CarpeDiem

The bottom line is it's here. How it got here and where it came from is academic. MPI have spent 100's of thousands officially reaching the conclusion, that with the technology available today, NZ can't get rid of it and we're now in containment mode. It's known to be easily spread on boat anchors, chains and fishing gear. This is also how it was spread in the Med.

Again, I think you are stretching. Do cruising boats come from Australia? What about the Pacific Islands? What about Fiji or Norfolk Is? Do you think cruising boats come from those locations? Whoever told you that Caulerpa brachypus and Caulerpa parvifolia are local to Singapore only, probably shouldn't be relied on for information.

Yeah I get that. And I am responding to your question "what basis do you have to say it wasn't". My basis is that I find it unlikely for the reasons given.

I did hear about that. And I am not disputing the theory is possible, rather it just seems a bit of a stretch. On the scale of strange, I would consider spreading fish to create a fishery less strange than establishing a useless strain of Caulerpa at the Barrier. If some NZ resident comes forward with an eradication solution that they have been working on since before the outbreak was detected then I might consider that a little suss

Aquarium Caulerpa (Caulerpa taxifolia) has not been detected anywhere in New Zealand. The Caulerpa at the Barrier is Caulerpa brachypus and Caulerpa parvifolia. To suggest that someone knowingly and purposefully imported two types of Caulerpa that are not widely used in aquariums and then chose Great Barrier as a place to accidentally (or purposefully) release it, seems a like a stretch. It seems more likely that it reached Barrier on a boats anchor from a yet to be determined location somewhere else in NZ. Or it came on ships.

MPI ran a campaign. MPI spent a large amount of $$ on this. Unfortunately times have moved on in the last 100yrs and they can't simply put an advert in the local paper and have everyone become educated. I have seen it in may places. It was in the RYC and Squadron newsletter. Multiple nzherald.co.nz and stuff news articles. Volunteers have handed out phamplets over Xmas. It is in nz fishing magazines and it has been on the radio. It was in the NZ Geographic. And of course it has been here on Crew. Those are just the places off the top of my head where I have read about it. Wh

It doesn't survive at depth and can't establish itself. It's limit seems to be about 40m. And, unlike 888, it sinks. Anyway, 888 was last seen headed for Tahiti. Has wreckage shown up on the NZ coast?

Antifoul plays no role in preventing the spread, the rest of the information you seek is contained within the links I provided.

Too add to the above here's some more education: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/132068603/killer-seaweed-invasion-is-an-environmental-disaster-on-the-scale-of-the-rena

It's not clear if you're claimimg that you (a) want to be educated and (b) cannot find information to educate yourself? Or that you are just content remaining uneducated. There's a plethora of information available on the damage that Caulerpa has done to regions around the world. Even to the extent that local fish species have become poisonous to humans because the fish have built immunity to the toxin and store it in their flesh. Someone in this thread suggested how great it would be if we could work out how to get Snapper to eat it. I think you'd find it's quite the opposite

The general saying is: A boat that is not racing must keep clear of boats that are. But that isn't actually a rule. For the sake of clarity, the rule you could protest a boat under, if that boat gets in your way, is rule 23.1. If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing. The definitions and the Part 2 preamble make all boats that have been racing, about to start racing, have come for racing, intend to race, retired from racing, etc, liable for this rule.

The RC can protest a boat that comes back across the line, the RC can kick any boat out for any justifiable reason. But they have not created a Racing Rule that your boat can protest. Your boat cannot protest another boat for re-crossing the line. There's no facility for that. You can bring it to the RCs attention and ask them to do something about it, but they do not have too. If a boat that has finished racing gets in your way, then you can protest them for not keeping clear even if they are the right-of-way boat.

When the SI's change a rule, they have to say something like: "this changes rule XX" eg: “First Substitute” will be lowered at the same time as the new Warning signal is flown. This changes RRS Rule 29.2 Failure to make broadcast will not be grounds for redress. This changes RRS Rule 62.1(a) The SI's cannot make up new rules, they can only change existing rules and even then only the rules that they are allowed to change. As Psyche points out there are many rules that cannot be changed.

