The following episode might be of interest to fellow boaters cruising the
San Juans and Canadian Gulf Islands....

We were returning from Bedwell Harbour on the Canadian side of the boundary
to our designated port of entry for U.S. customs at Roche Harbor - the
weather forecast was for patchy fog - but as we left visibility improved and
after checking with Victoria Vessel Traffic Control on the VHF were assured
that no large shipping was scheduled to transit Boundary Pass we proceeded
using our radar, GPs and monitoring both channel 16 and 5 on the VHF. All
was OK until we neared Turn Point on Stuart Island - when the fog closed in
and we were in about 100 feet of visibility.... we "tippy toed" along using
our air horn and communicating with other traffic nearby on our VHF - at
this point we decided to proceed to Reid Harbor (right around the corner)
and anchor until conditions improved.

However, the fog was localized around Turn Point - and all of a sudden we
were in brillian sunshine and could proceed across to Roche Harbor and the
customs inspection.

When I asked the young inspector what would have happened if we - for the
sake of safety - had dropped the hook in Reid before proceeding to Roche -
his answer was "you are not allowed to do that - and if you can not proceed
to Roche, you must return to Canadian waters!". I explained that that was
not a safe option due to the dense fog and that it would have been
impossible to proceed across the busy San Juan Channel in dense fog due to
the ferry traffic....

He maintained that if I had anchored - even to safeguard the boat and the
lives of those onboard the vessel - I would have been subject to a $5000.
fine and possible arrest and confiscation of the vessel!!!

Talk about bureaucracy run amok... I am sure I feel so much safer with the
Department of Homeland Security taking such a rigid stance!!!

I had a informal word later with a member of a Coast Guard vessel who was
refueling next to us.. and his advise was "Safety First - if you have to
anchor due to imminent danger - do it - just don't tell Customs about it
when you check in!".

And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

I had a informal word later with a member of a Coast Guard vessel who was
refueling next to us.. and his advise was "Safety First - if you have to
anchor due to imminent danger - do it - just don't tell Customs about it
when you check in!".

And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

It may help if you remember that they are trying
to make rules to make it harder for the
terrorists. It would sure help if _they_ would
remember that.

Don W.

That is unfortunately US DHS policy. Even though all USCG NOTAMS that
describe restricted areas allow exceptions in case of emergencies but as far
as Customs and Border Protection or the DOD are concerned emergencies don't
count. Last year a flight of French fighters on joint maneuvers with the
Canadian AF ran low on fuel due to the weather and requested permission to
land at a US field. They were refused permission and were allowed to land
at Atlantic City only after the intervention by the State Department and the
FAA. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318906.shtml

The really odd thing was once they finally landed they were stuck because
none of the pilots had enough room on their credit cards to buy enough fuel
to get back in the air. :-)

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"claus" wrote in message
...
The following episode might be of interest to fellow boaters cruising the
San Juans and Canadian Gulf Islands....

We were returning from Bedwell Harbour on the Canadian side of the
boundary to our designated port of entry for U.S. customs at Roche
Harbor - the weather forecast was for patchy fog - but as we left
visibility improved and after checking with Victoria Vessel Traffic
Control on the VHF were assured that no large shipping was scheduled to
transit Boundary Pass we proceeded using our radar, GPs and monitoring
both channel 16 and 5 on the VHF. All was OK until we neared Turn Point on
Stuart Island - when the fog closed in and we were in about 100 feet of
visibility.... we "tippy toed" along using our air horn and communicating
with other traffic nearby on our VHF - at this point we decided to
proceed to Reid Harbor (right around the corner) and anchor until
conditions improved.

However, the fog was localized around Turn Point - and all of a sudden we
were in brillian sunshine and could proceed across to Roche Harbor and the
customs inspection.

When I asked the young inspector what would have happened if we - for the
sake of safety - had dropped the hook in Reid before proceeding to Roche -
his answer was "you are not allowed to do that - and if you can not
proceed to Roche, you must return to Canadian waters!". I explained that
that was not a safe option due to the dense fog and that it would have
been impossible to proceed across the busy San Juan Channel in dense fog
due to the ferry traffic....

He maintained that if I had anchored - even to safeguard the boat and the
lives of those onboard the vessel - I would have been subject to a $5000.
fine and possible arrest and confiscation of the vessel!!!

Talk about bureaucracy run amok... I am sure I feel so much safer with the
Department of Homeland Security taking such a rigid stance!!!

I had a informal word later with a member of a Coast Guard vessel who was
refueling next to us.. and his advise was "Safety First - if you have to
anchor due to imminent danger - do it - just don't tell Customs about it
when you check in!".

And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

What hype?

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a
newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very
seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little
about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it
rather tiresome.

"claus" wrote in message
. ..
What hype?

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a
newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

The whole notion that just because it did not happen to the OP, then it
will not happen and is a "Chicken Little" type concern is what is
ridiculous. With the amount of sea traffic, the problem the OP
identified most certainly *will* happen. I see nothing "Chicken
Little"ish about his post.

It seems to me that being a "Chicken Little" is not the danger here.
Being a Sheep is the danger. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Sheep
in our society. The only time the Sheep exhibit any semblance of
courage is when they "flail" a person with the courage to stand up and
speak out about a government run amok.

Voting, political contributions and writing to our congressional
representatives are not the only ways we influence our government. One
way we influence our government is exactly what the OP did. We co-opt
other people in government. The OP talked with someone else in
government (a CG officer) about the problem he experienced and the
unreasonableness of the government's policy. That sort of grass roots
feedback is exceedingly important in guiding our government. (Yes.
That's right. Just as our Constitution says, our government is ruled
by us. It is our responsibility to guide and control it. Daily. Even
minute by minute.)

The other thing the OP did right is exactly what you "flail". He
discussed the problem he found with other citizens. With us. Yep.
That's right. (Again.) It is our responsibility to discuss our
government among ourselves.

I applaud the OP for having both the courage and the integrity to do
his duty. (While being completely on-topic for the NG, I should add.)


Bill Kearney wrote:
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very
seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little
about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it
rather tiresome.

"claus" wrote in message
. ..
What hype?

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a
newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.

Bill Kearney wrote:
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong"


So you acknowledge a real increase in
risk . . .


but in reality they very
seldom do.


meaning you believe the risks are lower
(i.e., more seldom) than others believe
them to be?


Seems it's just fashionable lately to
scream like Chicken Little
about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it
rather tiresome.

And therefore hearing others espouse
different assessments of risk than those
you hold is rather tiresome to you and
you would rather they either adopt your
risk assessments or simply remain silent?

Thank you for sharing that with us, Bill.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:22:59 -0400, Bill Kearney wrote:

The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very
seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken
Little about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I
find it rather tiresome.

Is the trampling of your constitutional rights by Bush II et al a
"tiresome" topic too Bill? Nevermind. Just shove your head back in that
sunless little hole and feel safe from scary terrorist types, whoever
they might be. Been to the loosechange site?

In due respect, at this time of year dense fog banks do occur quite suddenly
around the San Juan islands.

The point I was trying to make was simply that a good sailor must always
repeat always keep the safety of his vessel and crew first and foremost,
irrespective of bureaucratic rules. And if you read my posting, the local
Coast Guard crew confirmed the safety first rule.

You are of course free to do whatever you wish to do - and in your case I
wonder what you would do in the situation I described.


"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
...
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very
seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken
Little
about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it
rather tiresome.

"claus" wrote in message
. ..
What hype?

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
t...
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your
vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-)

Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a
newsgroup
instead. Yeesh.