What does it take to enter US waters by boat?
 

Guys,

sorry for the boat related post ;)

I noticed the US border is a lot closer as i thought ... Now I have the
following questions and was wondering if anybody knows the answers:

- For non americans, how close can you go (by boat) to the US border
(an imaginary line)? Can you go somewhat close or across? Is it
monitored closely?

- If you cross the border will the coastguard hassle you? here we have
the case that there are canadian waters that in order to get to you
have to go through US parts of the ocean ...

- If you drive deeper into US waters and even to US land/marina what
procedure do you have to go to before you go?

- Lastly a question just for fun: If the US coast guard hassles you in
US waters can you just drive back into canadian waters? Or will they
chase you? shoot at you? get the canadian coast guard to finish you
off?

Thanks

Matt

On 13 Apr 2005 13:46:09 -0700, wrote:

Guys,

sorry for the boat related post ;)

I noticed the US border is a lot closer as i thought ... Now I have the
following questions and was wondering if anybody knows the answers:

- For non americans, how close can you go (by boat) to the US border
(an imaginary line)? Can you go somewhat close or across? Is it
monitored closely?

- If you cross the border will the coastguard hassle you? here we have
the case that there are canadian waters that in order to get to you
have to go through US parts of the ocean ...

- If you drive deeper into US waters and even to US land/marina what
procedure do you have to go to before you go?

When I was up on the St. Lawrence last year, there wasn't any
requirement for traveling through Canadian waters, but if I were to
land or anchor in Canadian waters, I had to report to immigration or
get permission as I remember the requirements.

I'm not at all sure the same is true for American waters. Although I
heard or read somewhere that there was going to be an effort to
control access by water more closely.

I don't think there is anything being enforced at the moment.

- Lastly a question just for fun: If the US coast guard hassles you in
US waters can you just drive back into canadian waters?

Only if it's a criminal act.

Or will they chase you? shoot at you? get the canadian coast guard
to finish you off?

Hopefully. :)

Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Later,

Tom

wrote in message
ups.com...
Guys,

sorry for the boat related post ;)

I noticed the US border is a lot closer as i thought ... Now I have the
following questions and was wondering if anybody knows the answers:

- For non americans, how close can you go (by boat) to the US border
(an imaginary line)? Can you go somewhat close or across? Is it
monitored closely?

- If you cross the border will the coastguard hassle you? here we have
the case that there are canadian waters that in order to get to you
have to go through US parts of the ocean ...

- If you drive deeper into US waters and even to US land/marina what
procedure do you have to go to before you go?

- Lastly a question just for fun: If the US coast guard hassles you in
US waters can you just drive back into canadian waters? Or will they
chase you? shoot at you? get the canadian coast guard to finish you
off?

Thanks

Matt


Plenty of things you better be aware of, especially since 9-11:

http://boating.ncf.ca/usborder.html

http://www.bellhaven.net/customs.html

http://www.cruising.ca/docs/USAE.html

http://www.cruising.ca/docs/forigen.html

http://www.tc.gc.ca/BoatingSafety/facts/foreign.htm

http://www.nfl.ca/foreign_boaters/

- If you drive deeper into US waters and even to US land/marina what
procedure do you have to go to before you go?

When I was up on the St. Lawrence last year, there wasn't any
requirement for traveling through Canadian waters, but if I were to
land or anchor in Canadian waters, I had to report to immigration or
get permission as I remember the requirements.

I'm not at all sure the same is true for American waters. Although I
heard or read somewhere that there was going to be an effort to
control access by water more closely.

I doubt it too .. after all there are people trying to smuggle all
sorts of **** into the US

I don't think there is anything being enforced at the moment.

- Lastly a question just for fun: If the US coast guard hassles you
in
US waters can you just drive back into canadian waters?

Only if it's a criminal act.

Or will they chase you? shoot at you? get the canadian coast guard
to finish you off?

