If anyone has actually been to Canada in an undocumented boat with US state
registration, would you please let me know. Steve has me worried with his
post reply that he heard somewhere that documentation is necessary. I spent
quite a while on the www.cbsa.gc.ca site today but couldn't find an answer.
You can speak to someone but it's like waiting for tech support.

I'm sure I would have heard of this if it was the case but things change
constantly with border security now and I'd hate to find out too late to get
the documentation.

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
If anyone has actually been to Canada in an undocumented boat with US
state registration, would you please let me know. Steve has me
worried with his post reply that he heard somewhere that documentation
is necessary. I spent quite a while on the www.cbsa.gc.ca site today
but couldn't find an answer. You can speak to someone but it's like
waiting for tech support.

I'm sure I would have heard of this if it was the case but things
change constantly with border security now and I'd hate to find out
too late to get the documentation.

--
Roger Long


Try pinging Jeff over at alt.sailing.asa. He's the only one I know of
who's lame enough to even want to sail to Canada. But, seems like I
remember he was up there a couple years ago. He's got a smallish
catamaran and I don't think he can get it documented. Not enough space
inside (tonnage) probably.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

Try pinging Jeff over at alt.sailing.asa. He's the only one I know of
who's lame enough to even want to sail to Canada.
snip...
Wilbur Hubbard


Yep... the Canadian Maritimes are no place for a girlieman in his mustard
yellow sailboat complete with passion purple interior.

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 4/9/2007 7:58 PM:

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
If anyone has actually been to Canada in an undocumented boat with US
state registration, would you please let me know. Steve has me
worried with his post reply that he heard somewhere that documentation
is necessary. I spent quite a while on the www.cbsa.gc.ca site today
but couldn't find an answer. You can speak to someone but it's like
waiting for tech support.

I'm sure I would have heard of this if it was the case but things
change constantly with border security now and I'd hate to find out
too late to get the documentation.

--
Roger Long


Try pinging Jeff over at alt.sailing.asa. He's the only one I know of
who's lame enough to even want to sail to Canada. But, seems like I
remember he was up there a couple years ago. He's got a smallish
catamaran and I don't think he can get it documented. Not enough space
inside (tonnage) probably.

Actually, I bought my 36 foot catamaran in Canada. It was state
registered at first when we brought it home, but we ended up
documenting it. So while we were in Canadian waters, we had state
registration. However, we never "entered" Canada, and never saw an
official until we entered the US at Oswego.

It appears that Wilbur is carrying on the great tradition of nautical
ignorance that Capt Neal pioneered. As anyone familiar with
documentation understands, catamarans are actually rated very high by
the formula. My boat, for example, is rated at 22 Gross Tons, even
though her actual displacement is only 4.5 tons.

... As anyone familiar with
documentation understands, catamarans are actually rated very high by
the formula. My boat, for example, is rated at 22 Gross Tons, even
though her actual displacement is only 4.5 tons.

That's odd. My 42 foot and substantially heavier cat is only 19 GRT
and 15 NRT on my documentation. I wonder how we got such different
numbers. It's really only mattered in Tonga where we paid harbor dues
based on registered tonnage.

-- Tom.

* wrote, On 4/9/2007 11:20 PM:
... As anyone familiar with
documentation understands, catamarans are actually rated very high by
the formula. My boat, for example, is rated at 22 Gross Tons, even
though her actual displacement is only 4.5 tons.

That's odd. My 42 foot and substantially heavier cat is only 19 GRT
and 15 NRT on my documentation. I wonder how we got such different
numbers. It's really only mattered in Tonga where we paid harbor dues
based on registered tonnage.

-- Tom.

The measurement is greatly affected by certain design features. For
example, faired in keels are part of the depth, fins or daggerboards
are not. The deck house or trunk may or may not be included,
depending on whether its considered "flush deck" for the rule. But
the big difference would be whether you got measured as a catamaran,
or as a monohull under the simplified rule.

Jeff wrote:
* wrote, On 4/9/2007 11:20 PM:
... As anyone familiar with documentation understands,
catamarans are actually rated very high by the formula. My
boat, for example, is rated at 22 Gross Tons, even though her
actual displacement is only 4.5 tons.

Tonnage has nothing to do with the weight or displacement of your boat.

Glenn Ashmore posted an explanation of tonnage a few years ago...I
saved it...here it is:

Tonnage has nothing to do with the weight of your boat. It is a measure
of how much wine a vessel can carry.

The word "tun" was originally a size of a cask used to ship wine from
Spain & Portugal to England. In 1347 a tax of 3 shillings per tun was
imposed and this was called "tonnage." A ship's size became known by the
number of casks it could carry, and the word tonnage started being used
to describe a ship's size.

It was found that if you took the length x the breadth x the depth of
the hold under the deck and divided by 100 it was close to the number of
casks. That is where we get the "Measurement ton" of 100 cubic feet per
ton.

There are several kinds of tonnage: The first two are used by the tax
collector. The next two are used by designers. The fifth and sixth are
used by freight salesmen and canal operators and the last one is used by
the USCG for documenting boats.

