Jump to content

New Hull cleaning regs for Auckland - more costs....


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Thats the problem they are attempting to control.

If that were true it would apply to commercial vessels and antifouling would have additives that worked.

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

If that were true it would apply to commercial vessels and antifouling would have additives that worked.

hey I never said they were doing well, just attempting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

seems redic, but the finger is not going to be moving around the gulf dropping its biohazards as it goes.  Thats the problem they are attempting to control.

No, the finger wont move around, but is clearly covered under the 'passive discharge' requirements. The stated need for the passive discharge rules is to prevent pests moving around. and having them right next to your boat is going to enhance their ability to move around. Be interesting to understand the Unitary Plan rules on the marine pests that the commercial (marinas) must follow. Would bankrupt certain outfits like AT if they had to go clean the fanny worm off every structure / wharf / pile they have in the harbour.

Point of order. Commercial and military have their own rules, but then the fines for breaking these are $100k individual, or $200k for corporations. I'm not sure how they can have fines for corporations when the rules don't apply to commercial? Corporations are by definition commercial aren't they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fish said:

Corporations are by definition commercial aren't they

nope.  A partnership, incorperated society, and a lot of other legal entities are corporations, but not necessarily commercial.

The Daldy Trust is an example in our sphere, as might be Spirit of Adventure Trust. 

A craft held in a partnership may be "owned" legally by a limited liablity company.  Same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

nope.  A partnership, incorperated society, and a lot of other legal entities are corporations, but not necessarily commercial.

The Daldy Trust is an example in our sphere, as might be Spirit of Adventure Trust. 

A craft held in a partnership may be "owned" legally by a limited liablity company.  Same thing.

But can I clean my boat?

Life is getting waaay too complicated.

I might go but a ute, oh, wait a minute...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clipper said:

My finger has fanworm on it.  

The finger is where the boat (sadly) spends most of its time.

What a joke

I re-read the rules. It is an offense for fouling to be so heavy as to allow 'passive discharges', unless you have a resource consent. As far as I know, all marina's have RC's, and most club pontoons / wharfs etc also have RC's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I read the rules properly, that if you comply to risk 1 (low risk, low fouling etc) that it is ok to clean in the water, in a marina?

If that is correct, then do coastal mooring zones also fall under the rules of marinas, in that you can clean in the water, on your mooring, provided you are low risk, light fouling?

They do actually say they encourage cleaning, so you don't spread the pests around. Being able to clean light fouling in the water would be logical, its just not explicitly stated in that document.

This differentiates from not being able to clean in marina - Significant Ecological Areas, like within 500m of Huaraki Gulf Islands etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fish said:

Have I read the rules properly, that if you comply to risk 1 (low risk, low fouling etc) that it is ok to clean in the water, in a marina?

If that is correct, then do coastal mooring zones also fall under the rules of marinas, in that you can clean in the water, on your mooring, provided you are low risk, light fouling?

They do actually say they encourage cleaning, so you don't spread the pests around. Being able to clean light fouling in the water would be logical, its just not explicitly stated in that document.

This differentiates from not being able to clean in marina - Significant Ecological Areas, like within 500m of Huaraki Gulf Islands etc.

You can carry out any of the permitted activities in Table A at any of the locations shaded green on the map.

To carry out an activity in Table A you must first meet the applicable standards in Table B.

For example, if you have micro-fouling such as a layer of slime AND

1. if you will clean with non abrasive materials; and

2. you will stop if you find that you have something more than slime (eg fanworm); and

3. your antifouling is not past it's use by date; and

4. the cleaning method doesn't compromise the antifoul coating;

THEN 

you can clean your boat at any of the areas coloured Green in the map

OTHERWISE

Pull it out of the water and get someone else to do it

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's OK BP. All people who own boats are rich and therefore ripe for the plucking. If only you and others (Not me) would get rid of their boats the problem would be solved ! Except for those pesky poor shipowners who create/created the problem. Oh and lets not forget how boats were banned from TBT/ Micron 66 et al while ships carried on with their poisons up until recently. The Govt can get at us,but not the big boys. It goes on all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the red & green map itself:

“This map / plan is illustrative only and all information should be independently verified on site before taking any action. Copyright Auckland Council. Whilst due
care has been taken, Auckland Council gives no warranty as to the accuracy and plan completeness
of any information on this map / plan and accepts no liability for any error, omission or use of the information.”

