]


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One thing Halekai probably should have mentioned or emphasized— A vessel engaged in fishing does not cover small pleasure craft with a few lines in the water, but only commercial boats that have nets or other gear in the water that restricts their ability to manuever.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> One thing Halekai probably should have mentioned or emphasized- A vessel engaged in fishing does not cover small pleasure craft with a few lines in the water, but only commercial boats that have nets or other gear in the water that restricts their ability to manuever.


SD,

As far as I know the USCG makes no distinction between commercial and pleasure fishing. If you know where that is in the Col Regs please point it out to me. They just say "a vessel engaged in fishing" and not a "commercial vessel engaged in fishing". Here is their actual definition of a vessel engaged in fishing:

* Quote from Col Regs:
"The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls, or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict maneuverability."*

So if a recreational boat is fishing with down riggers, or drifting & bottom fishing, with the motor idling, I'd say they still have the right of way regardless of the fact that they're recreational because down riggers or bottom lines certainly restrict maneuverability. They do make clear that trolling does not constitute "stand on" unless it would restrict the maneuverability of the vessel.

I know the regs were designed before en-masse Joe six pack bass fisherman were the rage however, there is maritime case precident to support recreational fisherman with maneuverability restrictions and they have won many cases as the stand on vessel. Again the wording is clear and makes NO distinction so take all reasonable precautions to avoid a collision including giving way to Joe Six Pack....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Halekai-

The key is restricted in manueverability by their fishing gear. I don't know of any recreational fishing gear that would qualify as restricting a boat's manueverability. A large trawled net, or long-lines definitely do, but to use such gear in almost all the waters I can think of requires a commercial permit.

Down riggers, at least the recreational ones I'm familar with, do not affect the boat's ability to manuever. Either does having even a dozen lines on the bottom... since the amount of weight or mass of those lines is neglible compared to the power output of the engines on the boat. That can't be said for commercial fishing gear, such as long lines.

If you can point to recreational fishing gear that actually affects the manueverability of a large sport fishing boat, I'd be interested in seeing what you're talking about. If you can find the "precedents" saying that a recreational fishing boat has right of way due to restricted manueverability caused by the fishing gear deployed, please post them. 


halekai36 said:


> SD,
> 
> As far as I know the USCG makes no distinction between commercial and pleasure fishing. If you know where that is in the Col Regs please point it out to me. They just say "a vessel engaged in fishing" and not a "commercial vessel engaged in fishing". Here is their actual definition of a vessel engaged in fishing:
> 
> ...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Well..*

I guess your definition of restricted manuverability is different than the guy with the outboard motor that has twelve lines tangeled in his prop because you were bearing down on him demanding your "stand on status" when he tried to move only to foul his prop.

Again there is NO mention of commercial or recreational just the clause of restricted manuverability which leaves wide berth for what the definition of the word is is...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

halekai36 said:


> I guess your definition of restricted manuverability is different than the guy with the outboard motor that has twelve lines tangeled in his prop because you were bearing down on him demanding your "stand on status" when he tried to move only to foul his prop.
> 
> Again there is NO mention of commercial or recreational just the clause of restricted manuverability which leaves wide berth for what the definition of the word is is...


What, no citations of the precedent-setting cases you mentioned earlier??

If the guy with the outboard motor is fishing off the stern of his boat, and has twelve lines deployed and is dumb enough to put the boat into reverse, he deserves what he gets... going forward with such a boat is very, very, unlikely to cause anything to foul his outboard's prop. I've been out fishing on a boat with a dozen lines out... they don't have a problem moving unless the captain is an idiot...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> Halekai-
> If you can find the "precedents" saying that a recreational fishing boat has right of way due to restricted manueverability caused by the fishing gear deployed, please post them.


Conversly if you can show me where ANY boat has the "Right of way" I'd love to see it or where the Col Regs separate commercial from recreational.

I was told of this precedent by a maritime attorney who works here in Portland about a race in NJ some years back where two sailbots hit a small skiff that was bottom fishing with all lines in the water. The sailors claimed stand on & lost the case. Beyond that a good friend of mine was hit by a lobsterman, thinking he was stand on, and when he called a maritime lawyer about his 24k in damage he was told you have NO case you hit a vessel that was fishing.



As for "right of way" here's what the USCG has to say about it:

Quote from the USCG on "Right of Way":
"The International Navigation Rules do not confer upon any vessel the right of way however, certain vessels in sight of each other are responsible to keep out of the way of others. Usually, power-driven vessels are to keep out of the way of a vessel not under command or restricted in her ability to maneuver, sailing vessels or a vessel engaged in fishing. However, some exceptions exist when they themselves are not in command or restricted in her ability to maneuver (Rule 18), overtaking another vessel (Rule 13), are navigating a narrow channel or fairway (Rule 9), and other less explicit circumstances.

Navigation Rules should be regarded as a code of conduct and not a bill of rights. They do not bestow rights or privileges, but impose the duty to either give-way or stand-on, dependent on the circumstances. What is important is not so much what things are, i.e. sailing vessel, operational, etc., but how to avoid collisions, e.g. although under sail yet able to be propelled by machinery, obtaining an early warning by radar, etc. Understand, the Rules are in place to prevent collisions not to define nautical terms or to be subjected to strict interpretation."

This has been precisly my point the whole issue is to avoid collisions. Being a bone head, and assuming you have "right of way" when there is NO such thing, (unless you're in the great Lakes in a narrow chanel Rule #9) is what gets people hurt. I will continue to sail around vessels that are fishing and you can continue to insist you have the "right of way".....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

BTW, the lawyer was right, he didn't have a case.. *but I doubt it was because he hit a recreational fishing vessel*. _*It was more likely because he had a duty to avoid collision, regardless of who had the burdern of staying clear... ultimately, the responsiblity for avoiding collision is held by every one on the water...*_

I've never said that I have absolute right of way... The USCG defines a vessel engage in fishing per the COLREGS as:



> The term "vessel engaged in fishing" means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls, or other fishing apparatus which restrict maneuverability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manageability.


Which you can find by clicking on the "engaged in fishing" link on this web page. It states pretty clearly that nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus that restrict maneuverabilty are required-but that any vessel with trolling lines or other apparatus that do not restrict maneuverability are not included. Down riggers and out riggers don't generally affect a boat's ability to move in any way.

By not knowing the rules, you can actually endanger people who do... and assuming that every fishing boat is "restricted" in its maneuverability is going to give you a rude suprise one of these days...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Just to add my $0.02 (which at today's Bank of Canada noon spot is $0.0209577 USD), I agree unequivocally that operating a boat over a reasonable displacement threshold (analogous to vehicles with engines under 50cc not requiring licensing in many countries) should require a license. Given that the power and displacement of many boats is much larger than the average car, and many of these boat operators have only a cursory understanding of the safe operation of said vehicles, the potential for damage or fatality is unacceptably high.

We require licensing for passenger vehicles on land to facilitate the smooth operation of highways and streets, and to help prevent accidents. How is doing the same thing on water an unreasonable limitation on our "freedoms"?

On a slight tangent, though not entirely unrelated, I was sailing yesterday across the Burrard Inlet in Vancouver, due North. A Hunter 33 was motorsailing on our Port side on a course of maybe 10 degrees. As it became increasingly obvious that we she would be intercepting us, her captain started waving her arms and telling us to "move." At first we thought she might be in some difficulty so we yelled over to ask if she needed help. She just responded by making a "shove off" gesture with her hands. We were confused as to her situation - given that she was on the port tack we had the right of way, but were preparing to alter our course to accomodate her in the event... but never had a chance because she gunned her throttle and raced ahead and then across our bow.

Before we have a chance to shake our heads at the idiocy, the woman pulls up beside us and starts yelling, asking why we wouldn't move. I asked if she was in some difficulty, since she was asking us to bear off when we were on the starboard tack. She says, "what are you talking about?" And one of her friends chimes in, "We shouldn't have to move for your POS boat." Then they gunned it again and took off.

As the many people here who have kindly answered my questions will attest, I am far from an expert sailor. But I am nevertheless amazed at what people DON'T know, especially when in command of vessels far too large or powerful for themselves. Licensing would help address this.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If she was under power, with the sails up or not, she was a power boat, not a sailboat on port tack... and as such was the give-way vessel. 


Hyperion said:


> Just to add my $0.02 (which at today's Bank of Canada noon spot is $0.0209577 USD), I agree unequivocally that operating a boat over a reasonable displacement threshold (analogous to vehicles with engines under 50cc not requiring licensing in many countries) should require a license. Given that the power and displacement of many boats is much larger than the average car, and many of these boat operators have only a cursory understanding of the safe operation of said vehicles, the potential for damage or fatality is unacceptably high.
> 
> We require licensing for passenger vehicles on land to facilitate the smooth operation of highways and streets, and to help prevent accidents. How is doing the same thing on water an unreasonable limitation on our "freedoms"?
> 
> ...


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Halekai and Dog may have missed one salient point. Vessels less than 12 meters LOA are not required to show appropriate shapes/lights for fishing. If a vessel is over 12 meters, and wishes to take advantage of her fishing status she MUST display the required shapes/lights. If she does not, she ain't fishin' as defined by these rules.

The commercial/recreational debate only arises because it is assumed that vessels of less than 12 meters can virtually never be restricted in ability. Bear in mind, that restricted means she cannot manoeuver as required. It does not mean to cover manoeuvering with some degree of difficulty or inconvenience. The Rules must be read as is. You do not get to decide if you are restricted in ability. You must meet the test of the Rules. And, there is a large difference between five miles of longlines and some downriggers. 

It is very difficult to imagine a vessel of less than 12 meters being in any way restricted in ability, either by fishing or otherwise. And, since 99% of commercial fishing boats are going to be longer than 12 meters, that is where the confusion comes in. The Rules speak only of length and activity that restricts. They do not mention commercial or private. And they certainly don't care that you cannot turn on a dime while you're running down-riggers. You are still able to comply with the rules, just not as quickly as you might otherwise, and that just means you need to be more diligent in lookout. It doesn't make you a fisherman, as defined.

And, again, if you're over 12 meters you MUST display the required light/signals if you are to be considered fishing. No signal-no status.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Little bit of a rant, but...

