Discussion in 'General Open Forum' started by agentaqua, Jun 24, 2016.
I'd say die. Dirtbags. Should be ousted. No respect of environment and rule of law. Get a job and s life hippies
I'd say if they want to stay they take responsibility for the derelict boats and raise enough funds to remove and dispose of them safely( with a deadline). They'll never get their stuff together enough to make that happen. Only a small step up from tent city....
thxs for the read agent,
The author does a phenomenal job stating both sides of the debate. This is a tough one, as I think we all have that " F - it " moment where the thought of just aiming our boat into the wild and leaving the world behind as we know it in our wake is an appealing option.
I remember my father telling me about an old hermit he used to wave to by boat as he went to work logging up in Deolation Sound. This old guy was a former logger himself; now squatting on government soil.
Years would go by with this same routine. One day my dad said, he was missing. Didn't think much of it. Weeks passed. Then months....then a year.
He found out later he was discovered dead on the bluff above his cabin,his body staring towards the sound that his cabin resided on.
Died of natural causes in the place of his choosing....
I know this isn't the same scenario, but these folks, for the most part aren't hurting anyone.
They are choosing to exist in a place where they are comfortable, with like minded folk. Their existence harkens me back to a simpler time, where the entire coast was inhabited by settlers, homesteaders, small villages or settlements, Finnish, Japanese, and of course Native communities.
All that being said, if one of their boats turns into the next Exxon Valdez, the owner of said boat should be on the hook for EVERY RED CENT of the associated cleaning bill.
As long as they're dealing with the waste water and any other possible pollutants responsibly, I'm OK with it.
The whole system of how boats are licenced in Canada is broken. In my opinion all vessels that float on the water need to be licenced and insured , just like your car.
The crux of the problem is a VERY poorly written Canada Shipping Act that allows this situation to exist. I feel for the people and their problems , but unfortunately IMHO these vessels and their occupants are freeloading on society. This is not a complex problem , but most of the politicians that are involved either don't understand/care about the issue or have the connections to do anything about it.
There are provincial/municipal departments that want to see this "problem" solved and many federal departments who don't for various reasons. Until the Act is rewritten by actual mariners we will debating this in 30 years.
This is hardly only a Ladysmith issue. We have a lot of the same issues in Vancouver. They clamped down on all the permanently moored boats in false Creek a while back. All it did was move a whole bunch of them out in front of kits beach. Winter storms are constantly blowing these boats up on shore, as there is no real protection from a real blow like in False Creek. Cooking on board has led to fires which is obviously a concern. The biggest issue in my mind is all the Grey water and sewage that is almost certainly being dumped into the harbour from these boats. Not too hard to guess why the coliform count gets high at the swimming beaches where water quality is tested during the summer.
That's from Geese-counts are very low off the dog beach where I swim because they dogs chase any Geese away even swimming out after them if they get too close and looking around the beach and the grassy areas in Hadden Park you don't see any Goose shit at all (in summer).
The health authority in Toronto spent a frightening amount of money trying to determine exactly what was causing the high coliform counts along the beaches on Lake Ontario and that's what they found.
Good comments and observations everyone!
As far as faecal coliforms go - all warm-blooded animals - birds, dogs, humans, livestock, etc - have them in their guts. Humans test for these organisms in public waters where humans may contact them through breaks in the skin by swimming, or ingest them by swallowing water. Improperly treated sewerage (raw, or only primary treatment) from residences would also be a major source of faecal coliforms.
The reason these bacteria are "of concern" is twofold: 1/ Getting too many coliforms on the wrong side of our digestive system can cause our liver to fail and other internal issues, and 2/ They are an indicator that other "bad bugs" (e.g.. Hepatitis, giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis, Salmonella, E. coli, Vibiro, Cholera, etc.) may also be present in the sewerage that contaminated our water, giving us the faecal coliform levels.
In addition to concerns over health issues - in restricted waters with limited flow, turn-over and volume - excessive nutrients in sewage can cause an increase in algal growth, which in turn can cause a decrease in dissolved oxygen, making it difficult for marine life to flourish. These zones are called "dead" zones, and Saanich inlet is an example: https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Saanich_inlet
So there are different criteria (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt...res_recom/sum_guide-res_recom_2014-10_eng.pdf) developed to assess ambient faecal coliform levels for determining safety of the water dependent upon whether the water is used to drink, swim in and/or provide shellfish for us to eat. Environment Canada is ultimately responsible to ensure the water is tested for faecal coliforms.
In the case of the marine-based boaters - contamination of shellfish beds would be the most likely risk from raw sewerage: https://www.ec.gc.ca/marine/default.asp?lang=En&n=4DFAFB15-1
However, in many harbours esp. Prince Rupert and Victoria - raw sewerage is still pumped directly into the harbour. Those shore-based residents would likely outnumber the boaters by many thousands of bums.