Hopefully. :)

LOL

Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

c'mon, you cant just tease us ... Tell the story :)

thanks for the info :)

Looks like a huge PITA

Matt

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Later,

Tom


Say what?

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message It's
a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

Later,

Tom


Now Tom! Don't leave us in suspense! Tell us the details, after
all.....it's boating!

Jim

You are just makeing it worse now! ;)

If the canadian Navy stopped you boat it must have been interesting!

So, open up! :)

Matt

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

Later,

Tom

If we aren't tough on 'questionable visitors' the US security people
s*it all over us. They seem to
think we're too lax in preventing terrorists etc. from using us to
attack you. It's a no win situation.

wrote:
Guys,

sorry for the boat related post ;)

I noticed the US border is a lot closer as i thought ... Now I have
the
following questions and was wondering if anybody knows the answers:

- For non americans, how close can you go (by boat) to the US border
(an imaginary line)? Can you go somewhat close or across? Is it
monitored closely?

- If you cross the border will the coastguard hassle you? here we
have
the case that there are canadian waters that in order to get to you
have to go through US parts of the ocean ...

- If you drive deeper into US waters and even to US land/marina what
procedure do you have to go to before you go?

- Lastly a question just for fun: If the US coast guard hassles you
in
US waters can you just drive back into canadian waters? Or will they
chase you? shoot at you? get the canadian coast guard to finish you
off?

Thanks

Matt


You can pass into and out of US waters without reproting to customs.
However, if you plan to go ashore, anchor, rendezvous or make close
contact with another vessel you must report to customs first.

You will need your ship's papers, photo id and proof of citizenship for
all aboard, and it helps to have an inventory of booze, smokes, and
other items they are going to ask about.

When you land at the customs dock, nobody is allowed ashore except the
master of the vessel until you have cleared customs. In practice,
nobody seems to mind if somebody steps off the boat for a moment to
help you land as long as that person gets directly back aboard.

And although I never have plans of landing while cruising around say Alex
Bay or the castle on the St. Lawrence, I carry my passport in case a
mechanial problem or some other contingency forces me ashore.


You can pass into and out of US waters without reproting to customs.
However, if you plan to go ashore, anchor, rendezvous or make close
contact with another vessel you must report to customs first.

You will need your ship's papers, photo id and proof of citizenship for
all aboard, and it helps to have an inventory of booze, smokes, and
other items they are going to ask about.

When you land at the customs dock, nobody is allowed ashore except the
master of the vessel until you have cleared customs. In practice,
nobody seems to mind if somebody steps off the boat for a moment to
help you land as long as that person gets directly back aboard.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:57:09 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

If we aren't tough on 'questionable visitors' the US security people
s*it all over us. They seem to
think we're too lax in preventing terrorists etc. from using us to
attack you. It's a no win situation.

I understand your point and agree - it is a no win situation.

But seriously - when you've listened to the radio traffic, have full
understanding of what happened and why, the USCG is on scene
and everything is under control, why is it necessary for the
French...er. Canadian Navy to interrogate the victim in French using
an interpreter?

It all worked out eventually - no harm, no foul. :)

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
I understand your point and agree - it is a no win situation.

But seriously - when you've listened to the radio traffic, have full
understanding of what happened and why, the USCG is on scene
and everything is under control, why is it necessary for the
French...er. Canadian Navy to interrogate the victim in French using
an interpreter?

It all worked out eventually - no harm, no foul. :)

Later,

Tom

Just a short question Tom. In whose territorial water was the "victim",
Canada's or the USA ?

Jim

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:33:39 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
I understand your point and agree - it is a no win situation.

But seriously - when you've listened to the radio traffic, have full
understanding of what happened and why, the USCG is on scene
and everything is under control, why is it necessary for the
French...er. Canadian Navy to interrogate the victim in French using
an interpreter?

It all worked out eventually - no harm, no foul. :)

Just a short question Tom. In whose territorial water was the "victim",
Canada's or the USA ?

