Bureaucratic interference

[Guest]

I've decided that every time I read of another govt restriction I'll cut and paste it here, feel free to join in.

 

This one from SA

 

they tell you what do to

 

 

Looks like some extra govermental interference up in Northern California for the Doublehanded Lightship race...

 

Today, the Coast Guard told the Island Yacht Club that they would not get a permit to race if boats going past Pt. Bonita didn't have an EPIRB. An EPRIB was not a requirement in the racing instruction although OYRA, Cat 2 safety items are 'recommended'. Further more, they stated that no permit will be given if they don't like the conditions and will not make this decision until tomorrow morning, a few hours before the first gun.

[Guest]

The EPIRB is rapidly become an iconic emblem for the law of unintended consequences.

 

A couple of years ago the US National Park service decreed that hikers and climbers entering Mt Ranier national park must carry EPIRBS. Mount Ranier was, until that time, rarely attempted by other than the most intrepid and skilled climbers.

 

With the new EPIRB law, however, every man and his dog decided to attempt the climb, knowing that help was standing by if they should get into any trouble. The result is that the rescue services are flat out plucking people off a mountain they should never have attempted in the first place.

 

(thinks) Why should I be surprised with this? Compulsory radios had the same effect on offshore cruising.

[Guest]

Again from the US

 

Less than a year after the Florida legislature enacted a boater-friendly law to prevent counties and cities from restricting the anchorage of cruisers, state Rep. Richard Steinberg (D-Miami Beach) has introduced HB 1361 to reverse that stance.

 

A patchwork of restrictions in several coastal counties currently limits anchorage to as little as two days. Miami Beach, which has a seven-day restriction, was among the first to enact the limits to mollify waterfront property owners.

[wheels 543]

Some of the big problems with the US restrictions is that I think they are wolves in sheep clothing type laws. Supposedly "protecting" the US citizens, but only resulting in their and our restrictions. I don't think NZ or even Oz have got that far yet. Too many people like you squid. We question. The restrictions will come in as part of the public wanting, not being told. We haven't got there yet. It just goes to show the greater Evil behind Terrorism.

[Guest]

Don't start me Squid. Monday started with a letter from ACC saying our (everyone's inc the staffs) premiums are increasing 6 fold as we are lieing bastards who didn't tell them we make industrial machinery. This happened after a 'in-depth review' of our company. The letter was the 1st we knew they even did reviews, let alone one on us, so it can't have been anything 'in-depth'. Apparently if that's knot right you have to pay for a review.

 

I would post my email reply to them but someone would shut Crew down.

 

We never have made machinery of any sort.

 

I suppose this one is more just pure bureaucratic incompetence though. What a bunch of wankers.

[wheels 543]

I reckon I know where they are headed with this KM. Make the premiums so dmn expensive and make it so damn difficult to get money out on the other hand and the Public will go from No We don't want no Stinkin Insurance cover for accident because it will bring in right to sue, to... quick bring in Accident insurance cover and how the hell cares if we sue the pants off the dimwits that put hot coffee in a paper cup and didn't say it was hot.

 

We have to start our own country i tell ya. I already have a set of rules drawn up

[Steve Pope 243]

KM and Wheels, that is what the bureaucrats have to do to be seen to be doing anything, Otherwise Johnny Key and his razor blade may appear. The fact that it may be wrong and you have to prove to them that they are wrong is irrelevant to them, they set the bar so high (X 6) that you have no choice but to respond, IRS works the same way.

On another note after drifting around the gulf and far North for the last few weeks I can report that the Hawk nows goes out of its way to give me a wave with lots of smiles, (3 times this trip) once after they cut across my stern and I waved the fishing lure I had just wound in when I realised they were going to cut in close, after they passed they turned back to give me another wave before turning back on course, all this was at whatever their cruising speed is.

Also enjoyed the Hawea's 2 Zodiacs playing policeman keeping errant boaties more than 50 metres away from the Queen Mary when she was anchored of Tapeka point.

[Guest]

Oh yes Steve, I know very well they have to be seen to do something. We see their expensive efforts often.