I think one of the biggest issues is the lack of common courtesy apparent these days. When I learned to drive, I was taught to back off and leave a gap if I saw someone on a side road up ahead; now most people will speed up and close the gap. The same thing happens on the water. I had a pontoon boat outmaneuver me to the dock on Sunday. There was someone out on the dock from the sailing club who instructed me about the best way to loop around and come in as I passed right off the end of the dock (I was in an unfamiliar boat). I began my turns and the pontoon boat motored by me up to dock where the other person was standing. The pontoon boat was already near by and watching as I was instructed (and it included arm motions and pointing at a specific cleat; it was very clear I was coming in to that dock) and there was enough wind that the maneuver did not take me long at all. When I came back by the dock, the people on the pontoon boat all looked the other way. 

A license won't help with courtesy and an unpowered sailboat will require some courtesy exercised to come in to a busy dock under certain conditions. With no motor and just enough wind to make paddles an exercise in frustration, I could not sit in a line of boats out on the water; I had to do circles.


----------



## ImASonOfaSailor (Jun 26, 2007)

I say maybe we could have a common scens test and questions are to be different everytime! If you dont pass you dont crash!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

arbarnhart said:


> Little bit of a rant, but...
> 
> I think one of the biggest issues is the lack of common courtesy apparent these days. When I learned to drive, I was taught to back off and leave a gap if I saw someone on a side road up ahead; now most people will speed up and close the gap. The same thing happens on the water. I had a pontoon boat outmaneuver me to the dock on Sunday. There was someone out on the dock from the sailing club who instructed me about the best way to loop around and come in as I passed right off the end of the dock (I was in an unfamiliar boat). I began my turns and the pontoon boat motored by me up to dock where the other person was standing. The pontoon boat was already near by and watching as I was instructed (and it included arm motions and pointing at a specific cleat; it was very clear I was coming in to that dock) and there was enough wind that the maneuver did not take me long at all. When I came back by the dock, the people on the pontoon boat all looked the other way.
> 
> A license won't help with courtesy and an unpowered sailboat will require some courtesy exercised to come in to a busy dock under certain conditions. With no motor and just enough wind to make paddles an exercise in frustration, I could not sit in a line of boats out on the water; I had to do circles.


This is the same attitude and rudeness on the highways today. In days long ago, you would have received a major ass-whoopin for this kind of behaivior.
In that we can't do that anymore without being arrested or sued, it'll only get worse as the population grows. Maybe that's why so many of us take Xanax these days!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Well, I vote no on the license. I put an 18' powerboat up high and dry once because I missed a buoy. Great experience. Something that inspired me to have better charts, and to go slow if I was in an unfamiliar inlet. Regulation never makes anything better, only worse.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Licensing is for when government really needs the money.

Remember that it is in the business of SELLING privileges over which it has established a monopoly.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Goodnewsboy said:


> Licensing is for when government really needs the money.
> 
> Remember that it is in the business of SELLING privileges over which it has established a monopoly.


Have you seen your current account deficit?? LOL

Maybe it's time to start selling licenses.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

A couple of days ago here in Connecticut, a powerboater fell out of his 20 foot craft, which proceeded to run amok, smashing into a small sailboat, killing one of the four occupants, and seriously injuring two of the others (there was at least one amputation involved). Apparently, the powerboat hit and skimmed over the top of the sailboat, and the propeller sliced up the sailors. It took quite some time to subdue the powerboat. They fished the powerboater out of the water. He was quite drunk. And of course, he had the mandatory boating "certificate" (read "license") from the state. 

Despite the tragedy here, I am still in favor of the licensing scheme in this state. I don't think anything will ever stop people like this from endangering themselves and others; not licensing, not jail time, not anything. The most we can hope for is that the publicity from this and other similar events (this was not an accident; the powerboater made the choice to drink) will turn public opinion against drunk boating.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

If they ever let him drive a boat again, he should be required to use a two way kill switch... 



mstern said:


> A couple of days ago here in Connecticut, a powerboater fell out of his 20 foot craft, which proceeded to run amok, smashing into a small sailboat, killing one of the four occupants, and seriously injuring two of the others (there was at least one amputation involved). Apparently, the powerboat hit and skimmed over the top of the sailboat, and the propeller sliced up the sailors. It took quite some time to subdue the powerboat. They fished the powerboater out of the water. He was quite drunk. And of course, he had the mandatory boating "certificate" (read "license") from the state.
> 
> Despite the tragedy here, I am still in favor of the licensing scheme in this state. I don't think anything will ever stop people like this from endangering themselves and others; not licensing, not jail time, not anything. The most we can hope for is that the publicity from this and other similar events (this was not an accident; the powerboater made the choice to drink) will turn public opinion against drunk boating.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

So you favor the licensing scheme despite this most recent tragic example of its total ineffectiveness? Perhaps an inability to rationally analyze this matter could be construed as cause to suspend your licensed activities on the water.

But fear not. The "administrators" of boat licenses in Connecticut are probably already at work on more onerous requirements to be imposed on those who would operate boats. Maybe the mandatory wearing of life jackets having armor capable of defeating propeller blades will be the answer. Yes, that will surely fix the problem.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Goodnewsboy said:


> So you favor the licensing scheme despite this most recent tragic example of its total ineffectiveness? Perhaps an inability to rationally analyze this matter could be construed as cause to suspend your licensed activities on the water.
> 
> But fear not. The "administrators" of boat licenses in Connecticut are probably already at work on more onerous requirements to be imposed on those who would operate boats. Maybe the mandatory wearing of life jackets having armor capable of defeating propeller blades will be the answer. Yes, that will surely fix the problem.


I think you are using a single piece of anecdotal evidence to construe a general failure of the system. Has the overall safety been improved? Are there less accidents per thousand boaters since the policy was implemented? I don't know the answer, but I do know that is how the policy needs to be judged, not by the actions of a single idiot.

I do think it is a good idea to try to ensure that operators of watercraft have some instruction on navigation, "right of way" (I know it isn't that in the strictest sense, but I mean the agreed upon conventions for avoiding collisions), passenger rescue, etc. Whether the license program in that state is doing a good job of it or not is another subject.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Thanks much!*

Hi all!

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!

G'night


----------



## SoOkay (Nov 27, 2004)

> I don't know the answer, but I do know that is how the policy needs to be judged, not by the actions of a single idiot


Have you taken a look at our Commander in Chief lately?

In all seriousness I agree with you; but part of the problem is the utter lack of consistent enforcement; mostly due to a lack of funds. NJ now requires a "safe boating certificate" but again, whose enforcing this?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Insails writes:

What would work better than a liscense is if all boaters would help each other and the newbies. Too often you see the man with expierence LAUGH at the idiot or the newbie without offering help...If we as boaters could drop the exclusivness and snobbery that is pevalent in real society and treat each other as equals and forget the the ME...then the WE would be safer 
_____________________________________________________________

Wow that hurt. I have been living on the water all my life and I clearly remember my father teaching me that boaters take care of each other. I try, though these days I will admit it seems a bit harder. I find the following happens pretty regularly here. 
1st : MISTRESS is anchored just west of the channel and there is a sand bar between me and thee. 50% of the boaters that pass by will turn and head straight towards us. I assume they figure if we have enough depth they should be fine. I wave, both my arms back and forth to signify, STOP. DO NOT COME THIS WAY. 50% of those boaters will wave to me just before they run aground, and then appear to be upset with me for not hopping in my dingy to warn them off. I would have to stand watch all day, every day. It happens that often. Besides, where are their charts? 
2nd: I come on deck to find a power boat not ½ boat length up wind and up current of me. I politely say, “Geez Captain, we are a bit close.” More often than not I get the response; “I’m watching it.” What does this mean? He has one anchor out and if he does drag, he is so close there is no way he is going to stop his boat from hitting mine. I tell him he is inside my swing zone, and I get the, how dare I tell them how to run their boat. 
3rd: A boat pulls into the harbor and begins to anchor near by. I wave hello and notice they put just one anchor out in an area know for a fast current. No sooner do they have the one anchor down, they launch the tender and are heading for the dock. As they pass by and say hi, I offer a bit of local knowledge. “Most everyone here holds to two anchors due to the current, one with and one against the tide.” The response, “Oh we are only going to be here for one night”. What does that have to do with anything? There are still going to be at least two tide changes before they go. They just dropped their anchor and aren’t even waiting to see if it is set, they leave it up to everyone else around them to be on anchor watch for them. 
4th: How many times have you heard, “This is not a no wake zone”, as a good reason for being waked? How many do not understand they are responsible for their wake and that the wake can actually jump over the channel rail and continue on to the boaters anchored nearby. 
I would say half the time I try to lend a hand I am told it is either not needed, they have been boating for longer then I have been alive, (mind you, I am a gray haired lady so I still haven’t figured that one out), or some other stupid answer that makes no sense at all. Thank God for the other times when people are nice, grateful, and will even swap an email address, a cold drink and some good stories. 
Newbies are easy to spot because they stand on deck looking confused and will ask for help if you will even look their way. I applaud them. A man who asks a question is stupid for the time it takes to answer. The man who never asks a question is stupid his whole life. The ones that scare me are the ones that don’t understand how far their wake goes, don’t understand the importance of making sure your anchor is set before you jump in your dingy to find the local pub ashore, and a large portion of the motor boat population because they just don’t get it at all. 
Will licensing make a better world for boaters? I hate to be a pessimist, but I don’t really think so. Yes, it will make good people a bit more knowledgeable, but they would have probably gone and read a book, taken a course, and asked good questions before they went out on the water anyway. Will the ignorant people become better thru licensing? I just don’ think so. If I really thought it would save a life I would be into it, but I fear it would only accomplish more revenue for the gov and additional frustration for the good boat owners out there already. Those who want to learn will seek knowledge, those who do not, well, I don’t think you could force it down their throats no matter how hard you tried. 
Kathleen
Aboard
Schooner MISTRESS
PS. I admit it, sometimes I do laugh when I see someone hit that sandbar, and Skip and I both are always helping out whenever we are needed. One boat drags down on another and at 5 am we are the ones who get the call to come and help out.


