Float Free or Die

[agentaqua]

Derelict Viki Lyne II removed from Ladysmith harbour
Abandoned vessel was towed to Ladysmith Harbour by Transport Canada in 2012
By Megan Thomas, CBC News Posted: Oct 06, 2016 4:30 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...yne-ii-towed-from-ladysmith-harbour-1.3794429

 

[ziggy]

Anyone else wonder what happens to the 12% tax the Provincial government collects every time a vessel changes hands (legally)?

 

[agentaqua]

Anyone else wonder what happens to the 12% tax the Provincial government collects every time a vessel changes hands (legally)?

Pays the hotel bills for the photographer that follows Christy Clark around...

 

[ziggy]

Pays the hotel bills for the photographer that follows Christy Clark around...

Turnover of boats must be higher than I estimated!

 

[agentaqua]

Turnover of boats must be higher than I estimated!

hahaha - still laughing Ziggy. great response

 

[TheBigGuy]

Pretty funny guys, but the issue itself is not so humorous. We've had a derelict 25 foot boat plugging up 1 of our only 2 launch ramps in the city of Vancouver for weeks now. It was an old apparently abandoned power boat that was towed or left tied to the ramp blocking access to that ramp for some time. Perhaps it blew ashore from where it was anchored with the growing fleet of permanently anchored boats in our harbour.

In the last week it was hoisted onto the ramp away from the dock, so at least now it is no longer blocking use of the dock. It now sits high and dry at the top of the ramp until someone pays to remove it. With the storm last night there is probably another boat or two washed up on one of the beaches again today.

 

[ziggy]

Sorry, not trying to make light of the situation. Bottom line is this situation will only get worse as long as there is no enforcement of the licensing or registering of vessels. It costs a lot of money to properly dispose of a vessel so for those with no conscience, it's cheaper to simply abandon the vessel and let someone else pick up the tab, or simply give it away

I often wonder when I hear about these eccentric folks who have a fleet of ex commercial vessels. What if they were cleaver enough to say to the former owner " hey, it'll cost you hundreds of thousands to scrap that vessel, sign it over to me, give me cash under the table and I'll take it off your hands".

Then there are also the boat squatters who confuse the right to anchorage with the right to moorage. Not the same of course, but if there is no enforcement, might as well be.

My original point was that the Provincial government collects 12% every time a vessel legally changes hands, throughout its entire life. This money should be used to handle what should be, in rare cases, the disposal of a vessel whose owner cannot be found and be held liable.

All it takes is for government to get off its butt and treat boats like motor vehicles. Can't live in your car on a public highway. Can't abandon your car on the side of the road. Can't be caught driving without valid ownership papers. Can't drive without insurance. So why is this so different? Because no level of government wants to take ownership!

 

[agentaqua]

Well navigation and water column is federal - while private property, and the Lands and the Motor Vehicle Acts are provincial. So - if I am reading this right - boats are federal UNTIL they sit on the bottom UNLESS they are a hazard to navigation or are releasing a pollutant. Unfortunately, these are REACTIVE verses PROACTIVE legislative/regulatory responses. However, Canada is considering an approach based on the International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007, that would address the hazards associated with shipwrecks (maybe). See: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/abandoned-boats-wrecks-4454.html

 

[ziggy]

Well not really

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResourc...Eyesores--the-Plague-of-Unwanted-Vessels.aspx

 

[beemer]

Well not really

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResourc...Eyesores--the-Plague-of-Unwanted-Vessels.aspx

Some serious flaws in Mr. Williams arguments.

A few changes to the Canada Shipping Act would eliminated the problem and give the RCMP and the CCG ,power to deal with the wrecks.

 

[ziggy]

Perhaps. Not being a lawyer I can't say. I believe the Receiver of Wrecks already has the power to deal with actual "Wrecks". Problem is many terms such as wreck and derilect are used as generalities by the general public as well as many politicians. From my very basic understanding though, they have very specific legal definitions

Interested though in the serious flaws you saw? Is this guy out to lunch? I think he nailed it when defining anchorage vs moorage?