Gross Tonnage - is the internal volume in cubic feet of the vessel
minus certain spaces above the main or "tonnage" deck, like stacks and
ventilators, which are called "exemptions" .

Net Registered Tonnage - is obtained by deducting from the gross tonnage
the volume of space that can't be used for paying cargo or passengers,
that is to say the space occupied by the engines, the crew's quarter,
the stores, etc.

Displacement Tonnage - is the actual weight of the water "displaced" by
the ship and is usually quoted in long tons of 2240 lbs.

Light Displacement Tonnage - is the weight with nothing in it.

Loaded Displacement Tonnage - is the fully loaded weight to the maximum
and is on her summer draft in salt water.

Deadweight Tonnage - is the difference between Light and Loaded
Displacement Tonnage....the actual carrying capacity of the vessel.

Panama & Suez Canal Tonnages - these are different from the internationally
accepted definitions. There used to be a lot of variations between
countries and the
canal owners thought they were being conned, so they came up with their
own definitions.

Simplified Measurement System - The USCG decided that all this was way too
much for bureaucrats to deal with for yachts so they came up with
their own formula:

Take the horizontal distance between the outboard ends of the boat not
including rudders and bow sprits. Multiply that by the maximum beam
outside to outside.
Multiply that by the distance from the sheer line not including bulwarks
or cap rails to the outside bottom of the hull not including the keel.
Add the volume of the deck house/cabin top. Multiply by .5 for sailboats
and .67 for power boats.
Divide by 100.

This will give you the "Gross Tonnage". Net tonnage is 90% of gross for
sailboats and 80% for power boats.

It should be obvious to anyone who's managed to get this far that your
boat's "tonnage" no longer has anything to do with anything real; it
only exists in the mind of some government bureaucrat.

Another bit of maritime trivia: Rummage was the manner in which the wine
casks were stored in the hold of the ship and came to refer to the whole
ship's cargo. after a voyage any unclaimed and damaged cargo was stacked
on the dock beside the boat and offered for sale - a rummage sale.



--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://shop.sailboatowners.com/books...ku=90&cat=1304

... But
the big difference would be whether you got measured as a catamaran,
or as a monohull under the simplified rule.

FWIW, I measured the boat as a catamaran using the simplified form
which is now available interactively at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/msc/t3/cg5397/cg5397.form.htm.

-- Tom.

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

It appears that Wilbur is carrying on the great tradition of nautical
ignorance that Capt Neal pioneered. As anyone familiar with
documentation understands, catamarans are actually rated very high by
the formula. My boat, for example, is rated at 22 Gross Tons, even
though her actual displacement is only 4.5 tons.


Somebody figured it wrong. Since tonnage, for documentation purposes,
only measures internal volume of a hull (or hulls) exclusive of engine
space, which is further based on cubic feet available to haul cargo,
there is no way two skinny little catamaran hulls at 36 feet LOA can
encompass 22GT cargo volume. And, if you read up on calculating
documentation tonnage, you will also note the volume of any structure
above the gunnels (your main salon and pilot house) can't be included. I
know you aren't bright enough to calculate your own tonnage so you must
have had somebody do it for you. My advice - - get your money back from
that ignorant rip-off artist . . .

Wilbur Hubbard

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 4/10/2007 6:46 AM:

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..

It appears that Wilbur is carrying on the great tradition of nautical
ignorance that Capt Neal pioneered. As anyone familiar with
documentation understands, catamarans are actually rated very high by
the formula. My boat, for example, is rated at 22 Gross Tons, even
though her actual displacement is only 4.5 tons.


Somebody figured it wrong. Since tonnage, for documentation purposes,
only measures internal volume of a hull (or hulls) exclusive of engine
space, which is further based on cubic feet available to haul cargo,
there is no way two skinny little catamaran hulls at 36 feet LOA can
encompass 22GT cargo volume. And, if you read up on calculating
documentation tonnage, you will also note the volume of any structure
above the gunnels (your main salon and pilot house) can't be included. I
know you aren't bright enough to calculate your own tonnage so you must
have had somebody do it for you. My advice - - get your money back from
that ignorant rip-off artist . . .

I just sent in the builder's forms. Its really easy, even you could
have done it. Except, your boat isn't big enough. Sorry.

And as always, you're misinformed about the measurement of multihulls.
When the connecting hull is enclosed, then the entire beam can
get included in the "volume" as the boat is essentially considered a
monohull.

As the form says:
"For the purposes of Simplified measurement, twin hull and tri-hull
vessels are defined as only those with no buoyant volume in the
structure that connects the hulls together. In other words, the
cross-structure, bridging, platform or “trampoline” connecting the
hulls has no measurable depth or buoyancy as shown in the
illustrations in Section II, Items 8 and 9 of this form. Cathedral
hull forms and other similar configurations with no distinct
separation of hulls are not considered multi-hulls in this context."

If my boat had no enclosed central volume, and were considered
strictly as a multihull, it would still measure 12 gross tons, almost
triple its displacement.

Also, engine space does not affect the "gross tonnage" but it does
reduce the "net tonnage."