----------



## danjarch (Jun 18, 2007)

Every time I go sailing, I see a lot of different boats and boaters. There are so many boating situations, that you could never come up with a meaningful test that would even remoatly prepare the average boater for the serious problems that occur when they're out on the water. Some boaters clearlly don't know the rules of the road, most of these guys stay to the sides of the channels and are quick to change coarse to avoid accidents. A lot of boaters learn as they go. They don't ever stop learning. If you gave them a license. They would assume they needed all they need to know, then they would become really dangerous.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Goodnewsboy is on the money again. Once instituted, a licensing system will never be cancelled. In spite of it's ineffectiveness, which will be overlooked and explained away, it will assume a life and beauracracy of it's own. The words, "the system is broken" or "the system doesn't work" will never be uttered. Expecting it to be any more "educational" than the driver's licensing exams is a triumph of hope over experience.

Consider this fact:

The purpose of the USCG licensing examinations for professional mariners is to ensure that there is a HIGH degree of competency found in those mariners. Setting a "passing" grade point of 90% on Rules of the Road and on Navigation does a large measure to ensure that goal being met. With a passing grade of 90% on a 50 question exam there is not the latitude available to be weak in one area and have an expectation of passing.

While the Coast Guard does attempt to remove confusing or unfair questions, more or less successfully, their interest in the percentage of canidates who actually pass the exam is minimal extending only, perhaps, to the perception of the institution the canidates attended. The requirements for sea time are one year on current license. Two years on deck is required to sit for an original third mate. Sea time is counted as time on articles. Sea time in service of the Coast Guard or Navy may be pro-rated due to the extensive amount of shore time in those services. In any event, if a majority of canidates fail the exam, it is of little concern to the USCG. Their responsibility is limited to competency of licensed officers and considerations of manpower availability and success rate do not enter into the equation. BTW, the vast majority of license exam questions are acquired through submission to the Coast Guard by professional mariners themselves. It usually takes about five years to get a "bad" question out of the computerized pool of questions.

As a practical matter, I usually took a hotel room in the city of the examination a week before the exam. I then spent 8-10 hours a day boning up for the exam in that week, as well as long nights before the next day's section. Renewals required substantially less time. And this was done as a practising professional mariner, ie...I was not a part-time sea-going officer, I was working in the field every day. The exam is pretty effective at it's purpose.

Contrast that with the driver's license exams and the various boating license proposals. Let's face it. If you get a reasonable score on the exam, promise to work on your parallel parking, which will never be examined again, you'll pass the test. It is a given that any level of competency and experience will be gained after the examination, after you have been ISSUED a license. So that license does not really imply a high level of competency, merely that you remembered a few rules of the road and did not have an actual collision with the examiner in the car. And, in contrast to the USCG, the licensing organization has a real interest in passing the vast majority of applicants. Start failing 50% of driver's license applicants and you'll hear the screaming all the way to the statehouse. And it would take a rare form of naievete to think that what would be changed is the driver's education programs, in the face of such screaming. The license or driver's test would be "dumbed down".

So what good is a license where virtually everyone qualifies on the first try? It is an enormous leap of faith to think that that result is indicative of a superior training program or hard won skills of parents being reliably passed on to progeny. The periodic re-testing is a joke, with no practical exam. you may even reach a point where the "Driver's Licensing for the Blind" phamphlet applies to you! And, worse yet, such a system imparts to the boater or driver the notion that they are "competent" de facto.

If the license, in and of itself, implies no reliable level of competency what good is it? The advocates, as they always do, maintain that it gives the state something to take away when you screw up. If the objective is to reduce the screw ups, that is closing the barn door long after the horse has bolted. If the objective is to punish the boater/driver and remove him from the water/road I would ask two questions. How's that working out for ya on the road? Most drivers with suspended or revoked licenses continue to drive (they have to) and so it is a penalty without distinction. And, secondly, are not the civil penalties already extant not sufficient to punishing the screw up? From negligent vehicular manslaughter/homicide to property/environmental damges there are myriad laws on the books sufficient to the application of punishing the malfactor. Rescinding of a license is the least of the penalties imposed upon poor/incompetent drivers. Fines, jail time, and increased insurance costs are all much larger considerations.

Therein perhaps lies an answer. The private market. If insurance companies and lending institutions required training, and refresher courses, there would be a tremendous incentive to get initial training as well as on-going education. If you are confronted with a substantial premium to finance your boat purchase sans training or your insurance, extending to your home-owners, would be substantially higher without real training you'd probably see the sprouting and growth of a veritable cottage industry of training institutions. And they'd be monitored for effectiveness by the insurance and mortgage industries. And i'm sure you know what those people can do with an actuarial table. A not inconsiderable side benefit would be that the associated costs would be borne by boaters, with no need for the taxpayers at large to fund another government bureaucracy of no use to themselves individually.

I eagerly await all the screams that will say that that will increase the cost of boating. The old racing saying, "speed costs money, how fast do you want to do?" applies. Safety costs money, how safe do you want to be? Or do you really prefer a program, run by the government at tax payer expense, that makes you feel safe?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

SchoonerMistress-

Your post was excellent... unfortunately, there are alot of boaters out there who don't know what they don't know...and aren't looking to remedy their ignorance...and put everyone around them at risk because of that. 

A lot of powerboaters don't seem to understand that on a sailboat, especially a monohull keelboat, a strong wake can cause a lot of damage inside the boat, especially if it arrives without warning, and that they are responsible for the damage or injuries that they cause by their wake. The don't realize that there is legal and moral liability for their wake.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hey Sailingdog,
Thanks! I talked to Skip about this last night to get his view. He thinks the answer is in teaching the children. We both think there should be no minimum age for boating, probably because we have both been doing it since we were kids and were both fortunate enough to have good teachers. We feel the younger they learn seamanship the better off they will be over time. 
One of my favorite stories of Skip's is his young sailboat racing days in Annapolis. The race is an elimination race with a greased watermelon. Everyone runs all the races, however, the first one is run without a tiller, the next without the jib, then you run without the main, and last without the centerboard. The object of each race is to race with the eliminated part while trying to locate and retrieve a greased watermelon. Two persons per boat and you are allowed to steal the watermelon off someone else's boat, if you can get hold of it and get it to your boat. Oviously a lot of fun but also what a great teaching tool this was for him. How to sail effectively with broken parts. How well would I do today when (not if) something breaks? He and his fellow clubbers know just how to do it. This would make a fair test for sail boaters, but I have not a clue what would be a good test for motor boaters. So often, if they have broken parts they are dead in the water, and subject to weather conditions which will probably make their lives hellish. Any thoughts on what a good test would be for power boaters? 
By the way Sailingdog, MISTRESS seems to ride most of the bigger wakes around here pretty well and I almost always keep her ready for ocean sailing, however, when I look about to my neighbors I am horrified by the way these smaller boats are being tossed about by said wake. The image of their little pets being tossed about like rag dolls makes me angry.
Teach a child how to sail and about seamanship. It's probably the best option we have. It wouldn't hurt if we were all required to take the Coast Guard course either.
Kathleen
aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

To think that any government entity would see licensing boaters as anything other than a cash cow is somewhat naive. They'll say all the right things, they'll "produce" statistics showing the benefits (real or hoped for), but in the end, it's just one more slice of personal freedom gone. Not a day goes by that we aren't shown that idiots will be idiots, and that the uncaring will continue to be uncaring, in this matter though, more government is not the answer.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

PBzeer said:


> To think that any government entity would see licensing boaters as anything other than a cash cow is somewhat naive. They'll say all the right things, they'll "produce" statistics showing the benefits (real or hoped for), but in the end, it's just one more slice of personal freedom gone. Not a day goes by that we aren't shown that idiots will be idiots, and that the uncaring will continue to be uncaring, in this matter though, more government is not the answer.


Dicto simpliciter. I believe it is more naive to assume that the ONLY thing that motivates government is money. Moreover, you come to a non sequitur conclusion when you attempt to abrogate the efficacy of a law simply because you question its motivation. In constitutional law there are two tests: 1) what was the spirit of the law - does it contravene the charter; and 2) what is the EFFECT of the law?

Even if seatbelt legislation were enacted by a government hell-bent on stealing every last cent of yours, PBzeer, you would put yourself in an equally untenable position to argue that they have not saved lives.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Actually what motivates Governments is Power then money. So as we claim we have a "Free Society" The more laws they pass the more their feet are pressing down our necks to keep us in check.
I know that some laws are necessary. But all laws should be written with sunset provisions that negates the law after specified time from enactment of that law.

HEY! I can dream can't I??


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

Can and do, to use your example, seatbelts save lives? No question about it. Should government mandate that people wear them? Not for anyone sufficently of age to make their own choices. Life is about choices, and freedom/liberty, is about being able to make those choices.

As Boasun said, it's about power as well, as one leads to the other, beyond that though, no, I don't believe there is any underlying reason for 99% of the laws and regulations foisted upon people by a "benevolent" government.

Motivation? Then you get into the means justifies the ends. And very few laws and regulations come without unintended circumstances. Some even with ones that are flat out ignored, in spite of the evidence.

Boasun also makes an excellent suggestion about sunset provisions. Too bad about the only thing that has them is tax cuts.

So basically it comes down to the simple fact I don't trust anyone, and in particular, government, to take care of me. I'll use what they provide, since I've paid my share for it, but when it comes to personal responsibility, that is for me and me alone.


----------



## ReverendMike (Aug 1, 2006)

But... there are real costs imposed on gov't agencies by incompetent boaters (the USCG saves the dumba$$es as well as those only in the wrong place and time, not to mention the extra work for various harbor patrols). Does that not give them the right and indeed the responsibility to attempt to make sure said dumba$$es don't get on the water. There is potential for less gov't spending, not necessarily more (OMG, that's it! no wonder they won't regulate!)

The comparisons to autos aren't entirely appropriate: as sailaway mentioned, we have to drive, but we don't have to sail (well actually we do, but that's just our addiction )

Sailaway's points re the insurance companies is a very good one, though i would think they'd already be on that. (As he implied, they are very good at discouraging risky behavior through financial disincentives)


----------



## knotaloud (Jul 6, 2007)

PBzeer said:


> Can and do, to use your example, seatbelts save lives? No question about it. Should government mandate that people wear them? Not for anyone sufficently of age to make their own choices. Life is about choices, and freedom/liberty, is about being able to make those choices.