Since 2012 - Transport Canada now wants all boats to have holding tanks for sewerage to be pumped-out for treatment; or discharged into the marine environment only if greater than 3 nautical miles from land (ships less than 400 tons), or more than 12 miles from land (ships larger than 400 tons). Anything else is now banned (https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp1332-appendix2-1582.htm), although Transport Canada has ruled that porta-potties and composting toilets can qualify as "temporary storage devices" as long as the vessel is less than 15 gross tons and carries fewer than 15 people.
Were these regulations developed in order to protect shellfish beds? Were the distances developed by looking at plumes and contamination effects? Doubt it.
What about cruise ships with thousands of people onboard? Looks like they are exempt along with all the traffic to/from Alaska: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012-69/page-14.html
Discharges of Sewage or Sewage Sludge
94 This Subdivision does not apply in respect of (a) vessels in a shipping safety control zone; or (b) pleasure craft that are not Canadian vessels and that are in waters in the exclusive economic zone of Canada.
BUT....Where are those pump-out stations? Not enough for sure: https://georgiastrait.org/work/cleanmarinebc/pumpouts/
Pump-out stations - even if they existed - would be less than redundant at this time in Rupert and Victoria. Pumping sewerage uphill in a pipe - to be then dumped again downhill in a different pipe in the harbour does not solve the issue.
Everyone on the water is subject to the Marine Liability Act 2001, last amended on 2015 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/M-0.7.pdf); and the Marine Liability Regulations 2002 last amended on 2013 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-2002-307.pdf). I don't think they have been particularly enforced - especially for the pleasure boat industry - and case law is likely therefore thin.
In DIVISION 2 SECTION 2 Liability Not Covered by Division 1, under Definitions:
pollutant means oil and any substance or class of substances identified by the regulations as a pollutant for the purposes of this Part and includes
(a) a substance that, if added to any waters, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the waters’ quality to an extent that their use would be detrimental to humans or animals or plants that are useful to humans; and
(b) any water that contains a substance in such a quantity or concentration, or that has been so treated, processed or changed, by heat or other means, from a natural state that it would, if added to any waters, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the waters’ quality to an extent that their use would be detrimental to humans or animals or plants that are useful to humans. (polluant)
If you can't identify who the owner is it really doesn't matter about liability. The Shipping act lets sailboats with under 10 hp exempt from licensing and certain other vessels. The penalties are a joke.
Most real countries require licensing and insurance on ALL boats.
With the cost of renting even the cheapest apartment in Vancouver nowadays, portable homes are springing up everywhere. Within 1 block of my home there is probably 20 campers/motor homes that live permanently on the streets. It is obviously a societal problem with the cost of housing in Vancouver especially.
The people live on the streets around my place because there are several public washroom facilities around here they can use. Unfortunately the people living locally on the ocean use the harbour as their toilet. There are very few pumping stations, and I can pretty much guarantee the live aboard boaters aren't using them for their waste water.
Geese may be the cause of high coliform counts in Toronto, but I don't think that's the case here. Geese love to swim in freshwater, but they really aren't that partial to swimming at our saltwater beaches around town. I live across from the beach in Vancouver and I can't recall ever seeing Geese hanging out at the beach here. People are the main cause of the contaminants in our harbour.
Yes and no, Beemer. I agree it is smart to carry insurance - in addition to the funding available through the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund - as outlined in the Marine Liability Act. That is irrespective of identifying what boat/owner released a hydrocarbon impact.
I think liability for accidents and/or death to other boats/properties and people would be in order. I know commercial fishing needs to carry that kind of insurance.
Ya - I think people have an idealized myth of what shipboard life and those costs will be. Then the reality sets in. I don't blame people trying to find relief from the unaffordable housing market.
Licencing and insurance need to be mandatory for the system to work. Police cannot identify who owns a vessel ,boats are routinely abandoned and the sewage issue is a serious problem. I have salvaged vessels as a legitimate profession and applied several times for the great "programs" (oil pollution fund) and received a letter 4 months after the vessel in question has sunk or broken up in a storm leaving the beach covered in diesel. "sorry your application to the fund do not meet out parameters of responsibility" .
Like I said , the problem that exist in our waterways are easily fixable by requiring a license and insurance for ALL vessels. (kayaks and dragonboats included.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the ship-source fund, Beemer. Figured it was a scam. Enbridge always trots that out in the responses to the NEB.
Holding tanks legislated, but no funding for pumpout stations. Legislators love to pass laws but almost never do they provide funding for enforcement or other consequences of their new rules. Shakes me head.
Looks like this article states: "The most popular type of maritime insurance is called protection and indemnity insurance, and it's required by law for many vessels larger than 1,000 gross tonnes"
Abandoned vessel removed from Ladysmith Harbour
Separate names with a comma.