Trawler Forum

Trawler Forum (http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/)
-   Boating Safety and Concerns (http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s59/)
-   -   "I wasn't paying attention and ran into this wall" (http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s59/i-wasnt-paying-attention-ran-into-wall-21077.html)

BlueYonder 07-08-2015 04:33 PM

"I wasn't paying attention and ran into this wall"
 
You can hear the woman who was operating the boat in the back ground

No insurance either.


https://www.facebook.com/jessica.c.w...7854049272405/


Michigan family stuck in West Tenn. after boat crash | WBBJTV West Tennessee's News Channel | Local News

Crusty Chief 07-08-2015 06:02 PM

Bummer!

MYMT 07-08-2015 06:08 PM

"They wanted to know what I was doing to take the boat out of the water, stop the fuel from leaking into the riverways, and basically I had nothing. I didn't even have shoes on my feet," Kettlewell said.

Kettlewell said since she was not able to comply in time, the EPA seized the boat. She also said she was not allowed to retrieve her personal items.

"We don't have any belongings — license, credit cards, money or anything — because it is all on the boat," she said.

Kettlewell said for five days the EPA has raised her boat to drain fuel and then sank it again.

Once the boat is fully drained, Kettlewell said the EPA will sink it to the bottom of the river.

"We have nothing we can do, so we are trying to reach out to anyone and everyone to say 'don't sink that boat,'" Kettlewell said.

The EPA declined to comment on the operation. Kettlewell said her boat is uninsured and that they are currently being assisted by a local church....

...If this is true, then WTF is with this country anymore..The EPA, along with other goverment agencys running roughshod over everyone, stupid PC dictating what you can do and think..good lord, ya think maybe someone could help these folks instead of kicking them when they're already down?..used to be a free country, makes me sick to see what's going on...
..and if your inclined to argue the point here, don't bother..I don't do stupid!........maybe this should have been in a different thread huh?..

Tuesday 07-08-2015 06:38 PM

Ill bite my tongue on debating the hows/whys and leave it at this: No matter the individual's personal situation, I am happy the potentially hazardous situation is being taken care of. I am also saddened to hear about the loss of ANY boat in such a manner.

kthoennes 07-08-2015 09:07 PM

In the interview she says there was "no visibility and the winds were unbelievable." That's odd, in the cell phone video taken while the boat was actually sinking, it looked like a quiet, crystal clear day to me. On the other hand, seeing a boat sink is always sad to see, and yes, government agencies often do stupid, senseless things, like hiring a crane barge to lift that boat out - which they'll no doubt back charge to the owners - and then lower the boat back to the bottom because some pinhead bureaucrat issues an edict that the EPA can only mitigate, not do any salvage, when in this case mitigation and salvage is largely the same thing. (... and I'm a government manager for a living, hopefully I'd never direct such a mindless, ridiculous action, and never forget that the prime directive of public agencies is public service.)

Ski in NC 07-08-2015 09:35 PM

I don't buy the story. The EPA is not going to raise a sunk boat, drain the fuel, and sink it back in the river.

kthoennes 07-08-2015 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ski in NC (Post 347351)
I don't buy the story. The EPA is not going to raise a sunk boat, drain the fuel, and sink it back in the river.

The more I think of this, I tend to agree. Not getting the full, accurate story. And then I see somebody on the Facebook postings said it was seized by law enforcement as a drug boat, but then there's no source or follow-up to that posting either. Those ladies sure don't look like drug runners to me - but who knows. Still something oddly awful about watching a boat sink. Really bad idea to have no insurance though. And they can't replace their credit cards with a few phone calls? And...oh well, all speculation.

Capt Kangeroo 07-16-2015 07:03 AM

Flash thunderstorms producing high winds and blinding rain which are immediately followed by a pleasant sunny day are commonplace. If you have ever been caught in one in a narrow busy channel you will appreciate the terror of such. You can't run & you can't hide and the commercial traffic doesn't stop.