I tend to agree, and maybe the same logic should apply to helmet laws on motorcycles. But one must wonder who pays the hospital bills when one of the 50 million Americans without adequate health insurance gets seriously injured. Should our taxes pay to patch up the unbuckled and uninsured drivers? Or more on topic, should skilled and practiced boaters be subjected to the free-for-all, basically unregulated, boating industry?

On a lighter note...my favorite Sunday afternoon pastime is to go to the Locks, separating Puget Sound from the fresh water and watch as the throngs of partially intoxicated, inexperienced boaters attempt to navigate the strong currents and close quarters. It's much like a demolition dirby on water. Licensing requirements?....where's the fun in that!?


----------



## ReverendMike (Aug 1, 2006)

knotaloud said:


> On a lighter note...my favorite Sunday afternoon pastime is to go to the Locks, separating Puget Sound from the fresh water and watch as the throngs of partially intoxicated, inexperienced boaters attempt to navigate the strong currents and close quarters. It's much like a demolition dirby on water. Licensing requirements?....where's the fun in that!?


You're a bad, bad man!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

The ancillary costs of government inaction, are almost always exeeded by the cost of them taking action. Not to mention, how many of you can name one efficent government agency, outside of the IRS? And that's the best they can do. (And I'm sure it's only coincidence that the IRS is responsible for taking your money)

For those of you enamored with the health insurance point, go back to the 50's and 60's when health insurance became a business responsiblity (in an effort to save on wages) and then follow the rise in health care costs.


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

You have to be carefull when you use the freedom argument because when you exersise your freedom you may be limiting mine. Your "right" to choose not to wear a seat belt can and does effect my insurance rates. What gives you the right to increase my insurance rates? I totally agree that we need seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, drinking and driving laws etc, because people make stupid decisions and that, my freedom loving friends, effects my freedom to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.


----------



## ReverendMike (Aug 1, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> The ancillary costs of government inaction, are almost always exeeded by the cost of them taking action. Not to mention, how many of you can name one efficent government agency, outside of the IRS? And that's the best they can do. (And I'm sure it's only coincidence that the IRS is responsible for taking your money)


I've asked this before: why does it seem that we 'accept' gov't inefficiency (or downright incompetence) as just 'the way it is'? Sometimes laws don't work because 'we the people' ignore them. Walt Kelly, anyone?



PBzeer said:


> For those of you enamored with the health insurance point, go back to the 50's and 60's when health insurance became a business responsiblity (in an effort to save on wages) and then follow the rise in health care costs.


That's not what I (or sailaway, i think) said. We're talking about insurance companies jacking the rates of those who 'choose' not to educate themselves about how to operate a boat and cutting some slack to those who bother to learn the rules of the road. Yes, they'll screw us, but they already do that. I'm thinking of something like a 'clean driver discount' (oops, car analogy  ) or conversely, a harder shafting for those who wish to remain ignorant.

PS - I really like Boasun's 'sunset provision' for all laws (well, maybe not murder )

PPS - Sailaway, please correct my interpretation of your statements if nec.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Yes, and no one under 18 should be allowed to operate a boat with a motor.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

You struck a nerve and are setting me off one of my more common rants...

This "*we have to drive*" (I assume you mean "we" in the US) notion is wrong. We don't. We act like we do and that it is a basic right. They dumb down the driving code and set the bar for violations pretty high before they take the privilege away. Yes, it would be hard to perform a lot of jobs without driving and completely impossible to perform a few others. So what? It should be a marketable skill, not an expected requirement of anyone that can fog a mirror. Public transportation works for plenty of people and plenty of jobs, and for a lot of folks that it doesn't work for, they made a decision that makes it unworkable. It is not a requirement IMO. I am not saying everyone should be forced to use public transportation and that driving should be limited to the elite; not at all. But you should have to prove you are good at it and know the rules of the road to be allowed to drive and if you don't take the responsibility seriously enough the privilege should be taken away.

It is not limiting freedom to establish and enforce rules to ensure that you aren't placing others at peril by exercising your freedom.



ReverendMike said:


> But... there are real costs imposed on gov't agencies by incompetent boaters (the USCG saves the dumba$$es as well as those only in the wrong place and time, not to mention the extra work for various harbor patrols). Does that not give them the right and indeed the responsibility to attempt to make sure said dumba$$es don't get on the water. There is potential for less gov't spending, not necessarily more (OMG, that's it! no wonder they won't regulate!)
> 
> The comparisons to autos aren't entirely appropriate: as sailaway mentioned, we have to drive, but we don't have to sail (well actually we do, but that's just our addiction )
> 
> Sailaway's points re the insurance companies is a very good one, though i would think they'd already be on that. (As he implied, they are very good at discouraging risky behavior through financial disincentives)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Boasun said:


> Actually what motivates Governments is Power then money. So as we claim we have a "Free Society" The more laws they pass the more their feet are pressing down our necks to keep us in check.
> I know that some laws are necessary. But all laws should be written with sunset provisions that negates the law after specified time from enactment of that law.
> 
> HEY! I can dream can't I??


Rather facile, don't you think? First, do you honestly believe that the policy makers that you elected from the general population have no interest other than keeping their "feet . . . pressing down our necks"? Even the most blindly cynical observer would have to allow a little more latitude than that.

Second - while I believe sunset clauses are in some cases extremely effective tools, to apply them to all laws would be grossly inefficient. The corpus of laws is so expansive that to rewrite them all on a periodic basis would be impracticable. Imagine rewriting the constitution every 10 or 20 years. This would also negate the moderating effect of years of judicial interpretation and open the door to populism on the most critical of laws.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

arbarnhart said:


> You struck a nerve and are setting me off one of my more common rants...
> 
> It is not limiting freedom to establish and enforce rules to ensure that you aren't placing others at peril by exercising your freedom.


Exactly. Well put (though maybe I'm saying that because it's exactly how I view things).


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I already got farther into this than intended, and it would be easy to go even further, vis-a-vis the insurance (auto, in particular) companies. Suffice to say, that I shan't limit my choices to what is approved by the insurance industry. As the elimination of risk to their bottom line (which is why they raise rates) is not my responsibility.

Rev - wasn't referring to your or SA's points, but to knotaloud's.

Since all I intended was to make the point that, like Schoneer Mistress, I think education is the answer, not government interference, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

SanderO said

Yes, and no one under 18 should be allowed to operate a boat with a motor.

I know several young people under the age of 18 who do a much better job of running a skiff than some adults I know or see each day at the dingy dock. I think they enjoy showing off bringing the dingy into the dock like a skilled skipper, while many of their adult counterparts look like they are driving a bumper car. Don’t dismiss the power of youth. Many are very smart and for those who grew up on the water I find them to be mature beyond their years and have a healthy respect for Mother Nature and the sea itself. It’s what we do with our knowledge that counts, not the number of years we have lived. Given the choice I would rather be ridden around by some of these youths I refer to than many of the adults who come into this port each week. 
Kathleen
Aboard
Schooner MISTRESS


----------



## ReverendMike (Aug 1, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> I already got farther into this than intended


Me too, I was only thinking of the insurance companies as a 'market force' (if you will) that would do a pretty cold and heartless job on those who prefer 'ignorance'.

arbarnhart - i totally agree with you our 'right to cars' (believe it or not) and was only trying to stop the comparisons that many have been making between a drivers license and a hypothetical 'boating license'. (though out here in rural MO, you do actually have to be able to drive - which is still not the same thing as it being a god-given right)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

After reading some of the excerpts of the Colregs entered by Halekai it appears to me that the business partner (was it P B"s partner?) actually had the right of way -- You cannot tell me that a large power boat on half plane is under command! A boat has a heck of a lot more control when it is abandoned at anchor. But to the original question-- Insurance discounts and/or penalties will do more to encourage boating safety education than licensing. We currently have laws that state that a boater is responsible for his wake, one cannot operate a boat under the influence of alcohol, one must have life jackets and other safety equipment aboard, running lights, etc. etc. A major flaw in the system is lack of enforcement. Here in the Midwest, I have been boating frequently on the Mississippi river for 20 years. In that time I have NEVER seen a USCG vessel, twice seen an Illinois water patrol vessel, an once seen a Missouri water patrol vessel. I know such enforcement costs money, but perhaps the earlier suggestion made by one of these posters is the way to go. A 1 or 2 % tax on motor fuel used by recreational boaters would finance a lot more water patrol employees. Instead, those gas guzzling stinkpotters actually get a tax break, because the road use taxes built into off road fuel consumption is refunded via a tax rebate! Better enforcement of existing laws can also generate dollars by way of fines levied against flagrant abusers. It wouldn't cure stupidity, but might help reduce other dangerous actions. Age limits and licensing are not the answer. I know unlicensed 15 year olds who possess much more maturity and boating safety skills than some middle aged boaters of my acquaintance who possess a USCG "6-pack" license.


----------



## jorapazu (Feb 12, 2006)

your freedom ends where the freedom of the other begins, that is the rule of life, with licence or not.
regards.


----------



## badsneakers (Mar 7, 2007)

Boy, this is a good one! As much as I'd like to see licensing, I don't think it would be very effective. You knuckleheads in cars, trucks and motorcycles...all with licenses. How could you enforce it? And besides, do think every grandpa or JohnBoy that goes fishing on Lake Whatthefug is going to bother....and all those bass fishing guys??? FUGGETABODDIT!!!

Now I'm going for a beer and think some more...eh Pirate?


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Well.

If you accept the idea that driving is somehow a privilege then you should be prepared to defend the privilege of walking, bicycling, or riding a horse.

Furthermore, you're exhibiting a basic lack of understanding of the US Constitution. And, that'd be the Constitution housed in the Library of Congress, not the one docked in Boston.(g) The Tenth Amendment addresses the matter directly, while the Declaration of Independence gives direction as to where our "rights" originate. They are endowed by the Creator. Your right to drive a car, sail a boat, ride a horse, or just use the old shoe leather express is not dispensed by your government. As a practical matter, the only thing your government does is limit your rights, sometimes even for good reason. Limiting your rights does not mean that they are not still your rights.

Somewhere along the line, Americans fell for a load of hooey along the lines of, "there outta be a law". Usually the law proposed is designed to effect some "them" and not "us". We have laws against spitting on the sidewalks. They are unenforced, unenforcable, and mostly not necessary. Why do we not have an epidemic of sidewalk spitting? Hmmm. Could it be that the societal mores are far more effective at restraining human impulse than is the law? The law says that older men cannot have sex with my 14 year old daughter. Do I rely on the law to ensure that such an act does not occur? Relying on the law to somehow improve boating skills and safety is just as foolish as letting the 14 year old date the older man. Whom are you going to blame when things do not turn out well? The Law?