 

I'd pull out of ACC and go private in about 0.00001 seconds. Cheaper by miles, more efficient and with real incentive knot to kill your staff. As it is now there is zero reason to look after them in any way, we pay the same where I leave them alive or mow them down with a forklift, it makes no difference.

 

Good to see you and Hawk have kissed and made up

[Guest]

Not quite on topic but fun to read

 

Another example of silly laws.

 

So a bloke has a 30 metre ex navy boat which he bought after it was decommissioned. It lives on a pile mooring in Queensland Australia.

 

The law in QLD requires any boat over 15 metres to be comprehensively insured to provide for, amongst other things, an ability to cover damage to the environment that may be caused by, for example the boat sinking.

 

Said old bloke didnt have the ex navy boat insured and was cahrged and fined $10,000. Cant afford that and cant afford to restore the boat. All a bit sad but strictly speaking pretty straight forward.

 

The MSQ (the govt authority) has suggested that maybe they could sinkl the boat on an artificial reef for him to overcome his problem.

 

So he is fined because he wasnt covered if his boat sank, but they will sink the boat for him. Anyone else get the irony here?

[Guest]

From The Coastal Passage:

 

This is a somewhat difficult issue and it may need some background. However, it may intimately affect your organization.

 

 

 

I want to register my 16.1 m ferro cement ketch in Queensland so I can transit or sail there and possibly put the vessel on the market at some time.

 

So.

 

I duly contacted Maritime Safety Queensland (msq) to find out about Queensland registration requirements!!!

 

What a cock up this proved to be.

 

When I went to fill out the registration form, I nearly fell over backwards to find that for my vessel, the annual registration fees recently went up by 120% (ie more than doubled). These fees are way out of kilter with other states (WA makes for a good comparison). (for my 16 m boat, WA = $261, Queensland = $488.30)

 

.However, the real problems are much worse.

 

Because my vessel is over 15 m length, I am compelled to provide two extra very specific insurance covers. One is for a $250 000 cover for pollution clean up and the second is for a $10 000 000 cover for wreck removal of my yacht. (I am a strong supporter for reef/environment protection)

 

[These two conditions do not apply for a yacht or vessel of 14.9 m but do apply for one which is 15.1 m. The legislation on the msq site states that it applies for private craft between 15 and 35 m length. (Apparently a 14.9 m rust bucket with 2000 L of oil and a history of poor behaviour can run aground, spill oil, then sink on a reef with impunity, but a well founded new15 m sailing vessel carrying 100 L of fuel and an experienced crew is seen as a major threat!)]

 

I tried to obtain specific insurance cover for these two conditions only to be repeatedly informed by insurance brokers that I could not get these two as a stand alone policy. I could only get them as attachments to preexisting comprehensive policies. (I have spent some months trying to find any insurance broker who would supply such a policy).

 

So, it seems that I am compelled to take out comprehensive insurance to get the two attachments. I find this a very questionable legal issue. I do not think that msq should be allowed to inflict this on any boat owner, but it does seem to be the case. It may not have been their intent, but it is certainly the reality.

 

Insurance companies are quick to state that the addition to the comprehensive policy premium (for the two Queensland specific extras) is not great or that it is already included. However, for a visiting racing or cruising vessel (> 15 m) from overseas or interstate, they must adjust their comprehensive policies (if they have one) or take out a new one.

 

One overseas insurance company claims that the wreck removal insurance cover for $10 000 000 to be "quiet absurd" for a 16 m yacht This same company will provide ferro cement comprehensive cover with adequate pollution clean up, but will only offer a maximum of $250 000 cover for wreck removal, but no more - certainly not for $10 000 000 demanded by msq..

 

All this applies to transiting vessels as well. It applies for any invited racing or cruising participant in events sponsored by your organization. (for vessels over 15 m) (Registration for private vessels under 15 m does have a grace period of few months, but for vessels over 15 m, this is not the case as the two extras must be in place even for transiting vessels.)

 

However, the bottom line is that the two extra component cover is compulsory and that the cover cannot be obtained without getting a comprehensive policy with the two conditions as components within that policy.

