Illegal Charters on Lake of the Ozarks MO

[wkearney99]

It's this way in boating and in aviation.

They don't parallel. Aviation puts considerably more emphasis on safety. Rightly so, as a boat losing power presents nowhere near the dangers as that of aircraft (to both the passengers and anyone on the ground below). There's overlap and similarities, of course, but they're not equivalent.

I'm all for enforcing regulations regarding boats being operated illegally as charters. If you're deliberately operating the vessel in a 'for hire' kind of fashion then it's entirely reasonable you step up to the regulatory requirements.

 

[Seevee]

So, you're against licensing? Just against it for boats and planes? What about doctors or lawyers? Should we just eliminate all licensing.

As to safety, the illegal charterers consistently put lives at risk. We see evidence of that constantly. They're not violating one law, but many. The law is spelled out for safety, for protection against unlicensed operators.

Are you of the belief that all licensed operators are competent and safe? You probably know many operators that are MUCH safer than a piece of paper that says your "LICENSED". No one here ever said that they condone illegal operations.

YOU have the choice of choosing to ride with a licensed person or not, and so does everyone else.

Personally, I could argue to look at ones credentials and qualifications, not just their license. A license may or may not required for the operation..... it depends.

 

[Bacchus]

"Personally, I could argue to look at ones credentials and qualifications, not just their license. "
If they dont bother w license what credentials will they have that you can check?

 

[Seevee]

What about when the owner collects money up-front, and it ends up being MORE than what the gas actually costs? That's the problem. Then he's not just being "compensated," he is making money off of the deal, which makes it a charter. And a lot of these guys deliberately and consistently demand money up-front that they know will exceed the cost of the gas.


I am very happy to see the Coast Guard cracking down on these illegal operators!

SO WHAT! I really have heartburn about a guy taking friends for a boat ride and someone pays him a few bucks more than the fuel costs... is he REALLY being compensated? And why does money alone make it unsafe?

Deliberately and consistently demanding money up front when sharing expenses is just GOOD PRACTICE. I means you don't end up chasing folks after the trip. I've been on many trips where there's often a friend of a friend and just doesn't understand what the boat costs to run and never even pays his share of the fuel.

And illegal charge is when the operator HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC, AND OFFERS BOAT RIDES TO ANYONE FOR A PRICE. He could offer boat rides for a price below the cost of his fuel and STILL BE ILLEGAL! It's the holding out to the public that makes it a charter, NOT taking friends and acquaintances for a ride.

 

[AlaskaProf]

I'd bet that most of these guys do know how to safely operate a boat but just don't want to go thru the hassle of being "registered"

In boating, aviation, and I would say the taxi/uber issue, the regulatory agency has a duty to assure that those who comply with the licensing/safety/equipment regulations are not disadvantaged by their compliance when in competition with those who don't wish to be "hassled".


Not to mention the government's responsibility to the uninformed consumer to whom one charter boat or Cessna looks just like the next.

 

[BandB]

Are you of the belief that all licensed operators are competent and safe? You probably know many operators that are MUCH safer than a piece of paper that says your "LICENSED". No one here ever said that they condone illegal operations.

YOU have the choice of choosing to ride with a licensed person or not, and so does everyone else.

Personally, I could argue to look at ones credentials and qualifications, not just their license. A license may or may not required for the operation..... it depends.

No, but I am of the belief that licensing is essential at least in seeing that all meet some set of minimum standards. Beyond that you can look at whatever else you wish. However, I'm adamantly opposed to unlicensed charterers. I've seen way too much of their damage and the risks to which they've exposed people. I do not believe we can just turn it over to the public to decide who to use. The average person doesn't have the knowledge to assess the risks. The average person isn't educated in boating safety so needs to put some trust, but not total trust, in those who are.

 

[Bacchus]

"SO WHAT! I really have heartburn about a guy taking friends for a boat ride and someone pays him a few bucks more than the fuel costs... is he REALLY being compensated? And why does money alone make it unsafe?"

I don't think this is about the occasional trip taking friends out. It gets stretched to that extreme in arguments but that is not what the crack down is about.... it's the consistent practice of including the public in often recurring trips.

 

[Seevee]

No, but I am of the belief that licensing is essential at least in seeing that all meet some set of minimum standards. Beyond that you can look at whatever else you wish. However, I'm adamantly opposed to unlicensed charterers. I've seen way too much of their damage and the risks to which they've exposed people. I do not believe we can just turn it over to the public to decide who to use. The average person doesn't have the knowledge to assess the risks. The average person isn't educated in boating safety so needs to put some trust, but not total trust, in those who are.

BandB,

I have NO issue with one being licensed that holds himself out to the public and offers a charter service for a fee. He doesn't know his customer and they don't know hime. There IS a responsibility in this situation to have the required licensing and credentials to perform the charter.