It started in American waters and finished in Canadian waters.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:33:39 -0400, "Jim Carter"
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
I understand your point and agree - it is a no win situation.
But seriously - when you've listened to the radio traffic, have full
understanding of what happened and why, the USCG is on scene
and everything is under control, why is it necessary for the
French...er. Canadian Navy to interrogate the victim in French using
an interpreter?
It all worked out eventually - no harm, no foul. :)
Just a short question Tom. In whose territorial water was the
"victim",
Canada's or the USA ?
It started in American waters and finished in Canadian waters.
Later,
Tom
Well Tom, In Canada we do have two official languages, French and English.

Jim

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

Later,

Tom



So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Guys,

sorry for the boat related post ;)

I noticed the US border is a lot closer as i thought ... Now I have the
following questions and was wondering if anybody knows the answers:

- For non americans, how close can you go (by boat) to the US border
(an imaginary line)? Can you go somewhat close or across? Is it
monitored closely?

If my experience of last summer is any indication, you should make sure any
attractive women on your boat are dressed like ugly hags, and the Coast
Guard won't bother you. I got pulled over for a "safety check", which
consisted of one guy checking to see if I had flares and a warning flag, and
the other four guys chatting up my son's girlfriend, who just happened to be
in a way-too-short skirt. My son did NOT think this was funny, but being 15,
he wasn't quite ready to attack the CG fellas.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:20:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

Yes - I wanted to protest the hockey lockout and where better to do
that than in the Land of the Puck. :)

Or is that the Land of the Loon?

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:20:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

Yes - I wanted to protest the hockey lockout and where better to do
that than in the Land of the Puck. :)

Or is that the Land of the Loon?

Later,

Tom

Hang on. You don't get off that easy. I'm trying to sell 3 truckloads of
Cheer Ultra Liquid detergent, regular scent and two of the stupid scents
that women seem to love (lavender pussy meadow fresh breeze and such).
$26.75 per case. Four 150 ounce jugs per case. 720 cases per truck, 36 per
pallet. $19,260.00 plus $1500.00 freight to Connecticut. Net 10 days. Go
check in your basement, see how you're set for detergent, and let me know
ASAP. No partial trucks - gotta take the whole thing. Delivers in about 2
weeks.

Doug Kanter wrote:

Hang on. You don't get off that easy. I'm trying to sell 3 truckloads of
Cheer Ultra Liquid detergent, regular scent and two of the stupid scents
that women seem to love (lavender pussy meadow fresh breeze and such).
$26.75 per case. Four 150 ounce jugs per case. 720 cases per truck, 36 per
pallet. $19,260.00 plus $1500.00 freight to Connecticut. Net 10 days. Go
check in your basement, see how you're set for detergent, and let me know
ASAP. No partial trucks - gotta take the whole thing. Delivers in about 2
weeks.


Wow weeee..how'd you get so dirty that you need that much soap Tom?

Don White wrote:


Wow weeee..how'd you get so dirty that you need that much soap Tom?



On the other hand...you could use a couple of jugs to wash Bert's mouth out!

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:22:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:20:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

Yes - I wanted to protest the hockey lockout and where better to do
that than in the Land of the Puck. :)

Or is that the Land of the Loon?

Hang on. You don't get off that easy. I'm trying to sell 3 truckloads of
Cheer Ultra Liquid detergent, regular scent and two of the stupid scents
that women seem to love (lavender pussy meadow fresh breeze and such).
$26.75 per case. Four 150 ounce jugs per case. 720 cases per truck, 36 per
pallet. $19,260.00 plus $1500.00 freight to Connecticut. Net 10 days. Go
check in your basement, see how you're set for detergent, and let me know
ASAP. No partial trucks - gotta take the whole thing. Delivers in about 2
weeks.

Wow - that's a hell of a deal, but the problem is that I don't take
showers and I don't wash my clothes. Hell, I'm wearing the same
underwear I wore in Vietnam - it stands up by itself and can even walk
around on it's own power.