 

(If you own a 15 m+ NSW registered boat and have taken out normal comprehensive insurance with a local underwriter or broker, you cannot assume that the two Queensland requirements are automatically covered - in case you wanted to visit Queensland). Further, if you live in Queensland and have had a policy with your local Queensland broker for some years, you just cannot assume that you have been upgraded for the necessary extra cover.)

 

You may envisage a large international racing yacht being asked to pay a full yearly premium to obtain the two extra bits, all for a three race program covering a few weeks. I think you can imagine their response.

 

Finally, although it may be of little concern to your organization, I cannot obtain the comprehensive insurance policy in Australia to attach the two conditions to, as my vessel is ferro cement!!! (No insurance company will provide the required cover and msq are aware of this) There are still many ferro boats sailing Australian and international waters - some well over15 m. Clearly there is a serious problem here for these yacht owners.

 

However, there is an "exemption" pathway out of this (provided by msq).

 

It makes interesting reading and your association may be somewhat perplexed at it. (check their website)

 

It requires: -

 

a) letters from a number of insurance companies that the two insurance covers cannot be provided.

 

the vessel must undergo an annual survey to ensure "seaworthiness" (which msq seems unable to define).

 

c) there must be a "risk management plan" (again, msq seems unable to give details for vessels of specific length)

 

The exemption must be renewed each 12 months. It does not absolve the owner of any claims by msq for the two matters should an incident occur.

 

If insurance companies will not provide comprehensive cover for an older wooden vessel, then the owner is also subject to this nonesense.

 

Finally, it is not guaranteed that an application for exemption will be accepted and just to ensure it is totally useless, it takes a minimum of 12 weeks to be assessed. (due to legislative processes)

 

 

 

 

 

I have sent emails off to both msq and the ministers office and after much waiting and requesting of a response, I have been told nothing that is not in the msq website. They have offered no positive or helpful suggestions to date.

 

However, there is one issue you may be able to assist me with. On the matter of the entire insurance issue, may I quote from the minister's office?

 

"In 2005, the Queensland Government undertook public consultation throughout the State with all stakeholders, including the boating community, about the proposal to introduce a legislative requirement for ships over 15 metres to have ship insurance. Amendments to the Transport

Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 were passed in 2006 with subsequent amendments to the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Regulation 1995 passed in 2007."

 

What I would like from your organization is some comment on this quote.

 

Personally, I find it difficult to accept that all stakeholders were consulted. I have not heard from anyone in the entire industry that was consulted…. But I could be wrong. It was some time ago. Maybe they asked the insurance companies. Hah!

 

1. Was your organization actually consulted about this insurance matter? If so, when? How?

 

2. Did your organization have any comment on the proposed legislation? If so, what?

 

3. What was the nature of the "ship insurance " referred to? Was it just the two issues discussed above or was it undefined, or what?

 

4. What other means (if any) for providing the "pollution clean up and wreck removal for all vessels" cover were considered?

Eg was a model whereby all registered vessels paid (as part of their annual registration fee) a component to provide insurance cover for all vessels in case of pollution or wreck removal, ever considered? (ie a fairer, cheaper and more systematic approach)

 

5. Was your organization aware that the legislation implied that comprehensive insurance would now be essentially mandatory for all private vessels over 15 m?

 

6. Do you have any other comments on the legislation or the processes used to assess stakeholder considerations?

 

One of the msq staff stated that they had consulted the insurance industry when formulating the regulations and the insurance issues, but did not say that the boating industry had been consulted. This conflicts with the above ministerial office quote. I smell a rat.

 

I am prepared to make this a public issue, as it seems to me that the there is a major flaw in the legislation that should be addressed. I do not accept that this legislation has been considered or constructed carefully as my own case clearly demonstrates. The compulsion to take out comprehensive insurance for all private vessels over 15 m is simply an unsupportable position and I believe the minister should act to change the legislation quickly.

 

In my case, owning a ferro cement yacht, I am compelled to apply for the exemption. Let us assume I get it and my vessel does run aground in a storm. Being a retired person, there is no way I could afford wreck removal of even a million dollars. That leaves the taxpayer to pick up the bill. I bet that appeals to you. You see, the legislation shortcomings actually prevented me from taking out the needed insurance!