I'm like PBeezer, I'm in this further than intended, and by the way, an examination of his posts, some thought on same, may reveal some deeper truths.

It is not the inherent desire of government to dominate me via licensing laws I am so worried about. It is the fact that those laws will create a bureauacracy that will defend to the death it's need to exist, sort of like the Rural Electrification Commision. And, furthermore, the politicians, otherwise known as lawmakers, will always respond to public outcry that the law is not working by, "strengthening the law, it's penalties, and enforcement" without ever considering whether the law should exist or not.

If you want to improve boating and boating safety, the tack that SchoonerMistress and others are sailing is the correct one. Education and peer (societal) condemnation are the only true and lasting ways to do so.

I am amazed that a bunch of sailors, who love the inherent freedom of the sea and the wind, would fall for such a load of poppycock.


----------



## dorourke (Aug 11, 2006)

A while ago, my wife children and myself were sailing when a cabin cruser came into sight, he was heading in our direction so I kept an eye on it, it's course wasn't changing so I thought about how to get out of the way if it still kept it's course. It came close enough where I had to make a jibe to clear it's path, there was no one at the helm of the boat, ghost riding. Idiots will be everywhere no matter how many rules and regulations are implemented. Like the bikers say, "you got to watch out for yourself and expect an idiot along the way". If this guy were to sink us who's to say what really happened! My opinion still stands, let the burocrats enforce licencing, You will still face the asses out there who are arragant and ignorant. The only way idiots will stop and think before they get in and drive a boat is to pound on them leagally and that will cost us all! I don't want to pay anymore for the pleasure of sailing. I think if you want a power boat then you must pass a power squardren course and that's all! The rentless lawyers will take care of the rest if you should do something to harm someone.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sailaway,

In some respects, the difference in rights and privileges are semantic, though in my mind there are two major differences - you must earn a privilege and you can lose a privilege for abusing it. I think you have the right to earn the privilege, though, if that makes sense. In the case of driving, everyone has the right to take the test to earn the privilege of driving. I am not quite sure where you are headed with the free rights about driving. Do you think we should not require licenses for driving? When someone exercising their right to walk is crossing the street and someone exercising their right to drive chooses not to stop for them, should the driver retain the right to drive?

A number of people have said that education is the way to go. I agree, but the only way to make sure people got the education is to test them. And the only way to ensure they have been tested is to give them some proof of passing the test. There is the school of hard knocks, of course, where you get the test first and then you get the lesson. But when people out on the water don't know what they are doing they imperil others as well as themselves.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

A piece of paper does not confer anything other than the fact that a certain criteria has been met successfully. For instance, having a driver's license does not make you a good driver. It only means you have studied what it takes to be a good driver. Whether you implement that knowledge has nothing to do with having the license.


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

A license is a privilege that the government sells. The requirements for obtaining same are payment of money plus a minimal demonstration of familiarity with a few laws.

The thing that leads to difficulty is failure of intelligence, personal moral standards and judgment. No license ever conveyed those things to anyone and never will.

Each of us is responsible for our own safety and that of those in our care. This is, after all, the essence of what we learn at sea. The notion that a government license relieves us of any part of that responsibility is quite false.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I am sure you are familiar with the trite old saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". To some degree, I think it is an excuse. Some people make mistakes with regard to who should stop or adjust when two cars, boats, bicycles or whatever are on a collision course because they were never exposed to the rules. The piece of paper is important because it makes sure everyone is at least exposed. No, it doesn't address the jerks who ignore laws/regulations they know about, but it does help. It seems like one of the arguments against a license is that since there is no perfect solution, then we shouldn't implement any solution at all. If 1000 people are dying needlessly on the waterway and we can only save 600 with a solution (58.3% of statistics are made up on the spot  )then it obviously isn't good enough so lets not do it...


----------



## Goodnewsboy (Nov 4, 2006)

Hi ARB:

You neglected to supply the source of your statistics.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Arbarnhart,

NO!
The difference between rights and privileges is not one of semantics. Our rights are held to be God-given. You're born with them. Privileges are dispensed by some other higher, more temporal, power. The government. Once you lose the ability to differentiate between the two enslavement is the ultimate end.

Yes, I would remove the requirement for a driver's license. It is demonstrably of no value. Driver's Education is even worse. The average Nebraska farm boy of age 14 is a much better driver already than his driver's ed elders. The license testing serves one purpose, "you're a little weak on those basic skills, here's the license, try to practise", and that's to get people on the road. If they screw up, we take away their license. I say end the charade, issue no licenses, and let common courtesy and the civil law take care of the matter.

Do you stop for pedestrians? Would you stop for them, were there no law? Of course you would. So let's dispense with the law. Societal pressure is doing the job better, anyway.

Education is the key i believe I said. Now you want testing. You're right back to the government controlling how you will be allowed to live. I educated my daughtet in how to walk. Did a damn fine job of it too, I might add. Noone from the government has certified her in walking, or for that matter, even knows she can walk. This is rather scary as my daughter could walk just about anyplace she took her mind to. How did my daughter, and scores of other kids, become so damn proficient at something without the government regulating it or even monitoring it? You either have faith in education and societal mores or you don't. No amount of testing is going to make up for a lack of faith in this area. And, guess what, the government isn't going to keep you safe either.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Arbarnhart,

NO!
Collisions are caused by two people who are sure they know the rules. Those people in doubt as to the rules navigate with caution, kind of like entering an intersection where the traffic light is out. You do so cautiously.

Have you considered the possibility that we are already operating as safely as we possibly can on the water? That rather than save your 58%, we may in fact lose more? You take it as a given that such laws actually work to achieve their intended purpose. btw, accidents actually go up at intersections where a traffic control signal is installed. Human nature is such that, when we see the light changing to red, we run it. When we see no light at an intersection, we slow down and navigate with caution, for fear of what the other guy might do.

What is amazing about the rules is that they are intuitive, we need very little in the way of teaching. At the intersection we operate in a polite and gracious manner, "after you, sir." and that's the behavior the rule emulates.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

YEAR  FATALITIES PER 100,000
REGISTERED BOATS
FATALITIES NUMBER OFREGISTERED BOATS
........... 1991 ............................. 924 .................. 11,068,440 ............................. 8.3
........... 1992 ............................. 816 .................. 11,132,386 ............................. 7.3
........... 1993 ............................. 800 .................. 11,282,736 ............................. 7.1
........... 1994 ............................. 784 .................. 11,429,585 ............................. 6.9
........... 1995 ............................. 829 .................. 11,734,710 ............................. 7.1
........... 1996 ............................. 709 .................. 11,877,938 ............................. 5.9
........... 1997 ............................. 821 ..................12,312,982 ............................. 6.7
........... 1998 ............................. 815 ..................12,565,930 ............................. 6.5
........... 1999 ............................. 734 ..................12,738,271 ............................. 5.8
........... 2000 ............................. 701 ..................12,782,143 ............................. 5.5
........... 2001 ............................. 681 ..................12,876,346 ............................. 5.3
........... 2002 ............................. 750 ..................12,854,054 ............................. 5.8
........... 2003 ............................. 703 .................. 12,794,616 ............................ 5.5
........... 2004 ............................. 676 .................. 12,781,476 ............................ 5.3
2004 data:
LENGTH DROWNINGS OTHER DEATHS* TOTAL
Less than 16 feet 193 62 255
16 feet toless than 26 feet 186 93 279
26 feet to less than 40 feet 8 14 22
40 feet to 65 feet 2 3 5
More than 65 feet 1 0 1
Unknown 94 20 114
Total 484 192 676
*****************
Sorry about the formatting but I thought some USCG statistics might be worth noting. As you can see...without testing and licensing the number of fatalities per 100000 boats and the raw number of fatalities continue to show declines. Furthermore...the chief culprits seem to be small motor boats and PWCs rather than larger vessels and the CG in the report this was taken from notes the dangers of overloading small boats, not wearing pfd's in small boats and alchohol. 
Full report is at:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2004.pdf








There were only 9 deaths on auxillary sailboats...and 7 on unpowered sailboats. Do we really need the government to burden all of us because of the actions of the few?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Thanks for the data, Cam. Makes discussion much more meaningful.


----------



## somers12 (Nov 8, 2007)

In Canada, anyone operating a boat with a motor must be licenced with a Canadian Boat Operator's Card. The course covers collision regulations, rules of the road, lights and shapes, all types of buoys, beacons and signs, safety equipment, speed restrictions Charts and topographical maps, and compass. It's a fairly comprehensive course. Boats don't have to be registered unless they have a 10 hp motor or greater. That's why I have a Nissan 9.9 on my Chrysler 22.

Steve


----------



## k1vsk (Jul 16, 2001)

Statistics can be misleading depending on how one interprets them - for ex., are there data which show the relative proportion for the various sized boats registered? Without it, I am not certain one can draw any conclusion not knowing whether small boats exceeed large ones which one might intuitively think. 

I'm sure someone has already said licensing isn't a constraint against stupidity, ignorance and neglect, the three primary causes of accidents.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

The only value (if you can call it that) of licensing is that it can be _taken away_ for gross negligence; it won't _prevent_ bad things from happening.

I am personally against it on principal; yet when is the last time _I_ was asked make the rules.........


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

BTW, drunk drivers have clearly shown that taking away a driver's license does little, if anything, to prevent them from repeating their offense. I don't see how this would be any different with boaters, especially given the far lower number of law enforcement officers present on the water. Licensing boating doesn't really make any sense.... except from a government income perspective. Educating boaters would make far more sense than licensing them.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

Hear Hear! The problem is, how to educate them. Or more precisely, how to make sure they are educated. Then that leads to licensing/mandating ... yada yada yada.

In a perfect world, people would follow a natural progression of education in whatever endeavors they sought. That would begin with learning skills the hard/manual way first, then learning how the labor saving devices can contribute.

Like with music, learn acoustic guitar first, because it;s harder and forces the fundamentals; then learn electric for the versitility, etc. (VERY gross generalization, no flames please)

Woodworking: learn to make a proper dove tail by hand, learn how a plane feels in the palm, etc. THEN learn how to use a router, etc.

