Jump to content

Two men found guilty of scuttling boat in marine reserve near Waiheke Island


Recommended Posts

Two men found guilty of scuttling boat in marine reserve near Waiheke Island

In July 2019, Lanssen and Subritzky approached the boat’s owner, David Randell, and offered to dispose of the vessel for $10,000 after it had broken from its moorings during a storm and run aground on rocks near Whakanewha Reserve on Waiheke Island.

The men came to an agreement Lanssen and Subritzy would salvage as much of the vessel as possible, before breaking down the masts and cabin and dropping them into the hull of the boat to be set on fire. The hull was then to be broken up and taken to landfill, where it would be buried.

However, after receiving full payment, the two men instead enlisted the help of a third party to tow the vessel to a site between Woodside Bay and Rocky Bay on Waiheke Island, where it was deliberately scuttled.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/two-men-found-guilty-scuttling-boat-in-marine-reserve-near-waiheke-island

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting thanks Elly.

I wonder if the problem (legally) was that they sunk it in a marine reserve, or if they sunk it without a resource consent. The story doesn't say. They were prosecuted under the RMA, but a big deal was made as to where it was sunk.

I can see more of this happening, with the aging boat fleet, and no viable way of disposing of old shitters. 

I'm curious as to the legal side, if you need to take a boat out to the 12 mile limit before scuttling it, or just sink it in deep water away from marine reserves.

There is also the more obvious elements of doing dodgy things away from prying eyes, i.e. at night, and not in close to land. Doing something like that, where they did it, was just plain stupid. I'm interested in the environmental aspects too, if they'd cleaned the boat up and striped it out, I would have thought a nice artificial reef would be mildly beneficial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see a problem with scuttling older vessels at sea.Providing all loose gear/oil etc removed first as would make nice artificial reefs for habitats. How many ships have been sunk on purpose for marine habitat.Rainbow warrior off the cavallies.Tui off Tutukaka. A couple of others but cannot remember where,wellington I think.

Issue here is no permision to dump at sea,Most insurance write offs/poal etc dump unwanted in to landfill and due to cost gear not removed..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, harrytom said:

I do not see a problem with scuttling older vessels at sea.Providing all loose gear/oil etc removed first as would make nice artificial reefs for habitats. How many ships have been sunk on purpose for marine habitat.Rainbow warrior off the cavallies.Tui off Tutukaka. A couple of others but cannot remember where,wellington I think.

Issue here is no permision to dump at sea,Most insurance write offs/poal etc dump unwanted in to landfill and due to cost gear not removed..

 

It’s no different to dumping a car …you just can’t see it …so not a great thing to do really . Those ships were completely stripped to just steel hulls .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 44forty said:

It’s no different to dumping a car …you just can’t see it …so not a great thing to do really . Those ships were completely stripped to just steel hulls .

 

but done legally and stripped it would be of great benefit

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

inside of 12nm you would need a consent from Regional Council, outside of that is the Environmental Protection Agency. Any intentionally sunk vessel needs to be cleaned to a high standard.  

 

If the boat could fit on a travel lift to get lifted out of the water, in my opinion, it should be disposed of ashore. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the other side of the ledger. Derlict boats taking up space, posing a risk to the environment. But our environmental laws prevent efficient disposal of those boats at sea.

To haul out on a travel lift, you need 3rd party insurance, yes? If you boat is derilict, can you get insurance?

It is all well and good say coulda shoulda woulda, but there is a problem with derelict boats, and no easy way to deal with them. My view is that if the boats are cleaned of contaminants, diesel, oil etc, and striped out of removable items, then it is the least environmental damage to scuttle them in deep water (50m plus), rather than leaving them in rivers and estuaries and decay further.

At a mooring zone on a river in east Auckland, 15 to 25 boats appear neglected and their owners are nowhere to be found.

From afar, the boats seem perfectly fine floating on the river, however upon closer inspection the vessels are evidently neglected.