Her story of the EPA raising and re-sinking her boat does not surprise me in the slightest. This type of mindless bureaucracy is becoming more prevalent and insidious with every passing year.

My heart goes out to the family.

Shrew 07-20-2015 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MYMT (Post 347279)
...If this is true, then WTF is with this country anymore..The EPA, along with other goverment agencys running roughshod over everyone, stupid PC dictating what you can do and think..good lord, ya think maybe someone could help these folks instead of kicking them when they're already down?..used to be a free country, makes me sick to see what's going on...

..and if your inclined to argue the point here, don't bother..I don't do stupid!........maybe this should have been in a different thread huh?..

Ya.....it doesn't work that way. You don't get the chance to stand on the soapbox and spout your opinion, then tell everyone they're not allowed to voice theirs.

And by the way.....It is the boaters responsibility to provide financial remediation for the damage they create. That is not limited to the dock or boat they smash into. It also includes the financial cost of removing hazards to navigation (in this case that doesn't appear to apply, but see what happens if the same occurs in a channel rendering it unnavigable), as well as cost of environmental clean-up.

You can either afford the cost of liability out of pocket or obtain an insurance policy to do so. Having neither means nor insurance and still casting lines is simply irresponsible.

Next person for the soapbox, please stand up.

caltexflanc 07-20-2015 02:24 PM

If you read the FB comments, one of the salvors debunks the myth about the EPA.

Jessie Razutis: About a quarter of that news headline she gave WBBJ is even true, the EPA didnt raise it several times to sink it, we had to raise and lower it to position the straps so the cabin cruiser could be picked up level. Once it was then we extracted all the diesel and oil. Then we patched the hole and pushed it to the perryville. The spill that lady gave is one of many that like I said I dont feel sorry. The news is far from where I'd go to for the truth"

BandB 07-20-2015 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltexflanc (Post 350485)
If you read the FB comments, one of the salvors debunks the myth about the EPA.

Jessie Razutis: About a quarter of that news headline she gave WBBJ is even true, the EPA didnt raise it several times to sink it, we had to raise and lower it to position the straps so the cabin cruiser could be picked up level. Once it was then we extracted all the diesel and oil. Then we patched the hole and pushed it to the perryville. The spill that lady gave is one of many that like I said I dont feel sorry. The news is far from where I'd go to for the truth"

I'm glad you found that as I didn't believe her story, but my disbelief was just based on the logic and the way I know things normally work.

This is no different than uninsured motorists, except with a boat you can cause greater environmental damage and the salvage is more costly than having a car towed.

Thinking of her as an individual, I feel bad for her regardless of the rest of the story. I feel bad for anyone suffering, whether through the actions of others or self inflicted in some way.

However, thinking of her as a "cause" or a "victim" both of which she is now pushing, I don't. I'm not on her side there. She's responsible for her actions and all that follows them.

Alaskan Sea-Duction 07-20-2015 05:15 PM

So where was the USCG in all this? We had a 1929 tug sink just 300 feet up river from us and the USCG and WA state EPA showed up as they spilled 500 gallon of diesel in the river. Made my dock stick for a few weeks. USCG: "There is no sustained damage to the environment! The fuel will dissipate." You could hear the state EPA and Coast Guard Commander yelling at each other.....

Wanderin Star 10-21-2015 11:34 AM

I wasn't Paying
 
"And since 9/11 we have seen a renewed effort at inter-agency co-operation and sharing of critical information......" GW

JNandJN 10-21-2015 03:32 PM

It cost money to do something with the boat once it's out of the water. Who has a trailer to put it on? Permits for oversized load? Who pays to dispose of the boat once it's out? It can't just be left sitting on the side of the road.

Art 10-25-2015 08:31 AM

Unfortunate story; for all concerned. Dumb for owners to not have ins coverage. Much of the have dones-/what-ifs/will-dos by EPA sound like wives tales to me.

That said... something surely needs to be accomplished to do away with that mess of a ruined, fairly large FRP boat. Sinking it as final solution (if that is actually the plan) seems stupid at best.