Boating: learn to sail, learn to row, learn to read what a boat is doing, and what the sea is doing. THEN learn how to operate a powerboat.

The main problem is that technology is shortcircuiting the learning process. We can run, (hell, FLY) long before we learn to crawl..... placing POWER into the hands of the uneducated.

Sorry I have to go now and give my 5 yr old grandson my chainsaw......


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Ajari and Dog pretty well sum up the limits of licensing. If your primary goal is punishment then licensing is essential. If your primary goal is marine safety it's a difficult stretch to see how licensing does anything to get you there in a meaningfull way. Teach the young.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Actually, while I agree with Sailaway... for once...  I wouldn't think that licensing is all that effective means of punishment. Look at drunk drivers... many are arrested after driving without their license, because it was revoked for a previous offense. The revocation of the license did little, if anything, in the way of a punishment... except to cause them to get a more serious sentence in the second case, by adding more charges to their case.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

You can't legislate good sense, sad but true.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

And there's very little you can do about rude and stupid either...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

sailingdog said:


> BTW, drunk drivers have clearly shown that taking away a driver's license does little, if anything, to prevent them from repeating their offense. I don't see how this would be any different with boaters, especially given the far lower number of law enforcement officers present on the water. Licensing boating doesn't really make any sense.... except from a government income perspective. Educating boaters would make far more sense than licensing them.


Drunk drivers and dumbass boaters are two entirely different things.
Licensing boaters helps with accountability when they F*** Up.
And if done properly, may be able to slightly educate them prior to f***ing up.
Drunk drivers have a desease that is not addressed when revocating there license, so the problem continues license or not...


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree with the _intentions_; but we know which road they pave....

I think we probably have to agree to disagree; because neither stand is likely to be proved definitively.....

It's the "properly" part that I find dubious


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Not really all that different, and in many cases, the dumbass boaters are drunken boaters. You can't fix human behaviour via legislation, whether it is drunk driving or stupid boating... just licensing it really won't make a damn difference. Stupidity is not really correctable in many cases... and like the alcoholism that is the problem with drunk drivers, it isn't fixed when you revoke their boating license. 



USCGRET1990 said:


> Drunk drivers and dumbass boaters are two entirely different things.
> Licensing boaters helps with accountability when they F*** Up.
> And if done properly, may be able to slightly educate them prior to f***ing up.
> Drunk drivers have a desease that is not addressed when revocating there license, so the problem continues license or not...


----------



## merttan (Oct 14, 2007)

*Yessss, Please!!!!*

Thus, they may be able to eliminate some of the idiots off the waters...

For Christ sake, I've got my boating license in a day... So did my drivers' license... It always made me think... This little piece of plastic says that I can drive a 2 ton car... The other plastic says I can operate any vessel under 65ft... I've witnessed so many Darwin award winners on traffic and boating, it's not even funny anymore!

So I say make it a legal requirement to obtain a serious education before letting anyone operate any vessel! After all, your life may be at stake one day...


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

Merttan, I don't think anyone would disagree with you that there needs to be a lot more education. I think the disagreement lies in the idea that requiring a license will make the education stick......

If you're talking the maritime equivalent of "drivers-ed", I think very little impact (no pun intended) would be made. If you are talking about requiring something more involved; I think it's getting way too elitist.

As a "stick" a license might work at keeping the casual idiot under control; but the hard core ones will always be dangerous.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

..I know...like Ron White says..."ya can't fix stupid" but many boaters are not stupid, just weren't forced to learn...


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

Maybe the problem we're having in this conversation is that we're lumping the "un-educated" with the @$$ H0!&$

One is fixable, one aint


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

...it would be nice to send all this disapproval of our gov't agency's to the DC folks..don't reccon they comprehend our anamosity towards them...


----------



## k1vsk (Jul 16, 2001)

Not sure if we should separate stupid and uneducated or uninformed. Anyone who does not bother to learn how to operate their boat safely, regardless of size, in both. No license can cure that.


----------



## BlowinSouth (Nov 10, 2007)

I have to chime in here. Yes, I think licensing (sp?) is a good idea. The average sailor is far more knowledable about seamanship, rules of the road, safety etc... than is the average power boater. 

Sailing requires some 'learning/instruction' to operate a sailboat. Most power boaters feel that since they know how to drive a car they know how to 'drive' a boat.

I sold Searay power boats for a couple years and can't tell you how many guys came in, bought a boat and headed out on the water without ANY previous boating experience. Of course we recommended that they take a safe boatiing course and even included info on where and how to take the course and gave them lots of safe boating handbooks but the vast majority never did anything.

One guy bought a 34' Sundancer as his first boat, about a $250,000 boat and the very first weekend he had it on the river (Columbia River) holed the hull and ripped one shaft out and damaged both rudders when he went between a dolphin and the shore.

First thing they tell you in a safe boating class, NEVER go between a dolphin and the shore!! There is a 'fence' of submerged pilings extending from the shore to the dolphin to divert current and prevent sandbars from forming.

DUH!!!

He would have known this if he bothered to take a boating course or EVEN READ the material we provided to him. He is the same kind of guy that roars across your bow at full speed and has no concept of the rules of the road, navigating, safety etc...

As far as the drunk driver analogy, I don't see the relevance. At least a boaters license would impart some much needed knowledge to novices who can not only damage their and other's boats but are a safety hazard to those of us who know what we're doing. 

I say YES!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

BlowinSouth said:


> I have to chime in here. Yes, I think licensing (sp?) is a good idea. The average sailor is far more knowledable about seamanship, rules of the road, safety etc... than is the average power boater.
> 
> Sailing requires some 'learning/instruction' to operate a sailboat. Most power boaters feel that since they know how to drive a car they know how to 'drive' a boat.
> 
> ...


...smart dude...I concur...profusely....


----------



## BlowinSouth (Nov 10, 2007)

It's not just power boaters. A friend of mine bought a Tayana 37 as his first boat. he didn't know how to sail (he figured he learn later) but would go out and motor around and went between the same dolphin and the shore with similar results. 

The boat got wedged on the pilings. Several of us tried pulling him off but couldn't budge him. He had to get pulled off from a large tug.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Seanconnet You do realise that according to the rules no vessel has right of way. there are only stand on and give way vessels and if the other vessel fails to give way then you must take action as necessary to avoid a collision.

On another note there is no give way vessel in fog


----------



## LarryandSusanMacDonald (Apr 3, 2005)

*YES!
License the rascals.*


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Yeah...and leave the rest of us alone!


----------



## buckeyesailor (Mar 9, 2008)

Answer:

Outlaw Stupidity!.......make it a capital offense......and enforce it.....That'll take care of idiot boaters, bikers, and all the rest.......
Then we can go out for a drive or sail in complete confidence that we'll return safely.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> Outlaw Stupidity!.......make it a capital offense......and enforce it.....That'll take care of idiot boaters, bikers, and all the rest.......


Geez...outlaw stupidity ?... that would take care of the entire Southern US !


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

Sailormann said:


> Geez...outlaw stupidity ?... that would take care of the entire Southern US !


And every registered Democrat and Republican. Only the Independents would remain. We might not be any smarter, but there would be less folks on the water to get in my way.


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

Testing and licensing is a good idea.


----------



## southernsmoke (Mar 11, 2008)

sailaway21 said:


> Well.
> 
> I am amazed that a bunch of sailors, who love the inherent freedom of the sea and the wind, would fall for such a load of poppycock.


Agree 100%


----------



## mkmckn (Feb 15, 2007)

I was just trying to think of a good way to spend some more money to go sailing.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

buckeyesailor said:


> Answer:
> 
> Outlaw Stupidity!.......make it a capital offense......and enforce it.....That'll take care of idiot boaters, bikers, and all the rest.......
> Then we can go out for a drive or sail in complete confidence that we'll return safely.


Sorry they have already polluted the Gene pool and won't go into the deep end of it.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

USCGRET1990 said:


> After 20 years, I have sooo many cases in point, it's unreal. One big one that comes to mind: A young fellow was "blue water" sailing with his family. They had some sort of problem (I ferget what) and their 50' s/v sank. We found his (dead) five young children floating. They had on square life cushions (throwables) backwards, hence floating face down. Putting their little lifeless bodies onboard brings tears to my eyes still, 37 years later.


While a tragedy is would this not have happened regardless? This is the issue with licensing... it teaches people to know how to answer questions - but I can assure doesn't change how people boat / sail. I fall in the safer than necessary category (ask Charlie)... but even motorcyclists, car people, and other 'licensed' people...do what they have to..to get it (the paper) - doesn't mean they practice it...

And its not exactly like the waterways are a like the freeways either... In my opinion - these kind of regulations to own - are merely drawn because of alot of our laws - someone gets passionate that they were wronged... and sorry - on the sea, in the water (and frankly anywhere else in life) - common sense is not something that can be licensed... as sad as that may be...


----------



## rkfitz (Nov 6, 2007)

Conn. requires a boating license, but any orangutan can take the course and pass the test. It may be politically impossible to require more rigorous training and testing. There are a lot of dangerous boaters plying the Mystic River, but training has less to do with it than a selfish disregard for others. As an example, how many sailors give an audible signal to announce their intention to pass another vessel in a channel? Last season I saw only one captain do that, and he was a commercial fisher. Yet that is taught in our licensing course, and is in the free Ct. boating guide available at all marine supply stores. That being said, there have been occasions when I have not yielded to a starboard tack sailboat in a timely manner, so perhaps there is a lot to be said about being lost in the moment at the wrong moment.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Probably a good idea


----------



## jbstack82 (Sep 18, 2002)

I am thinking yes. May weed out some of the Idiots out there. But perhaps not.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

rkfitz said:


> Conn. requires a boating license, but any orangutan can take the course and pass the test. It may be politically impossible to require more rigorous training and testing. There are a lot of dangerous boaters plying the Mystic River, but training has less to do with it than a selfish disregard for others. As an example, how many sailors give an audible signal to announce their intention to pass another vessel in a channel? Last season I saw only one captain do that, and he was a commercial fisher. Yet that is taught in our licensing course, and is in the free Ct. boating guide available at all marine supply stores. That being said, there have been occasions when I have not yielded to a starboard tack sailboat in a timely manner, so perhaps there is a lot to be said about being lost in the moment at the wrong moment.