 

What do you do if you do not want comprehensive insurance, or can't get it (e.g. for a ferro boat), but you still want to be insured for pollution clean up and wreck removal?

 

It seems that it can't be done! msq have still not been able to address this. They claim that they liaised with the insurance companies when writing up their insurance requirements but it seems pretty clear that some deal has been done or the insurance companies put one over the msq staff.

 

It also seems that there may be an issue of "retrospectivity" here. People may have (earlier) built a vessel over 15 m feeling that insurance was not compulsory and now find that the rules have changed. This is not fair as it can affect the actual sale value of the boat.

 

If the new rules were to only apply to boats constructed after the new legislation, then it might have been a bit fairer.

 

It is also clear that the legislation does nothing for the boating industry.

Amongst some of the difficulties is the problem the legislation creates for visiting yachts.

 

A short term visiting or transiting yacht has to comply and to do so means they must consult with local insurance companies. (International companies generally will not provide such short term policy amendments).

The local companies want an annual comprehensive policy (with the two attachments) premium to be paid, which is nonsense for a short term visiting yacht. Some also require a survey. (Jolly good for surveyors and boat yards, but not boat owners!)

 

A common response to this is that they don't make landfall in Queensland, which must be bad news for the local small ship maintenance/repair and tourism companies.

 

It is also my contention that legislation such as this msq issue has come about simply because the boating industry is so fragmented. There are builders, repairers, brokers, sailors, racers, cruisers, charter operators, yacht clubs, chandleries etc. They do not have a common voice against such silly legislation yet they all eventually pay one way or the other.

 

An interesting comparison is the local small trailer runabout owner groups. They tend to be locals who use concrete ramps to launch and retrieve their boats.

When they want a new ramp or improvements they just turn up in numbers to the local council meeting and suggest that the mayor respond to their concerns …and guess what? They get results. Or a new Mayor.

 

They don't get steamrolled.

 

But yachtsmen (both power and sail) have no such effective voice. Probably because (besides being fragmented), there are fewer of us and many of our needs and regulations are based on state government dealings rather than local council ones. Our associations and clubs have agendas that do not touch on such issues regularly. Some cruising sailors have no club affiliations at all !!.

 

Your organization may be interested enough to ask questions of your local member or the minister responsible.

 

The Hon John Mickel MP

Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations.

 

tteir@ministerial.qld.gov.au

 

(Don't expect a speedy response)

 

Did you notice how simply they just more than doubled the registration fees?

 

This is what happens when the boating organizations do nothing.

 

However, I would really appreciate it if your organization could address the 6 questions I posed earlier.

 

I will do you the courtesy conveying any outcome of my efforts if your organization can respond to this email.

 

I have circulated this email to 13 groups in Queensland including The Coastal Passage sailors newspaper You may suggest some others.

 

Thank you for your time. Oh for the days when boating was a simple pleasure and your adversary was just the elements. How times have changed.

 

Bill Shorter

 

PO Box 2890

Darwin 0801

NT

 

Ph 0418 610 211

 

Or preferably by email

 

william.shorter@bigpond.com.au

[Guest]

Florida: Less than a year after the Florida legislature enacted a boater-friendly law to prevent counties and cities from restricting the anchorage of cruisers, state Rep. Richard Steinberg (D-Miami Beach) has introduced HB 1361 to reverse that stance. A patchwork of restrictions in several coastal counties currently limits anchorage to as little as two days. Miami Beach, which has a seven-day restriction, was among the first to enact the limits to mollify waterfront property owners. NMMA and marine trade associations statewide are strongly opposing this bill.

[Guest]

North Carolina (and I believe in Turkey now) you have to keep a "sh*t log"

 

Per NC House Bill 1378: “Vessel owner and operator required to keep log of pumpout dates. (a) Any owner or operator of a vessel that has a marine sanitation device shall maintain a record of the date of each pumpout of the marine sanitation device and the location of the pumpout facility. Each record shall be maintained for a period of one year from the date of the pumpout.” Also, “Section 1 of this act becomes effective July 1, 2010. Fines up to $10,000 may be assessed, and the regulation will be enforced by NC Wildlife officers, USCG and any other law officers with jurisdiction.”