I figure if God wanted us to be clean, he wouldn't have invented dirt
or BO for that matter.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:20:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

Yes - I wanted to protest the hockey lockout and where better to do
that than in the Land of the Puck. :)

Or is that the Land of the Loon?

Later,

Tom

A loony pucker?
G

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:28:01 -0700, "Gordon"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:20:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

Yes - I wanted to protest the hockey lockout and where better to do
that than in the Land of the Puck. :)

Or is that the Land of the Loon?

A loony pucker?

That works.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:22:07 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:20:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

Yes - I wanted to protest the hockey lockout and where better to do
that than in the Land of the Puck. :)

Or is that the Land of the Loon?

Hang on. You don't get off that easy. I'm trying to sell 3 truckloads of
Cheer Ultra Liquid detergent, regular scent and two of the stupid scents
that women seem to love (lavender pussy meadow fresh breeze and such).
$26.75 per case. Four 150 ounce jugs per case. 720 cases per truck, 36 per
pallet. $19,260.00 plus $1500.00 freight to Connecticut. Net 10 days. Go
check in your basement, see how you're set for detergent, and let me know
ASAP. No partial trucks - gotta take the whole thing. Delivers in about 2
weeks.

Wow - that's a hell of a deal, but the problem is that I don't take
showers and I don't wash my clothes. Hell, I'm wearing the same
underwear I wore in Vietnam - it stands up by itself and can even walk
around on it's own power.

I figure if God wanted us to be clean, he wouldn't have invented dirt
or BO for that matter.

Later,

Tom

OK....well, if you know anyone who might be interested, please let me know,
Tom. I have one truckload left, although a large supermarket chain will
probably take it by mid-day today.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:14:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

OK....well, if you know anyone who might be interested, please let me know,
Tom. I have one truckload left, although a large supermarket chain will
probably take it by mid-day today.

Out of curiosity, how did you come into ownership of three truckloads
of laundry detergent?

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:14:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

OK....well, if you know anyone who might be interested, please let me
know,
Tom. I have one truckload left, although a large supermarket chain will
probably take it by mid-day today.

Out of curiosity, how did you come into ownership of three truckloads
of laundry detergent?

Later,

Tom

It's what I do, Tom. It's called diverting. Short example: Grocery chain
gets a deal from Proctor & Gamble, giving them better than normal pricing,
for maybe a month or two, on certain products, like detergents. P&G lets the
chain buy as many trucks as they want. They may put some on sale (for the
retail customers), or they may not. Or, if it's a product that won't spoil,
they just buy a lot because...why not?

The other thing they'll do is call companies like ours and see if we want to
buy truckloads and sell it to other chains, or wholesalers, who aren't
getting the same deal. Or, perhaps the one-month deal has passed these
others by. If there's enough spread between "normal" pricing and deal
pricing, it works.

It used to be easy until a bunch of stooges in Washington decided to see how
war affects the price of oil (something anyone can learn from just reading,
living life and watching old war movies). Before the war, freight was
$1.20-$1.40 per mile. Now it's $2.20-$2.50. That shrinks the distance we can
ship, obviously.

There's humor in the business. The manufacturers' reps are usually on
commission of some sort. Their companies don't want customers diverting
product. In other words, if Stop & Shop buys stuff on deal, they want the
chain to keep it for themselves. So, the reps whine to the buyers if they're
buying more trucks than they can obviously use in their own stores. They
threaten to cut off the deal. Then, they stop acting and leave them alone
for awhile while they continue to buy 15, 20 or 30 trucks, selling all but
maybe 4 to people like us. Why? Because they're on commission. :-)

Doug,
All consumer products companies frown on diverters, P&G is probably the
strictest in allocating only X amount of product on deal ( they base deal
product purchases upon the amount of non deal products). The company does
not benefit from diverters, the individual salesman does. It is not unusual
for a mfg'er to fire an employee or broker who knowingly sells to a
diverter.