Technically, Rule 34 requires maneuvering signals (as opposed to danger or fog signals) when both vessels are power-driven. It's nevertheless a good idea under sail, problem as (as you noted above) less than 10 percent of the boats you encounter will know what they mean, or why you're doing it. Nor will they be on the radio to answer you if you are trying to figure out what they're doing, or want to do. I think ultimately the best signal is a large course alteration (see Rule 8), but sometimes in a narrow channel you just can't safely do it. But then Rule 9 assumes you'll meed red-to-red. The real problem is at channel intersections when intentions are unclear and not everyone's paying attention, nor knows the rules. And is that sailboat under power or not? No one know the proper day signal, and many don't show the proper lights at night to indicate which it is.

I still don't favor mandatory licensing, even though it might make my life easier when I'm underway.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

"Peer pressure and appropriately given free education by existing boaters will eclipse anything the state does."

This I agree with. The sport of hang-gliding has had a policy of self regulation for years. It works. If people who love the activity and care about the public perception will take the time to patiently and courteously correct and advise offenders, a lot more progress will be made toward educating people. If as often happens, someone rejects the advice and continues on a path of destruction, a friendly call on the radio can at least alert others to the danger afloat.


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

The moment that you open the door to licensing, you can look forward to the cost of it rising steadily, then the frequency, then powers to fine, then to sieze the boat if the paperwork is not in order.

You want that?

Go ahead, with eyes open.


----------



## RickQuann (May 27, 2005)

Should boaters be required to obtain a licensed? absolutely, positively not. The government regulates practically everything we do today and requiring licensing will only generate additional fees, which is just another form of taxation.


----------



## RhosynMor (Apr 23, 2008)

I agree there are some real idiots out there; but has driver licensing eradicated accidents on the road? there are still a lot of idiots driving.
Sailing is one of the last bastions of freedom. Are we going to require that foreign flagged vessels have licenses? I cannot but see that any national license for boaters would have to so banal as to be useless, in which case it becomes just another means of taxation. How would you deal with Liveaboards, or cruisers such as myself who have no fixed address and are out of the USA a lot of the time. suppose that even if I have over 25,000 logged offshore miles I fail a licensing exam, what then?


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

I think that this proposed licensing issue is about assigning responsibility.

I'm a licensed contractor in construction, and to comply with the rules of the game, I have to be licensed for the protection of the public. I had to take a test (part mechanical, part legal), but I did not have to actually demonstrate my abilities in my particular trade. If I screw up a job, or misrepresent what I can do, I can be liable to the person that hired me...and that offers protection and legal recourse to the public. If the public hires an unlicensed contractor, then they have no protection or legal recourse...except maybe through small claims court. While the playing field seems unfair to licensed contractors that they can be held responsible, and unlicensed contractors will probably not be held responsible, the purpose of the whole licensing issue is about achieving responsibility for the public.

When I first starting sailing I didn't know anything about the rules of the road, but as I got older I took the time to take several courses to learn about the rules of the road...and the legal responsibilities that all boaters have. Now that doesn't mean that I won't make a mistake that might cause harm or damage to others, but chances are I'll be more cognizant of my responsibilities, than others that have not taken the time to learn the rules of the road. I don't consider learning the rules of the road an intrusion by Big Brother to regulate my boating fun or freedom, but my responsibility to help protect other boaters from harm or damage.

If this proposed licensing issue is passed, Yes, there will be a cost. Yes, another layer of government, and Yes, there will be personal responsibility for the actions of all boaters...which is a good thing.

That's just my opinion.


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

No one has answered me how this will be enforced? Arrest?, siezure of vessel?, banning of rogue users?, dockside police?, sea patrols?, who is at the helm?, foreign flags?

How much will it cost? When you come to the UK, are you going to need a different licence because clause 4 of the written test is phrased differently?

They have this idea in Singapore. I wanted to sail, I wasn't there long, and I was going to have to sit a two day test.

I did not not sail. I stayed safe and very legal. I was so grateful to Big Brother for intruding so that I did not take the risk without that wee two day ticket, 10000 miles from home. I won't ever sail there either.


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

Rockter said:


> No one has answered me how this will be enforced? Arrest?, siezure of vessel?, banning of rogue users?, dockside police?, sea patrols?, who is at the helm?, foreign flags?
> 
> How much will it cost? When you come to the UK, are you going to need a different licence because clause 4 of the written test is phrased differently?
> 
> ...


I don't know the details as it still in the proposing phase, and not everywhere is interested in doing the licensing bit, but I'm sure what information that is available can be found online...infact I think I'm going to check that out and see what I can find.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

So you are a Muslim extremist terrorist?


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

We already have government control over many aspects of sailing. The Colregs are federal statutes, enforceable by fines. So are the oil spill/dumping laws. If you're on the commercial side of sailing/shipping, you're licensed already and answerable to both federal and state authorities.

But I grew up sailing without a license (at first), and no "mandatory boater education" (I'm old enough to think a "boater" is a straw hat), and part of me chafes at the idea that this is going to be one more area where everyone has to get permission from a new(?) bureaucracy to go out on the water in anything bigger than a rowboat.

I'd prefer education of sailors to remain private. I'm not pushing ASA or USSA (though I do teach sailing sometimes) necessarily, but the more we let private institutions and private persons provide education (kind of like scuba, which is mostly privately controlled) the more we avoid yet another klunky government regulatory scheme.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

If licensing would keep idiots out of the water, I would be all for it. But what has it done for driving? I have a hunch that driving is the number one killer in America! In the original post it was stated that this was not the first time his partner ran hard aground. If that doesn't teach a lesson, what makes anyone think license classes will? To my way of thinking we have way too much government intervention in our lives, and not enough "natural selection." Pray the fools will kill only each other!


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

camaraderie said:


> So you are a Muslim extremist terrorist?


Hahahahaha...


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Last summer, a big expensive sailboat came up Loch Ness, right at me, under power. I was trying to sail in the very light winds. It took me a while to realise that there was no-one on watch. Yes folks, £250,000 worth of ship, motoring right at me, and no-one on watch. 

I sounded the obligatory 5 short blasts, again and again on the klaxon. Then went the cry, "lift pump on, motor start", engine start, ahead full. At about 50 yards the bozo and wife stick their heads above decks and change course.

His ship was festooned with insignia and the flag of a fancy, expensive yacht club... you know, one of those blue ensigns you see in the UK that means that your Martini must be at 3 degC or you won't drink it. 

He would have had licences a-plenty, and all those wee fancy stamps in his log book that say he was very good at sailing. 

I yelled at the reckless bastard and his stuck-on on sunburned tart.

In the future, he can look forward to a nice new licence.

After all, "if it saves one life, it's worth it", isn't it?


----------



## nonsailor (Oct 8, 2007)

The money wasted on a useless piece of paper (licence), would be better spent on mandatory safety, navigation and curtesy courses.


----------



## sailhagg (Feb 19, 2007)

Can I add to the license fire? Y'all up on the new EPA permit all US vessels, including us little recreational boaters need, come 9-30-08? Seems if you've a bilge, water cooled engine or wash down the deck, etc. you'll need this 'discharge permit'. I've been ranting on my blog about it. It kinda looks like you'll need one for each state. Any size boat. So I'm afriad we maybe looking at 4 permits just for our sailboat (one for sailboat and one for dingy) and then both Oregon and Washington...tack, tack tack, up and down the river.....

Anyone up on this?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Hagg...yeah, we've had threads on it and Congress has a recreational exemption bill it is considering. BoatUS has a drive going to get the law passed.


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

Licensing or Mandatory Education. Like USCGRET I am retired CG and spent 25 of my 34 years in Boating Safety. I disagree with USCGRET though that licensing would solve the problem. I think it would become a bureaucratic nightmare and accomplish nothing. I am all for mandatory education. Anything that increases the knowledge of the horde of clueless boat owners that endanger the lives of the rest of us will help to reduce the number of accidents. While we all know that the number of fatalities has dropped dramatically over the last 30 years since passage of the Boating Safety Act of 1971, The number of accidents is still way too many. Anyway sorry for the rant.

The point here is, a bill has been introduced into Congress to require the USCG to develop minimum standards for boater education. Here is the post from my blog New Boat Builders Home Page - Boating Safety Blog on this. Actually this has been done. USCG and the States (NASBLA) have been doing this for a long time and a standard exists. Whether or not it is good enough is open to debate. I took the Washington State test cold and passed it. But then I guess I cheated by working in Boating Safety for so long. See below.

More on boater educationThe Star-Ledger - NJ.com - Newark,NJ,USASteve Israel and Lieneck family, will require Coast Guard to outline plan for implementing minimum boating proficiency standards Washington, ...

"Washington, DC-- U.S. Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) announced today (April 24) that legislation named for an eleven year-old Long Island girl who lost her life in a 2005 boating collision in the Great South Bay, will be considered on the House floor as part of the Coast Guard Authorization for Fiscal Year 2008.
"Brianna's Law," boating safety legislation Israel developed alongside family members of Brianna Lieneck, will require the Coast Guard to develop a plan to implement minimum education standards for recreational boat operators"

Rep Steve Isreal: News Release: http://israel.house.gov/?sectionid=12&sectiontree=5,12&itemid=515

http://israel.house.gov/?sectionid=12&sectiontree=5,12&itemid=336

Well, It has finally happened. Whether or not it will pass both houses and be signed by the President is a whole different issue, but I knew this would happen sooner or later. The US Coast Guard and the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA http://www.nasbla.org/ ) have been working together for years to establish minimum standards for mandatory boater education and many states have implemented such requirements. Many of the states now require boaters to pass a test and carry a card or certificate attesting to having completed the minimum requirements. This is just another step in the right direction, boater education. Not licensing. Licensing achieves very little. Mandatory education at least requires that every boat operator learn the rules of the road, basic navigation rules, lights and shapes, and some basic operator information. I will keep an eye on how this bill is doing and who is or isn't supporting it. I will pass that info on to you.