Given this disclaimer it can’t be relied upon. And so if there are no physical notices at any of the locations themselves then it’s all very ambiguous.

Based on this uncertainty, I think you’re safe to continue a light rubbing of your waterline, leading edges & foils  when you go for your regular swim at anchor, wherever you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, armchairadmiral said:

That's OK BP. All people who own boats are rich and therefore ripe for the plucking. If only you and others (Not me) would get rid of their boats the problem would be solved ! Except for those pesky poor shipowners who create/created the problem. Oh and lets not forget how boats were banned from TBT/ Micron 66 et al while ships carried on with their poisons up until recently. The Govt can get at us,but not the big boys. It goes on all the time.

Purile.

Yesrecreational  boat owners are relatively well off.  Its a totally discretionary activity.  If you cannot afford it, don't do it.

Forget about the big ships and others.  Our boats create a problem - pointing at something else and whining "not fair!" is childish and doesn't resolve the problem we create.

Yes, some anti-fouling that was effective is no longer available - because it was killing lifeforms we want as well as those we don't.  Its inconvenient, but if your chemistry is impacting fish, shellfish and sea flora that is supporting our recreational fishing (among other things) then its probably not great.  To complain about it is similar to complaints about the loss of lead additives in petrol, or the removal of DDT from the available insecticides.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Our boats create a problem - pointing at something else and whining "not fair!" is childish and doesn't resolve the problem we create

I've actually yet to see any real evidence of this.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes what is the evidence for small pleasure boat being the culprits?

Something doesn't add up here...

Zoom out and look at a map of the world. What we are saying is that that tiny dot of a country down the bottom right doesn't like some of it's pleasure craft moving around its own coastline in case it might infect itself with some of it's own stuff???

If it is our own stuff, then what's the problem? It's dynamic environment and we can't expect to 'freeze time' and keep everything unchanged forever.

But if it's not our own stuff but coming from bottoms of ships entering NZ from other parts of the world isn't that the primary problem to address directly i.e. stop it coming in in the first place, rather than exempting the ships and persecuting the boats already in NZ who then move it around?

Or am I missing something???

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Black Panther said:

Hey fish you can clean on the north side of the river but not the south side

Yes, I've checked that out. North side of the river, and up around Stillwater, is a Coastal- Mooring Zone "Weiti A" under the Unitary Plan. The South side is a SEA-m Marine significant ecological area. So I can still dive on my hull (as per Carpe Diems reply) and clean it, if it is light fouling and I don't find the fanny worm. My interpretation of the rules is that if you let your hull get too far gone, you need to haul out and clean it. But if you keep it clean, you can clean it in the water.

We have just hauled out (yesterday) to re-apply the copper coat. My entire premise of hull maintenance for the next 8 years is regular cleaning in the water. So, I've actually checked the Unitary Plan appendices and tables of permitted activities, and verified the zoning designations, so I can tell some busy-body to f*ck off with the appropriate knowledge that I am right, if someone has a pop at me about how I'm cleaning my boat.

The thing with the fanny worm, is the river is infested with it. Go for a paddle at dead low tide, the zone 1-2m below low water is just a carpet of the stuff. So I'm buggered what the benefit is of hauling out to remove a handful of fan worm is when I probably stand on 10 times as many launching the dinghy... Focus should on keep the hull clean of them so  I don't spread them around in my travels. Silly rule.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, L00seM00se said:

That's a pretty wide assumption to make...I sacrifice a LOT of things to afford owning a boat, as I'm sure plenty of us do. I'm sure that you don't feel the same about beneficiaries going out and buying $5k flatscreen TV's?

I would agree,  I may have a boat, but i dont have sky, or a big TV, plus although i own my own home i dont have a heat source and couldn't rent it out even if i want to as it doesn't meet the healthy homes standards, but I know how to open a window and am prepared to not watch TV and put on a jumper when it gets cold so i can own a boat. So i must be rich... 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Clipper said:

My finger has fanworm on it.  

The finger is where the boat (sadly) spends most of its time.

What a joke

This is true, but the thought of the marinas having to keep their pontoons clean terrifies me, cos I know where the cost will be passed on to...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One positive aspect is that it gives the Harbour master another tool to deal with some of the boats left on moorings to die, as they now can't have too much growth on the hull:

image.png.077cfc531642b31f6fef8f6fe96aa6a7.png

Every dying boat around my mooring has got a whole reef hanging off it. 

 

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...