 

[beemer]

Perhaps. Not being a lawyer I can't say. I believe the Receiver of Wrecks already has the power to deal with actual "Wrecks". Problem is many terms such as wreck and derilect are used as generalities by the general public as well as many politicians. From my very basic understanding though, they have very specific legal definitions

Interested though in the serious flaws you saw? Is this guy out to lunch? I think he nailed it when defining anchorage vs moorage?

Mr. Williams did accurately describe the difference between moorage and anchorage , but they are not definitions that are defined in the Canada Shipping Act therefore not enforceable.
The Provincial Court ruling regarding the False Creek moorings was based on a section of federal law "Vessel Operation Restrictions" that form part of the Canada Shipping Act. You cannot broadly base this decision on any other scenario as Mr. Williams implies.

Mr Williams statements that the seabed owners(The Provincial Government) can create their own laws regarding the usage of the lease area is not entirely correct. They cannot make laws that contravene the Shipping Act and deny usage of waterways to any citizen as defined under the act. The Shipping Act allows private moorage buoys , therefore they allow moorage unless it is being done in a way that contravenes the act.


As most know the whole thing is a mess. I applaud Darren Williams to try and explain the context of this ,but like most lawyers , he is overcomplicating the issue. The fact is , if it is in The Shipping Act it is law , and those laws cannot be changed by other authorities.

 

[Clint r]

Sorry, not trying to make light of the situation. Bottom line is this situation will only get worse as long as there is no enforcement of the licensing or registering of vessels. It costs a lot of money to properly dispose of a vessel so for those with no conscience, it's cheaper to simply abandon the vessel and let someone else pick up the tab, or simply give it away

I often wonder when I hear about these eccentric folks who have a fleet of ex commercial vessels. What if they were cleaver enough to say to the former owner " hey, it'll cost you hundreds of thousands to scrap that vessel, sign it over to me, give me cash under the table and I'll take it off your hands".

Then there are also the boat squatters who confuse the right to anchorage with the right to moorage. Not the same of course, but if there is no enforcement, might as well be.

My original point was that the Provincial government collects 12% every time a vessel legally changes hands, throughout its entire life. This money should be used to handle what should be, in rare cases, the disposal of a vessel whose owner cannot be found and be held liable.

All it takes is for government to get off its butt and treat boats like motor vehicles. Can't live in your car on a public highway. Can't abandon your car on the side of the road. Can't be caught driving without valid ownership papers. Can't drive without insurance. So why is this so different? Because no level of government wants to take ownership!

Come to my neck of the woods. Incredible amount of people living out of their cars/trucks. Some mornings on my way to work it seems as if every pull out or opening in the trees has someone sleeping in it.

 

[ziggy]

Mr. Williams did accurately describe the difference between moorage and anchorage , but they are not definitions that are defined in the Canada Shipping Act therefore not enforceable.
The Provincial Court ruling regarding the False Creek moorings was based on a section of federal law "Vessel Operation Restrictions" that form part of the Canada Shipping Act. You cannot broadly base this decision on any other scenario as Mr. Williams implies.

Mr Williams statements that the seabed owners(The Provincial Government) can create their own laws regarding the usage of the lease area is not entirely correct. They cannot make laws that contravene the Shipping Act and deny usage of waterways to any citizen as defined under the act. The Shipping Act allows private moorage buoys , therefore they allow moorage unless it is being done in a way that contravenes the act.


As most know the whole thing is a mess. I applaud Darren Williams to try and explain the context of this ,but like most lawyers , he is overcomplicating the issue. The fact is , if it is in The Shipping Act it is law , and those laws cannot be changed by other authorities.

Mr. Williams did accurately describe the difference between moorage and anchorage , but they are not definitions that are defined in the Canada Shipping Act therefore not enforceable.
The Provincial Court ruling regarding the False Creek moorings was based on a section of federal law "Vessel Operation Restrictions" that form part of the Canada Shipping Act. You cannot broadly base this decision on any other scenario as Mr. Williams implies.