It sounds like someone has wronged you terribly on the finish line tell us more... There is no requirement to sail completely across the finish line. A boat is finished when any part of their hull crosses the line. A boat can clear the finish line by dropping back onto the course side at which point they have finished racing and can start their engine and depart the racing area. Your boat can only protest a boat that breaks a rule of part 2 or rule 31. The RYC instruction isn't a rule. It's a request/guideline. If it was a racing rule they would need to state which rule of pa

It's not a replacement for a PLB/EPIRB. And for that matter a PLB/EPIRB isn't a replacement for this service. Rather they are both complementary technologies. The SpaceX SOS function allows you to communicate with emergency services. You can tell them how many people in your party, the exact nature of your emergency and other pertinent facts. The message can also be sent to other contacts designated as emergency contacts.

Existing phones will work on the One.NZ SpaceX service when it launches. No need to upgrade unless you're rocking a really old phone. 111 will come first for all Phones on any network. TXT will come next. Followed by voice and then eventually data. It won't be data like you're used to. You won't be streaming Netflix, but downloading a GRIB file or sending an email will be reality. SpaceX needs to launch another several thousand satellites to obtain the necessary coverage.

No rule. Agree it's not cool. We always go around the ODM unless of course there's a finish boat and then we usually go around that. That said I have never noticed boats crossing back over the line in our races.

I assume you are asking about crossing back to the course side of the line after finishing to get back to Westhaven? The RYC instruction is a guideline/request rather than a rule. There isn't any rule specifically against crossing the line back to the course side, but when you do do it, all the rules of racing apply. Some finishes out of Westhaven, use an extension from the tower through the ODM all the way to the North Shore - so if there was such a rule then boats could never get back to Westhaven ;-) If you do need to cross back across the line again you should make sure tha

Completely rediculous. Isn't there some Coastguard RYA/MCA certification available in NZ which has worldwide recognition but MaritimeNZ refuse to recognise it? YNZ seem to be aligned with Coastguard. While Coastguard and MaritimeNZ refuse to acknowledge each other.

STCW isn't law. It's a convention the purpose of which is to produce seafaring clones that have a minimum level of transferable standard and skills so they can jump on any boat. NZ, being a party to the STCW, is legally obliged to produce training and certification programs that align with the STCW. INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA - also not a law unto itself but rather a list of laws that signatories are legally required to implement in there local legislation. Rule 5 Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing a

You are correct that there's no concrete proof of what will happen to the environment if Fan Worms are allowed to naturally evolve and grow unchecked in our waters. So, if you're seeking definitive proof of the exact consequences to us humans, you're right—it doesn't exist. That's also a somewhat philosophical question, it's not just about us humans. We have a responsibility to protect other species from our actions. What has been studied is how fan worms grow, spread and take homes away from organisms in our natural environment and wipe those organisms out. They upset the natural b

I have to confess I don't even know what shape that shape is... so not me.

Are you are referring to the case where the defendant was doing 57 in a 50 zone? He didn't win he still had to pay the fine - but the judge agreed with him that police messaging was inconsistent because of the zero-tolerance story and the judge demanded that police get their story straight and stop sending inconsistent messages to the public. The police claimed that they never published any formal tolerance and instead that it was individual officer discretion. Thus if the Director of MNZ, or any other government official has been making statements like keeping a watch at anchor doesn't

It's both an economic and an environmental concern. To suggest that all pest control programs in New Zealand are undertaken solely for economic benefit would be misleading. The German wasp is being eradicated from our National Parks, at great expense, primarily to protect the environment. Yes there is a degree of economic concern involved because tourists don't like visiting parks where they get stung. Possums are controlled to protect the environment and reduce the spread of Tb. Yes there's an economic concern with Possums because Tb outbreaks create a cost to our health system.

Sure. And there's research on the damage fan worm causes to the marine environment. That research has been used to inform the current controls that have been forced upon us. But if someone considers the research flawed/incorrect/faulty or politically motivated then providing said research has no value...