Mys Terry wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:37:05 -0400, Jean Pudl
wrote:


Mys Terry wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:57:07 -0400, Jean Pudl wrote:



Mys Terry wrote:


This is a
FEDERAL harbor of refuge.


It is?


Is the Army Corps of Engineers a good enough source?

http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/news/2005-59.htm

Not really.


The Army Corps of Engineers is not a Federal Agency? They seem to
think it is a "Harbor of Refuge Federal Navigation project" . They
keep calling it that over and over, so I doubt it's a typo.



Can you show a source that actually says what a "FEDERAL
harbor of refuge" is, and what the implications are?



So you are really just a troll who doesn't even have a grasp of the
terms under discussion. Do your own homework. You are failing the
course badly so far.

In other words, you're just a troll who is trying to bluff his way out
of a blunder. You claim there is some special significance to the
term; show us!





Why isn't that mentioned on the chart?


It is! It is marked as a restricted area on the chart. Sometimes there will be a
note printed on the chart (Note A) that will tell you what the restriction is.
Other times there may be a number given along the restriction marking that can
be looked up in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 33: Navigation and
navigable Waters. Sometimes there is no number, and you have to look it up by
any means possible in CFR33. If it's marked restricted on the chart, it's in the
book. It's that simple. The rare exceptions will be found in CFR 40: Protection
of the Environment. I thought all capable sailors knew this stuff.

It isn't so marked on the latest version of chart 13217.


I have chart 13217 right in front of me, and it is clearly marked as a
restricted area. Go fish, troll.

That's odd. Here's the version on the Coast Survey Chart Viewer:
http://205.156.4.52/cgi-bin/EyeSpy.d...e/jpeg&325&250

Although the chart is old, it has been updated through at least Sept
2005, as indicted by the note on Old Harbor.

Go fish, troll.



It isn't so
listed in the Coast Pilot.

It isn't in the telephone book either, dumbass.


Yes, I suppose the phone book is the most complex reference you can
deal with.

It isn't listed in 33CFR.

No... You just can't find it.

If its so simple, why don't you just give a reference. You're losing
whatever shred of credibility you thought you had.


Capable sailors know this stuff. Others just make it up.



I think that's what I already pointed out about you.

Snappy comeback. Why don't you show us just how capable you are and
provide the reference.

....

It's a federal law, and has been since 1899. Look it up, **** for
brains.


Yes, the law is clear, you have to ask permission and follow certain
guidelines. Of course, almost every harbor manages to deal with it.


Changing the configuration of Old Harbor will likely require the
approval of the ACOE; therefore its pretty likely that this is
anticipated by the harbormaster. If this were such an absolute issue,
why isn't it raised by the opponents?



It ain't over 'til it's over, chucklehead.

what's your point? Maybe it will go through, maybe it won't.



Who do you suppose built the breakwaters
protecting Old harbor?

So, are you claiming that toll roads are illegal because they are
built with federal funds?


No, I have said nothing about toll roads, or anything else built with
federal funds. Just breakwaters. Try to focus.

So show us the law.


http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/news/2005-59.htm

Notice how they keep referring to Old Harbor as "Harbor of Refuge
Federal Navigation project"

So? All you're doing is showing that its called a "harbor of refuge"
and the its federal. Lots of harbors fall into this category and
severely restrict anchoring.