Mr Williams statements that the seabed owners(The Provincial Government) can create their own laws regarding the usage of the lease area is not entirely correct. They cannot make laws that contravene the Shipping Act and deny usage of waterways to any citizen as defined under the act. The Shipping Act allows private moorage buoys , therefore they allow moorage unless it is being done in a way that contravenes the act.


As most know the whole thing is a mess. I applaud Darren Williams to try and explain the context of this ,but like most lawyers , he is overcomplicating the issue. The fact is , if it is in The Shipping Act it is law , and those laws cannot be changed by other authorities.

I think you maybe confusing the right to navigate with the right to permanently moor. The Province as well as many municipalities already have the right to legislate mooring (bylaws etc.). As explained in the article you have a reasonable right to anchor but not permanently moor and in any case cannot impede navigation. I'm not sure new rules are needed as much as enforcement of the existing one. That costs money, something no one wants to come forward with.

 

[agentaqua]

To add to the critique Williams is incorrect in his assertions over what is permanent moorage.

 

[ziggy]

Don't follow what you're getting at Agent?

 

[agentaqua]

Don't follow what you're getting at Agent?

I have not seen any case law that specifies that concrete blocks are "permanent" moorage verses anchoring. Buoys have concrete blocks - often quite a bit more substantial than moorage blocks provided by boaters.

Yet - buoys/chains/blocks move and break free and are sometimes included in notice to mariners as being off position. If buoys are similarly "permanent" - how can they be "off position"?? Williams is speaking from his *ss and hoping whomever else he meets in court doesn't bring this argument to the judge IMHO.

Ring bolts and wires to rocks on the shore are -in contrast - "permanent" mooring.

AND.. Beemer is right - federal law trumps provincial trespass - if it occurs...

 

[beemer]

I think you maybe confusing the right to navigate with the right to permanently moor. The Province as well as many municipalities already have the right to legislate mooring (bylaws etc.). As explained in the article you have a reasonable right to anchor but not permanently moor and in any case cannot impede navigation. I'm not sure new rules are needed as much as enforcement of the existing one. That costs money, something no one wants to come forward with.

Hey Ziggy , Municipal bylaws cannot be enforced on the water and the Province has no legal ability to pass laws that relate to navigation. The "right to navigate" includes anchoring and the defining document (The Canada Shipping Act) does not distinguish between mooring or anchoring.

The "laws" that are being passed by the Province , Municipalities and Port Authorities to get rid of moored vessels will be easily overturned . The reality is they are so fed up with the federal system they are resorting to intimidation to try and solve the problem. Unfortunately most of these mariners don't have a great deal if money to fight the legal battle. I agree that many of these boats are nuisances but I really don't want to have politicians making up fake laws to intimidate and harass mariners. The sea is truly the last place you can be free , lets not give up that right...

 

[ziggy]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Province can pass any law restricting navigation or anchorage for a reasonable amount of time. BC however has control of the sea bed in inland waters such as for example Georgia Strait (Supreme Court ruled on this) due to a condition of joining Canada. So if they are not trying to supercede Federal laws by trying to enforce their own laws or bylaws I don't see a conflict. In fact I think we can all agree no one is enforcing anything, or very little.

To me there is two different issues here. Do you have the right to anchor your vessel for a reasonable time? Yes, so long as you don't impede navigation. Do you have the right to claim the use of Provincial land for your long-term exclusive use? I say no, nor should you be able to!

In essence my point is not that the Province can't trump Federal law (are moored boats exercising their right to navigate?), but as in many other cases Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws can co exist and complement each other. It may all come down to a ruling about how much time is reasonable to remain immobile on both Federal and Provincial seabeds.

By the way I believe you are totally wrong regarding Municipal bylaws on the water. A simple Google search came up with West Kelowna and Saanich amongst others.

 

[ziggy]

Had to correct a mistake where I used can vs can't! Figured most would be aware of the hierarchy of levels of government but thought I would clarify anyway.