One thing is certain – via chain saw and wrecking bar actions wood boats are a lot easier to dispose of than FRP boats.

Which brings me to this point:

Seems that across the nation there are millions of fairly large older/deteriorating FRP boats way too big for just dumping them into a dump-box-thrasher/crusher for disposal (such as little 6 to 20 foot FRP boats are sometimes done away with). Therefore, it appears we have a multi-million boat “correct-disposal” dilemma coming down the tracks at us. Enormous numbers of these larger FRP boats that are wasting away in slips and on the hard (all having been built during the last 55 years) will soon (during the next ten to 20 years) need to be disposed of. There are many boat owners who are currently stuck in the keep paying for in-water or on-the-hard monthly costs for unsalable/unusable boats with no place to turn for demo/dumping of their old FRP crafts. Also, there are many mariners that have stockpiles of fairly large abandoned FRP boats that they are carrying the weight of. Heck… our 1977 Tollycraft is a greatly well-built FRP boat and very usable/salable at this stage in its/our life. And, I’m sure if/when time comes to part company with our Tolly we should be able to pass it on via sale to some new owner. That is because we keep it in good condition and because its construction was so correctly done in the first place that it simply won’t wear out for decades to come. But – I would dread the thought of having an FRP boat of size that has passed its useful/salable time of life and would therefore become an expense laden, ongoing payment choke collar around my "senior citizen" neck – which I see happening all over the marine industry. :eek:

Soooo… What could be done to minimize costs and environmental consequences for disposal/dismantling of large or larger FRP boats??? Interesting quandary! :whistling:

twistedtree 10-25-2015 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrew (Post 350427)
Ya.....it doesn't work that way. You don't get the chance to stand on the soapbox and spout your opinion, then tell everyone they're not allowed to voice theirs.

And by the way.....It is the boaters responsibility to provide financial remediation for the damage they create. That is not limited to the dock or boat they smash into. It also includes the financial cost of removing hazards to navigation (in this case that doesn't appear to apply, but see what happens if the same occurs in a channel rendering it unnavigable), as well as cost of environmental clean-up.

You can either afford the cost of liability out of pocket or obtain an insurance policy to do so. Having neither means nor insurance and still casting lines is simply irresponsible.

Next person for the soapbox, please stand up.

I agree. Where's personal responsibility in all this? The boater is responsible for the mess they make, including any mess they get into because of weather. They elected to go out and take all associated risks.

BandB 10-25-2015 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art (Post 382289)
Seems that across the nation there are millions of fairly large older/deteriorating FRP boats way too big for just dumping them into a dump-box-thrasher/crusher for disposal (such as little 6 to 20 foot FRP boats are sometimes done away with).

Actually the best way to dispose of them is just that, although a bit more complicated. In the state of Washington, they pull them to a boat launch area then take a track loader and break them gradually into smaller pieces tossing those pieces into dumpsters. Then they pull them further up and repeat. Since 2002, they have removed 580 vessels. The two years of 2013-2015 (yes, two fiscal years), $4.5 million was allocated to the program and 100 boats removed. The most expensive was Helena Star at a cost of $1,176,324. They've also initiated a turn in program for owners of vessels under 45'. There are currently about 120 boats on their Inventory of Vessels of Concern.

Art 10-25-2015 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BandB (Post 382323)
Actually the best way to dispose of them is just that, although a bit more complicated. In the state of Washington, they pull them to a boat launch area then take a track loader and break them gradually into smaller pieces tossing those pieces into dumpsters. Then they pull them further up and repeat. Since 2002, they have removed 580 vessels. The two years of 2013-2015 (yes, two fiscal years), $4.5 million was allocated to the program and 100 boats removed. The most expensive was Helena Star at a cost of $1,176,324. They've also initiated a turn in program for owners of vessels under 45'. There are currently about 120 boats on their Inventory of Vessels of Concern.


This is good to hear - Few questions B...