Do the retailers who supply you ever "dry up" when the mfg'er determine who
you are using?





"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:14:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

OK....well, if you know anyone who might be interested, please let me
know,
Tom. I have one truckload left, although a large supermarket chain will
probably take it by mid-day today.

Out of curiosity, how did you come into ownership of three truckloads
of laundry detergent?

Later,

Tom

It's what I do, Tom. It's called diverting. Short example: Grocery chain
gets a deal from Proctor & Gamble, giving them better than normal pricing,
for maybe a month or two, on certain products, like detergents. P&G lets
the chain buy as many trucks as they want. They may put some on sale (for
the retail customers), or they may not. Or, if it's a product that won't
spoil, they just buy a lot because...why not?

The other thing they'll do is call companies like ours and see if we want
to buy truckloads and sell it to other chains, or wholesalers, who aren't
getting the same deal. Or, perhaps the one-month deal has passed these
others by. If there's enough spread between "normal" pricing and deal
pricing, it works.

It used to be easy until a bunch of stooges in Washington decided to see
how war affects the price of oil (something anyone can learn from just
reading, living life and watching old war movies). Before the war, freight
was $1.20-$1.40 per mile. Now it's $2.20-$2.50. That shrinks the distance
we can ship, obviously.

There's humor in the business. The manufacturers' reps are usually on
commission of some sort. Their companies don't want customers diverting
product. In other words, if Stop & Shop buys stuff on deal, they want the
chain to keep it for themselves. So, the reps whine to the buyers if
they're buying more trucks than they can obviously use in their own
stores. They threaten to cut off the deal. Then, they stop acting and
leave them alone for awhile while they continue to buy 15, 20 or 30
trucks, selling all but maybe 4 to people like us. Why? Because they're on
commission. :-)

Only the retailers who get piggish, and we will often refuse to buy more
from someone who is so greedy or inexperienced that they don't know when to
stop.

Some years back, I believe it was P&G who took a customer to court over the
diverting issue. The outcome was as expected. They were told that once
they'd sold something, the new owner (the customer) can sell it to anyone
they want, or they can dump it into the ocean. As far as the allocations you
mentioned, that's true, but often, they're totally disconnected from
reality. If P&G knows a chain normally moves 5 trucks a month, might move 7
if they run an ad in the Sunday paper, they'll very often let them have 10
or 12 trucks. Who's the fool here? Give them 8, but not 12. They'll
sometimes suggest storing the extra product at the lower price, but at the
same time, they'll spread rumors of a size or label change, and for reasons
that make no sense, the chains think you and I (the retail customers) give a
damn about the label change, so they don't want to get stuck with it.

It's all silly.

"The real ME" wrote in message
...
Doug,
All consumer products companies frown on diverters, P&G is probably the
strictest in allocating only X amount of product on deal ( they base deal
product purchases upon the amount of non deal products). The company does
not benefit from diverters, the individual salesman does. It is not
unusual for a mfg'er to fire an employee or broker who knowingly sells to
a diverter.

Do the retailers who supply you ever "dry up" when the mfg'er determine
who you are using?





"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:14:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

OK....well, if you know anyone who might be interested, please let me
know,
Tom. I have one truckload left, although a large supermarket chain will
probably take it by mid-day today.

Out of curiosity, how did you come into ownership of three truckloads
of laundry detergent?

Later,

Tom

It's what I do, Tom. It's called diverting. Short example: Grocery chain
gets a deal from Proctor & Gamble, giving them better than normal
pricing, for maybe a month or two, on certain products, like detergents.
P&G lets the chain buy as many trucks as they want. They may put some on
sale (for the retail customers), or they may not. Or, if it's a product
that won't spoil, they just buy a lot because...why not?

The other thing they'll do is call companies like ours and see if we want
to buy truckloads and sell it to other chains, or wholesalers, who aren't
getting the same deal. Or, perhaps the one-month deal has passed these
others by. If there's enough spread between "normal" pricing and deal
pricing, it works.