[smithy09 50]

North Carolina (and I believe in Turkey now) you have to keep a "sh*t log".

With regard to Turkey, yes this is just being introduced. I predict they will reverse this decision or at least dilute it down, as virtually the whole south coast of Turkey depends, in some way or another, on sailing and boating tourism. Many of the small villiages dotted along the coast are practically only accessable from the Sea. (The roads are rough!). The new legislation being HUGELY expensive and draconian will keep yachties, and I would say Flotillas and charter vessels out of Turkey in a big way. It will make a severe dent in the economy of this area, and like in NZ is a decision that has come from on high in Ankara. Here is the proposal, which should be in force by now...:

 

There has been much talk of late on the yachting forums about new regulations coming into force in Turkey regarding black and grey water discharge. It seems this is indeed happening under what is termed a “Blue Card Scheme” and an explanation about what this involves has been sent to noonsite by Levent Ballar, General Manager of the Turkish Marine Environment Protection Association (TURMEPA) who are implementing the scheme. Details are as follows:

 

From 1 March 2010 in the Gocek Dalaman Area:

 

This area will be announced as a sea park like similar ones in Italy.

- Discharge of black and grey water is forbidden in this area (therefore a holding tank for all waste water is essential).

- All boats must have a Blue Card (see below).

- Other than the marinas only 1112 boats can stay in this area.

- Entering some historical areas (like Hamam Bay) is prohibited.

- Anchoring in some areas is prohibited to protect the ecological underwater system. Only dedicated mooring buoys should be used.

- Maximum mooring period for boats in Gocek-Dalaman Coves is limited to 11 days.

- Speed limit is maximum 6 knots.

- Disturbing music is prohibited.

- Cooking on deck is prohibited.

- Diving in some coves is also prohibited.

 

Blue Card

 

All yachts, commercial and private, of all sizes, must comply with the Blue Card scheme in the Mugla area (that is from Bodrum to Fethiye). There is no lower limit in size or capacity given. Discharge of waste water is forbidden in this area. Waste water is defined as; black water, bilge water, ballast water, and sludge.

 

The issuing and delivery of the Blue Cards to boats will be performed by the Port Authorities and the Marinas. All yachts will have to purchase a Blue Card (70tl for life) in order to present it when pumping out. The Blue Card will record the date and volume pumped out.

 

Only Black Tanks are required for smaller yachts but the grey water must be put into the black tank, and hence pumped out. Foreign flagged boats however will not be checked by the authorities as to whether they have a tank or not. Turkish flagged boats are checked annually in order to receive their sailing certificate. Upon inspection of a foreign flagged boat, authorities will only ask to see the Blue Card, and will check to see legal waste disposal has been made. If the boat has been sailing for a period of time and there is no discharge recorded, there will be a penalty charged.

 

Pump Out Facilities

 

There are 30 pump out facilities in the Bodrum to Fethiye area in which the scheme is being initiated. Current pump out facilities are listed on the TURMEPA website. By March 2010 it is intended there will be around 120 pumping out facilities in the area. All marinas will have to have waste acceptance facilities. For each ton of waste, the waste acceptance facilities will charge 30 Euros.

 

Pump Out Facility Co-ordinates received 4 February 2010 from TURMEPA. Note: the list does not cover all existing points as some of the municipalities or marinas could not specify their co-ordinates. The Directorate is currently working on identifying and gathering all co-ordinates data.