Some of these neglected boats, moored where the Tāmaki River meets Kings Rd in Panmure, are rusty, with ripped sails and showing signs of possible sinking.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/300317092/neglected-boats-on-auckland-river-taking-up-space-and-causing-hazard

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

can identify 3 of the boats,one a hartley tahitian,billy lives onboard,steel ketch ""sea wolf" owners Hmm lets just say they are different and the tri,he has other projects. but what to do with and who pays to dump them.A cost to the rate payer,always thought that under bylaws for moorings etc vessel had to be in a sea worthy condition.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fish said:

And here is the other side of the ledger. Derlict boats taking up space, posing a risk to the environment. But our environmental laws prevent efficient disposal of those boats at sea.

To haul out on a travel lift, you need 3rd party insurance, yes? If you boat is derilict, can you get insurance?

It is all well and good say coulda shoulda woulda, but there is a problem with derelict boats, and no easy way to deal with them. My view is that if the boats are cleaned of contaminants, diesel, oil etc, and striped out of removable items, then it is the least environmental damage to scuttle them in deep water (50m plus), rather than leaving them in rivers and estuaries and decay further.

At a mooring zone on a river in east Auckland, 15 to 25 boats appear neglected and their owners are nowhere to be found.

From afar, the boats seem perfectly fine floating on the river, however upon closer inspection the vessels are evidently neglected.

Some of these neglected boats, moored where the Tāmaki River meets Kings Rd in Panmure, are rusty, with ripped sails and showing signs of possible sinking.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/300317092/neglected-boats-on-auckland-river-taking-up-space-and-causing-hazard

This kind of article gets up my nose a bit. If they're paying to occupy the space then what's problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Black Panther said:

This kind of article gets up my nose a bit. If they're paying to occupy the space then what's problem?

they become a problem when they sink.  While I was at Panmure HS in March there was one that came close to sinking at the mooring - pumped probably a 2kl out of it after it was dragged ot the haul out.  Riddled with fanworm and really only good for a viking's final sail.  Old guy owned it, he died, apparently family not willing to sell it when it was viable, and argued about who owned it and should maintain it until it was no longer viable.

Another, carvel planked, had been hauled and waterblasted which removed all the caulking.  Relaunched, it slowly lost freeboard.  Also marginal, also pumped a significant amount of water out.

If they are not insured and the owner goes awol, ratepayers underwrite the removal.  That aside from the environmental harm.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Black Panther said:

This kind of article gets up my nose a bit. If they're paying to occupy the space then what's problem?

There is several elements to this. It is public space that is being occupied, so in my view, there is a duty of care associated with that. The other aspect, is it is very difficult to put a price on fair compensation for having excuse use of a public space. I thought the cost covers AT's admin, not the compensation of the public amenity. Much the same as the water rights argument.

Rightly or wrongly, I think the duty of care extends to keeping the boat seaworthy and well maintained. As an example, our club requires that, and actively chases up any boat owners who are letting things go. It is the best and easiest way of mitigating risk of environmental issues from a derelict hulk.

The story was a bit one eye, in that the guy wanted a mooring, and can't get one because there are these 'bed blocker' boats, just waiting to die, swinging around on them.

Linking back to the original thread, where there are 'bed blocker' boats around, I see there is a major issue in how to dispose of them. Haulout, breakdown and dumping could easily be $10k, and could get to $20k without much trouble. In most cases, it is fair to say, no one is going to pay that to deal with the issue, the issue will get ignored and kicked down the road, which will end up in perverse / bad outcomes. A good example is all the derelicts just up the river from us...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading of that article. Entitled pratt wants a mooring and can't get one. So writes a press release and lazy news outlet runs it. But in the article the harbourmaster says not dozens but two problematic vessels. The biology argument- the boat hasn't moved so anything on it was already there. Cost of removal - harbourmaster 's office has done a slack job in the past. Make the mooring holder responsible and have a photo of driver's license.  Problem solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Black Panther said:

My reading of that article. Entitled pratt wants a mooring and can't get one. So writes a press release and lazy news outlet runs it. But in the article the harbourmaster says not dozens but two problematic vessels. The biology argument- the boat hasn't moved so anything on it was already there. Cost of removal - harbourmaster 's office has done a slack job in the past. Make the mooring holder responsible and have a photo of driver's license.  Problem solved.

Require cost of removal/salvage insurance.  Driver licence doesn't mean they can pay,but if they have insurance that covers it.  No insurance, no mooring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...