See NASBLA Minimum Education Standards http://www.nasbla.org/education_standards.php

NASBLA Model Act For Mandatory Boating Safety Education http://www.nasbla.org/pdf/Model%20Acts/new/Mandatory%20Education%2092105.pdf

Peter Eikenberry
http://newboatbuilders.blogspot.com/


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Peter...what is the difference between mandatory education and a license?
Seems to me that you are forced to get educated to get a piece of paper that says you are OK to operate a boat in each case. Or do you envision licenses being issued simply on request and payment of a fee? 
Licenses and mandatory education to NOTHING in terms of boating safety according to the stats. It is just another hoop to jump through and another piece of regulation of our lives that we cede to the government. 

You want fewer deaths and accidents in boats? Pay for more enforcement of the laws that are in place. If a boater doesn't educate him/herself on the law...tough...the fine or jail time will do that just fine. Put more water cops out there to arrest the drunks and the high speed wake damage guys and watch the accident rate drop.
What cuts down on speeding or drunk driving in cars...your license test...or your radar beeper going off or random stops?


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

camaraderie said:


> Peter...what is the difference between mandatory education and a license?
> Seems to me that you are forced to get educated to get a piece of paper that says you are OK to operate a boat in each case. Or do you envision licenses being issued simply on request and payment of a fee?
> Licenses and mandatory education to NOTHING in terms of boating safety according to the stats. It is just another hoop to jump through and another piece of regulation of our lives that we cede to the government.
> 
> ...


I agree that it's not the licence test that cuts down on speeding or recklessness, and I agree with more water cops out on the water. It might just be timing on my part, but I hardly ever notice a water cop out crusing when I see someone speeding (almost like a land cop)...where is a cop when you need one!

I have a question though...What happens now to a boater that is cited for breaking a law on the water? Other than paying a fine are their boating privileges ever taken away?...like when a car driver has their license taken away.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

* I have a question though...What happens now to a boater that is cited for breaking a law on the water? Other than paying a fine are their boating privileges ever taken away?...like when a car driver has their license taken away.

*Good question. I would suggest that all you have to do is create a banned boater database...with violation of the ban resulting in really big fines or jail. We see that taking away a license does nothing to stop drunks from driving...it is the sanctions that work....or the fear of them being imposed.
So...you don't need a licensing system to keep bad boaters off the water.


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

camaraderie said:


> * I have a question though...What happens now to a boater that is cited for breaking a law on the water? Other than paying a fine are their boating privileges ever taken away?...like when a car driver has their license taken away.
> 
> *Good question. I would suggest that all you have to do is create a banned boater database...with violation of the ban resulting in really big fines or jail. We see that taking away a license does nothing to stop drunks from driving...it is the sanctions that work....or the fear of them being imposed.
> So...you don't need a licensing system to keep bad boaters off the water.


I know that a license doesn't stop illegals or people with suspended licenses from driving cars out here.


----------



## Joesaila (May 19, 2007)

Lets see, there are 1/100 now in prison in the US....we'll need prison ships, now thats progress, someone remarked "thats the price of freedom"?. No...don't give 'them' any more authority to misuse. Power to tax is the power to kill...license fees are a tax. No we sail to get away from that.... you pick the word.


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

As I see it the difference between licensing and mandatory education is this.

Licensing is usually done by the individual states or the Federal Government. It involves hiring people to administer the system, that is, creating a huge bureaucracy in each state, ( I am a former bureaucrat, I know one when I see one) and taxing the public to pay for it, much like what we go through with driver licensing now. If testing were included that would involve even more expense requiring trained examiners and places to perform the tests. The list of expense goes on and on (we have discussed this ad nauseum in Boating Safety for years). And the Department of Homeland Security would dearly love to require that every boater have a valid government issued ID to prove that they have a legitimate right to be out enjoying their boat on public waters. Chertoff went so far as to get the Commandant to float this turkey even though the USCG policy has been NO LICENSING for over forty years!

Anyway manadatory education does not involve all of that. Most of the course are given by volunteers of the CG Auxiliary, Power Squadron, Red Cross and others. Most states now have an on-line course you can take and an on-line test you can take. You can have a certificate from one of the courses or from the state. Any cost is minimal covering the books and materials for Aux, USPS and RC courses and I think I paid $10 to take the on-line exam in Washington state which is administerd by an NGO. 

So you avoid the huge bureaucracy, taxes and ID cards. People get the education they need without all the hassle of dealing with some state or Federal agency. Licensing would not accomplish any more than mandatory education but it would do so at much greater expense. 

Think about this. You and I probably grew up on the water. I know that when I was a kid in the 50's and 60's there were a few million boaters in this country and maybe a couple million boats (unfortunately the stats only go back to the late sixties) In 2001 there were over 75 million people boating every year and close to 20 million boats. Today it is estimated to be 100 million boaters, and that is only the USA. There are millions more around the world. Our boating industry in the US sells 500,000 to 600,000 boats annually. That's a lot of boats getting on the water every year.

Today it is easier to go buy a boat that it was back then, Any damned fool can go buy anything from a dinghy to a Mega Yacht without being required to know anything. Whatever they can afford!. Back then a fast boat was maybe 30 or 35. In the early 60's I had a good friend who had a boat that would do fifty and it was one of the fastest boats in Seattle. Today you can go buy, turnkey, a boat that will do 130 mph. And no one says you have to know how to operate it??? Even PWCs will do 60-65 and who uses them? kids!

So even the minimum education probably isn't enough but it's better than the nothing we have now. If I could show you a list of some of the truly stupid questions I have been asked by people who own boats but have zero boating knowledge it pales in comparison to some of the stupid things you see done on the water.


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

Okay, let's say that everyone went through voluntary boater education, and we do not issue a license or increase taxes. How would we clear the field of the bad boaters? How would we fine or punish them? Do we make it mandatory to show proof of boater education before a boat sale? How do we regulate and manage this before the government steps in?


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Wonder how I would do on one of those Boater's education exams? Taking it cold??
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Then show them my USCG License and reveal the small fact that I am an instructor for the USCG 100/200 Mates/Masters license


----------



## nonsailor (Oct 8, 2007)

JiffyLube said:


> Okay, let's say that everyone went through voluntary boater education, and we do not issue a license or increase taxes. How would we clear the field of the bad boaters? How would we fine or punish them? Do we make it mandatory to show proof of boater education before a boat sale? How do we regulate and manage this before the government steps in?


Here in the UK, the police have been given the power to sieze and CRUSH cars that are untaxed, uninsured, unsafe or the driver unlicensed, how long before that brilliant idea is extended to any infraction?.
I think that is too extreme, but if your coastguard catches these irresponsible boaters they could seize their boats. It would solve the problem of boaters continueing to use their boats after their licence has been revoked.

BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

Boasun said:


> Wonder how I would do on one of those Boater's education exams? Taking it cold??
> .
> .
> .
> ...


I think you're safe Boasun...lol


----------



## peikenberry (Apr 26, 2000)

It's called enforcement. Every state already has laws on the books for enforcement of rules of the road, drunk boating, negligent operation and so on. Look the National Assoc of Boating Law Admistrators Site NASBLA - The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators click on the directory, select a state it gives you a link to every states boat law admin site, which gives you the boating laws in each state. They are all mostly the same, equipment requirements, operation, navigation etc. What we need is enforcement. Part of each states funding for boating comes from taxes paid on marine fuel. That goes into a special fund which is divided up between the states. The states are supposed to match the amount they get from the feds. But many states are very lax on enforcement. They spend it on other things like boat ramps. You can count the tough ones on your fingers, FL, CA, NY, MI, OR and a few others. Those are also the states with the most boats. Anyway the structure exists. The courts can order a person off the water, or order them to retake a boating course just like with cars. Or if it's DUI they can thow them in the clink. I have noticed an upward trend in recent years of prosecuting operators who are involved in accidents where there is a fatality.

And of course on waters with Federal Jurisdiction the Coast Guard has enforcement authority as well as the state.


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

peikenberry said:


> It's called enforcement. Every state already has laws on the books for enforcement of rules of the road, drunk boating, negligent operation and so on. Look the National Assoc of Boating Law Admistrators Site NASBLA - The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators click on the directory, select a state it gives you a link to every states boat law admin site, which gives you the boating laws in each state. They are all mostly the same, equipment requirements, operation, navigation etc. What we need is enforcement. Part of each states funding for boating comes from taxes paid on marine fuel. That goes into a special fund which is divided up between the states. The states are supposed to match the amount they get from the feds. But many states are very lax on enforcement. They spend it on other things like boat ramps. You can count the tough ones on your fingers, FL, CA, NY, MI, OR and a few others. Those are also the states with the most boats. Anyway the structure exists. The courts can order a person off the water, or order them to retake a boating course just like with cars. Or if it's DUI they can thow them in the clink. I have noticed an upward trend in recent years of prosecuting operators who are involved in accidents where there is a fatality.
> 
> And of course on waters with Federal Jurisdiction the Coast Guard has enforcement authority as well as the state.


I think your right about enforcement peikenberry.


----------



## MIKEMCKEE (Oct 13, 2001)

*Sounds Good to me*

If, by some chance the proposed licensed boat owner learns something from taking the classes, I say it's a good idea. We've all been out there or along side the pier and someone who think's he's got to go full bore with his boat, who just doesn't give a rat's ass what the damage or who they could hurt. I myself have retired from 20yr's in the Naval service and my wife and I are going to take the Coast Guard Boating Safety Course (ABC). Upon looking at the course guide I saw a few items that I didn't quite have the full pictrue on.

Take Care,
Mike & Glinda
s/v Blue Bayou


----------



## JiffyLube (Jan 25, 2008)

MIKEMCKEE said:


> If, by some chance the proposed licensed boat owner learns something from taking the classes, I say it's a good idea. We've all been out there or along side the pier and someone who think's he's got to go full bore with his boat, who just doesn't give a rat's ass what the damage or who they could hurt. I myself have retired from 20yr's in the Naval service and my wife and I are going to take the Coast Guard Boating Safety Course (ABC). Upon looking at the course guide I saw a few items that I didn't quite have the full pictrue on.
> 
> Take Care,
> Mike & Glinda
> s/v Blue Bayou


I learned to sail a long time ago, but then had a very long absence from the boating scene. When I finally got to the point where I dearly wanted to get back into boating again, I decided this time around I was going to learn as much as I could. My wife and I have been taking classes through our local USPS for several years, and I have personally benefited greatly from this education.


----------