 

Marmaris Port Authority (Cruise Port)- 28° 16' 45.2" E - 36° 50' 57 N (Tel: 0252 412 03 03)

Güllük Port Authority MİLAS - 37° 15' 3" N - 27° 36' 3" E (Tel: 0252 522 40 35)

Ecesaray Yacht Marina FETHİYE 36° 37' 55" N - 29° 06' 10" E (Tel: 0252 612 88 29)

Marin Türk Yacht Marina Göcek FETHİYE 28º 56' 00" E - 36º 45' 15" N (Tel: 0252 645 22 29)

Port Göcek Yacht Marina Göcek FETHİYE 36°44'.9" N - 28°56'.6" E (Tel: 0252 645 15 20)

Club Marina Yacht Marina Göcek FETHİYE 36° 45' 00" N - 28° 55' 05" E (Tel: 0252 645 18 00)

Yat Marin Yacht Marina Yalancıboğaz MARMARİS 36° 49' N - 28° 18' E (Tel: 0252 422 00 94)

Albatros Yacht Marina MARMARİS 36° 50' N - 28° 17' W (Tel: 0252 412 07 52)

Netsel Yacht Marina MARMARİS 36° 51' 02" N - 28° 16' 38" E (Tel: 0252 412 27 08)

Martı Marina Orhaniye MARMARİS 36° 45' 30" N - 28° 08' 30" E (Tel: 0252 487 10 63)

Milta Yacht Marina BODRUM 37° 02' 00" N - 27° 25' 50" E (Tel: 0252 316 18 60)

D-Marin Yacht Marina Turgutreis BODRUM 36° 59' 59" N - 27° 15' 21" E (Tel: 0252 382 92 00)

Port Yalıkavak Yacht Marina BODRUM 37° 06' 20" N - 27° 17' 02" E (Tel: 0252 311 06 00)

 

Policing

 

Not only the Coast Guard but Mugla Directorates boats will be policing the system. The penalties are not announced yet. This system is fully supported by the Government.

 

For the time being this is a pilot project for the Mugla Area. The authorities have the intention to implement it to all Turkish Waters, but not for at least 5 years.

 

The system starts on 1.3.2010.

 

I'm glad I cruised Turkey in the mid 80s and am not heading there now!!!

[Guest]

from CF

 

Grenada Triples Cruising Costs for Seasonal Stays

The politicians in their infinite lack of reality have done it again. Like their cohorts in the BVI's, St Martin and other places they think they can increase their revenues on the backs of the cruising communities.

- - Effective immediately Grenada has terminated its "open-ended" cruising permit for visiting private vessels. For many years Grenada charged EC$75 for a cruising permit that was open-ended - good for as long as you wanted to stay. Now they have terminated that policy and are issuing only a one month cruising permit for your EC$75. Each month you have to pay another EC$75 if you want to stay in Grenadian waters. This is a new interpretation of an old law. The did exempt boats that are stored in boatyards "on the hard."

- - Besides other minor charges(about EC$20) a private boat entering Grenada paid the $75 for the cruising permit and then also got a month or two or three of free visitors visa for the people on the boat. Monthly visa extensions are still EC$25 per person. So if you stay for more than one month you could be paying EC$125 per month assuming two people on the boat.

- - I sail to Trinidad once or twice each year for shopping and other purposes and the last year I was there for 3 months and it cost me TT$50 to check in (2 people) and when we left 3 months later it cost me an additional TT$150 for a total of TT$200. TT$ are 6 to 1 US dollar which converts to US$33.33 or about US$11/month. Grenada now is charging EC$125 per month for extended stays (2 people) which in US$ is $46.88 per month - more than 4 times the cost of Trinidad.

- - Will Grenada government get any new revenue from this - NOT! And the newly imposed 15% VAT (sales tax) cannot be collected if cruisers are not there to buy groceries, parts, tours, entertainment, etc. Cruisers will stay their allotted paid for month then move on to more economical places so incoming foreign revenue from extended stays (hurricane season) will mostly likely decrease. And the workers, shops, and marine support industry of Grenada will be the ones losing tens of thousands of EC$ as boats leave and go elsewhere. You gotta love politicians

[Guest]

From Noonsite

 

Posted 19th May 2010

 

Although the actual fee for a Cruising Permit in Grenada remains the same – EC$75, it is now only valid for one month instead of for the whole length of time of the cruise. If the length of time the boat is to remain in Grenada is known on arrival, the appropriate amount can be paid in advance to avoid the hassle of renewing the permit later on.

 

Our thanks to Jim Graham and also Marilyn Steele-McKenzie of the Grenada Yacht Club for this information.