- Millions allocated from what fund?
- Is "turn in program" for owners of vessels under 45' free or is it % cost deferral?
- How big was Helena Star to cost 1.176 M$$?
- What/ do they do with and/or where do they put FRP remains? Land fill?? Is there any usefulness for old chopped-up fiberglass... maybe as road bed enhancement/stabilizer???

Cheers! - Fellow Human - Art :D

BandB 10-25-2015 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art (Post 382331)
This is good to hear - Few questions B...

- Millions allocated from what fund?
- Is "turn in program" for owners of vessels under 45' free or is it % cost deferral?
- How big was Helena Star to cost 1.176 M$$?
- What/ do they do with and/or where do they put FRP remains? Land fill?? Is there any usefulness for old chopped-up fiberglass... maybe as road bed enhancement/stabilizer???

Cheers! - Fellow Human - Art :D

From a special fund set up by the Washington legislature.

The specific "turn in program" was free but limited in amounts. It was a recognition cheaper to do before it sinks than after.

Helena Star was 167'. The state of Washington did file criminal charges against the owners but I don't know what ever resulted. I think clearly they didn't get reimbursed.

Here is an interesting document regarding Helena Star and Golden West, a 130' Vessel.

FV Helena Star and FV Golden West Incident

Actually fiberglass can be recycled as can most all plastics. The problem is just not many people doing it. The reason is it's not economically profitable enough to attract people to do it.

There are only a few products that get huge percentages (close to 100%) of recycling and they have financial incentives. When you discard a battery or tire you pay money, putting a value on it.

I'll talk batteries because I'm more familiar with the process. They are taken to what is known as a Lead Smelter. These facilities are highly regulated today although they were very damaging to the environment in the 60's through 80's and in some cases the 90's. The offenders who didn't necessarily even know they were creating a problem have paid tens and hundreds of millions for reclamation of superfund sites. There are still thousands of sites to be cleaned up, however. But lead smelter companies operating in the US today recycle every part of the battery, which is really only two primary materials, lead and plastic. So, there are huge costs to pay, penalties, risk of shut down, for failing to control what happens with lead in a smelter and also incentives which make recovery of the lead and plastic profitable. The Smelters actually buy the old batteries. As long as they can reclaim the lead for less than the commodities price of mined lead, then it's a profitable business. We are best at protecting the environment when there is financial reason, either through reward or penalty. Seldom is it done voluntarily as it would put a company at a competitive disadvantage. While some lead smelter operations were improving and meeting all EPA requirements, there were others who continued not to do so, then ended up in bankruptcy (which doesn't wipe out a claim but sure does delay collecting it and often it's never collected.)

One other rule the state of Washington has put into effect is requiring any boat over 65' and over 40 years old to pass a survey before it can be transferred in a sale. That has been controversial, but the intent is to eliminate what is commonly done in other places (quite a bit in Florida) is to sell a derelict boat to a non-suspecting customer for a nominal amount and then leave them stuck with the task of disposing of it. There were some boats actually sold by marinas which had not been paid slip rent to homeless for as little as $10. In one case, the marina even assisted the buyer in getting it started and moved out from the dock. It didn't run long and meanwhile took on water and the buyer was rescued as the boat sank a very short distance out. Not fair for the homeless man, but not really fair for the marina that got left the boat. This is also why marinas are being more careful. I know a couple of years ago, three of the older fishing boats which were removed as part of the derelict program in Washington were sitting in slips at Westport Marina in Grays Harbor. They were still afloat and could be safely pulled to the boat ramp there. They had long ago been abandoned. While the cost of removal wasn't cheap, it was only a small part of what it might have been had they sunk and had fuel spilled.

Art 10-25-2015 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BandB (Post 382345)

We are best at protecting the environment when there is financial reason, either through [$$$] reward or penalty.

B - I know not what you do/have-done; but, some of your previous inputs interested me. In due time I plan to email you about items, that are not regarding marine doings. Never know, you may be interested.

BTW - Thanks for info on disposing of old boats!

Art :D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012