It used to be easy until a bunch of stooges in Washington decided to see
how war affects the price of oil (something anyone can learn from just
reading, living life and watching old war movies). Before the war,
freight was $1.20-$1.40 per mile. Now it's $2.20-$2.50. That shrinks the
distance we can ship, obviously.

There's humor in the business. The manufacturers' reps are usually on
commission of some sort. Their companies don't want customers diverting
product. In other words, if Stop & Shop buys stuff on deal, they want the
chain to keep it for themselves. So, the reps whine to the buyers if
they're buying more trucks than they can obviously use in their own
stores. They threaten to cut off the deal. Then, they stop acting and
leave them alone for awhile while they continue to buy 15, 20 or 30
trucks, selling all but maybe 4 to people like us. Why? Because they're
on commission. :-)

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:28:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Only the retailers who get piggish, and we will often refuse to buy more
from someone who is so greedy or inexperienced that they don't know when to
stop.

Some years back, I believe it was P&G who took a customer to court over the
diverting issue. The outcome was as expected. They were told that once
they'd sold something, the new owner (the customer) can sell it to anyone
they want, or they can dump it into the ocean. As far as the allocations you
mentioned, that's true, but often, they're totally disconnected from
reality. If P&G knows a chain normally moves 5 trucks a month, might move 7
if they run an ad in the Sunday paper, they'll very often let them have 10
or 12 trucks. Who's the fool here? Give them 8, but not 12. They'll
sometimes suggest storing the extra product at the lower price, but at the
same time, they'll spread rumors of a size or label change, and for reasons
that make no sense, the chains think you and I (the retail customers) give a
damn about the label change, so they don't want to get stuck with it.

It's all silly.

So it's basically taking a product and turning it into a commodity?

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:28:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Only the retailers who get piggish, and we will often refuse to buy more
from someone who is so greedy or inexperienced that they don't know when
to
stop.

Some years back, I believe it was P&G who took a customer to court over
the
diverting issue. The outcome was as expected. They were told that once
they'd sold something, the new owner (the customer) can sell it to anyone
they want, or they can dump it into the ocean. As far as the allocations
you
mentioned, that's true, but often, they're totally disconnected from
reality. If P&G knows a chain normally moves 5 trucks a month, might move
7
if they run an ad in the Sunday paper, they'll very often let them have 10
or 12 trucks. Who's the fool here? Give them 8, but not 12. They'll
sometimes suggest storing the extra product at the lower price, but at the
same time, they'll spread rumors of a size or label change, and for
reasons
that make no sense, the chains think you and I (the retail customers) give
a
damn about the label change, so they don't want to get stuck with it.

It's all silly.

So it's basically taking a product and turning it into a commodity?

Later,

Tom

Yes. Not much different than arbitrage, in the stock market. Chain "A" is
paying $12.00 for soap. Chain "B" is paying the "normal" price, $18.00. If
we can buy it from A for $12.75 and sell it to B for $14.00 or whatever, it
works.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:13:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:28:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Only the retailers who get piggish, and we will often refuse to buy more
from someone who is so greedy or inexperienced that they don't know when
to
stop.

Some years back, I believe it was P&G who took a customer to court over
the
diverting issue. The outcome was as expected. They were told that once
they'd sold something, the new owner (the customer) can sell it to anyone
they want, or they can dump it into the ocean. As far as the allocations
you
mentioned, that's true, but often, they're totally disconnected from
reality. If P&G knows a chain normally moves 5 trucks a month, might move
7
if they run an ad in the Sunday paper, they'll very often let them have 10
or 12 trucks. Who's the fool here? Give them 8, but not 12. They'll
sometimes suggest storing the extra product at the lower price, but at the
same time, they'll spread rumors of a size or label change, and for
reasons
that make no sense, the chains think you and I (the retail customers) give
a
damn about the label change, so they don't want to get stuck with it.

