Guest Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Found this in the Latest Coastal Passage The officer then went on to say that because we had a property on the Coast we were not permitted to stay on board overnight at all; that the 10 days allowance to anchor and live on board in the river was for “genuine travellers” only. I exclaimed that we were genuine travellers and the boat was our home. Apparently this was not acceptable. He stated that if my 'story' proved to be true then an exemption might be in order. SO if you have a house you are not allowed to sleep aboard your boat?? Link to post Share on other sites
Atom Ant 0 Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Don't forget his heritage DT. The customs officer is clearly Australian. This means genetically he is a criminal and he thinks everyone else is too. Therefore he would automatically think the cruiser is lieing! If his forebears weren't criminals they'd have ended up in NZ and he would have a genetic heritage of hard work and honesty understood that their "story" is entirely credible!! (Ducks for cover...) Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Even allowing for the dodgy backgrounds of all Australians - the article says it is a set up between the waterfront property owners and the authorities. Rich land owners don't like seeing people on boats anchored where they can be seen. Same thing happening in Florida resulting in lots of silly anti anchoring laws. Link to post Share on other sites
Atom Ant 0 Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Yeah, that's the rich not wanting the "poor" looking at them. Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Pope 243 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I have anchored at great mercury up the creek by the fay / richwhites houses, I had no problems, one of the sons came and asked if we minded if he raced around on his jet ski, we said go for it, can't expect better than that, very civilised. Link to post Share on other sites
Bad Kitty 252 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I have anchored at great mercury up the creek by the fay / richwhites houses, I had no problems, one of the sons came and asked if we minded if he raced around on his jet ski, we said go for it, can't expect better than that, very civilised. Yes I think the owners of Great Mercury are as good as it gets with allowing us pretty unlimited access over the island. It's a beautiful place and over xmas there can be dozens of boaties traipsing around their property. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Rocket Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I have had dinner at Mercury with Michael Fay - he surprisingly has a cool attitude to the island and his tenure. He sees it as part of NZ and in a sense he is really only a caretaker. He discussed it going back to the Crown late in his life - given that he has now invested in houses etc. that may have changed. But I gotta say his attitude to boats and visitors is seriously cool - not at all what you would expect given the press he gets. All he asks is respect and like most farmers he wants people to leave things as they find them... So no rubbish, shut the gates, leave the stock alone, and don't burn the place down - basically don't be a dickhead. Simple stuff really. Link to post Share on other sites
Atom Ant 0 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I've heard nothing but positive things about him. I guess the Q'land thing is different. They may not be absolutely hugely rich but still don't want to have boats messing up their view or staring in at them. Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 The crazy thing is that having a sea vista with a boat in it is a desirable thing. Advertisers use the odd yacht under sail or at anchor in a picturesque embayment as an image of paradise. Boats at anchor add to the attraction, not detract from it, surely. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 This was the editorial comment after that letter TCP has had a rash of reports about the enforcement in Mooloolaba lately. The story above is one of the more benign. The following is not legal advise. It is information based on observation and practise that has been effective in defeating aggressive policing. The situation in Mooloolaba seems to be an alliance between a few water front property owners keen to control “their” water and enforcement keen to pander to them. It is fruitless to try to reason with any of these people and in fact it will convict you to try. Make no mistake, this is an adversarial situation, the officer is there to do you and the easy way is to let you make their case for them. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.