It's all silly.

So it's basically taking a product and turning it into a commodity?

Yes. Not much different than arbitrage, in the stock market. Chain "A" is
paying $12.00 for soap. Chain "B" is paying the "normal" price, $18.00. If
we can buy it from A for $12.75 and sell it to B for $14.00 or whatever, it
works.

So to stretch the analogy a little, would it be possible to purchase
that soap for, say August delivery at $12.50, then sell that delivery
contract to whomever at $15?

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:13:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:28:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Only the retailers who get piggish, and we will often refuse to buy more
from someone who is so greedy or inexperienced that they don't know when
to
stop.

Some years back, I believe it was P&G who took a customer to court over
the
diverting issue. The outcome was as expected. They were told that once
they'd sold something, the new owner (the customer) can sell it to
anyone
they want, or they can dump it into the ocean. As far as the allocations
you
mentioned, that's true, but often, they're totally disconnected from
reality. If P&G knows a chain normally moves 5 trucks a month, might
move
7
if they run an ad in the Sunday paper, they'll very often let them have
10
or 12 trucks. Who's the fool here? Give them 8, but not 12. They'll
sometimes suggest storing the extra product at the lower price, but at
the
same time, they'll spread rumors of a size or label change, and for
reasons
that make no sense, the chains think you and I (the retail customers)
give
a
damn about the label change, so they don't want to get stuck with it.

It's all silly.

So it's basically taking a product and turning it into a commodity?

Yes. Not much different than arbitrage, in the stock market. Chain "A" is
paying $12.00 for soap. Chain "B" is paying the "normal" price, $18.00. If
we can buy it from A for $12.75 and sell it to B for $14.00 or whatever,
it
works.

So to stretch the analogy a little, would it be possible to purchase
that soap for, say August delivery at $12.50, then sell that delivery
contract to whomever at $15?

Later,

Tom

Usually, no. Very few customers (people we sell to) are trustworthy enough
for that kind of thing. Most will cancel an order that far out, without
telling us, if a better deal comes along. We'll find out a few days
beforehand when the trucker tries to make the delivery appointment and finds
out the PO number is no good. We can always sell stuff somewhere, if that
happens, sometimes at a bit of a loss, but still, it's not a good day when
that happens.

My sister used to work for us, and apparently, it was her job to see how
quickly she could kill my father by scheduling long deliveries on products
whose prices are based on voodoo, like coffee and orange juice. She once had
a truck of coffee worth around $50k that she had to sell for a $10k loss
because bottom fell out of coffee prices. She was told not to do that any
more. :-)

On 13 Apr 2005 13:46:09 -0700, wrote:

Guys,

sorry for the boat related post ;)

I noticed the US border is a lot closer as i thought ... Now I have the
following questions and was wondering if anybody knows the answers:

I routinely sail and power into other nations waters. I keep a few
thousand dollars on hand to grease the palm of any trouble makers, and
keep my passport up to date.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

Later,

Tom



So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:20:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:03:19 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
Although I must say, based on my experience with the Canadians, they
certainly are a...

Well, let's just leave that experience alone.

Say what?

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

So in other words, you were trying to sneak into Canada.

Yes - I wanted to protest the hockey lockout and where better to do
that than in the Land of the Puck. :)

Or is that the Land of the Loon?

Later,

Tom

Hang on. You don't get off that easy. I'm trying to sell 3 truckloads of
Cheer Ultra Liquid detergent, regular scent and two of the stupid scents
that women seem to love (lavender pussy meadow fresh breeze and such).
$26.75 per case. Four 150 ounce jugs per case. 720 cases per truck, 36 per
pallet. $19,260.00 plus $1500.00 freight to Connecticut. Net 10 days. Go
check in your basement, see how you're set for detergent, and let me know
ASAP. No partial trucks - gotta take the whole thing. Delivers in about 2
weeks.