This issue, as mentioned previously, is when friends and acquaintances go out on a boat and share the costs involved, and the owner wants to be paid in advance to eliminate carrying one until he chased them down to pay their share. Folks get all hung up about him making a profit. Unless he's charging charter rates, he's not making a profit, but who cares about the money? Why should MONEY be the issue? The first issue should be SAFETY.

I'm sure that when you go for a ride on someone elses boat, charter or with private friends, you want a pretty good idea of the captains ability to provide a safe ride, and would bet that money is secondary.

I've done a lot of charters (aviation), and hold all the required licenses, ratings and air carrier certificated. I've also done a lot of "let's go flying with friends", which I just quit doing because of the onerous rules that make it almost impossible to share expenses. Even if we split the fuel costs (or I pay for most of it), if we don't have a common purpose for the trip, that's conceived by the feds to be an illegal charter.

Looks like it's getting to be the same way in boating. And, I've quit taking out anyone that I don't personally know, or comes with a damn good reputation from a friend, and if I even venture out, I plan on paying for 100% of the costs including fuel.

I just hate the "follow the money" rules, when it should be "follow the safety" rules.

 

[psneeld]

"SO WHAT! I really have heartburn about a guy taking friends for a boat ride and someone pays him a few bucks more than the fuel costs... is he REALLY being compensated? And why does money alone make it unsafe?"

I don't think this is about the occasional trip taking friends out. It gets stretched to that extreme in arguments but that is not what the crack down is about.... it's the consistent practice of including the public in often recurring trips.

Exactly...even though there are probably still examples of either extreme......it's not the usual


The money is one trigger for enforcement, not the issue..

 

[BandB]

This issue, as mentioned previously, is when friends and acquaintances go out on a boat and share the costs involved, and the owner wants to be paid in advance to eliminate carrying one until he chased them down to pay their share. Folks get all hung up about him making a profit. Unless he's charging charter rates, he's not making a profit, but who cares about the money? Why should MONEY be the issue? The first issue should be SAFETY.

.

No, the issue isn't friends and acquaintances sharing costs. That's not what this is about. These cases are clear. As Bacchus reiterated, this is about a consistent practice of breaking the law. Money, safety and many other aspects. If it looks like a charter and smells like a charter and sounds like a charter, it is a charter.

 

[Seevee]

No, the issue isn't friends and acquaintances sharing costs. That's not what this is about. These cases are clear. As Bacchus reiterated, this is about a consistent practice of breaking the law. Money, safety and many other aspects. If it looks like a charter and smells like a charter and sounds like a charter, it is a charter.

Money IS the issue, and the fact that the operator "hold himself out to the public to provide the service (boat ride) for a fee". He advertises, has a sign out, etc. He takes most anyone who can pay. That's clearly a charter.

If a boat owner wants to take his buddy fishing, and the buddy says, "hey, I'd like to bring other friends with", we'll share costs. I could clearly see why the boat owner might want to be paid his expenses up front, as he doesn't know the friends of the friend. When he is paid should have no difference on the intent. Same, if you rent a boat and ask your friends friends to help with the rental costs. No this is clearly NOT a charter.

In the SAME scenario above, if the boat owner or the guy who rents a boat, holds up a sign that says boat rides, $10.... THAT is a charter for which he must be licensed.

The intent of the law is to prevent unsuspecting civilians from partaking in an activity for which they may not know the risks. The operator is held to a higher standard. Nothing wrong with that.

There is no requirement for a boat operator to be held to a higher standard or licensed to take friends or the friends friends (whom he may not know) on a boat ride and share expenses. The premise that if the payment is made before the ride makes it a charter, is bogus, and not the intent of the law, regardless of how some marine police look at it.

 

[OldDan1943]

Why would anyone consider chartering a boat without a USCG background check of the captain and vessel inspection records?

Per contributing towards the boat ride. BYOB, BYOF. Fuel cost? That's a bit tricky. Start with full tanks, after tying up to the dock .... he can fill the tank on your car an equal value.....?

 

[JLD]

Why would anyone consider chartering a boat without a USCG background check of the captain and vessel inspection records?

My guess is that the vast majority of folks wouldn't even think about doing a background check.

I think the presumption made by most folks would be that a charter boat is operating legally!

Jim

 

[Seevee]

Why would anyone consider chartering a boat without a USCG background check of the captain and vessel inspection records?

Per contributing towards the boat ride. BYOB, BYOF. Fuel cost? That's a bit tricky. Start with full tanks, after tying up to the dock .... he can fill the tank on your car an equal value.....?

OldDan,

Never gonna happen. How many times have you check the captains license, let alone a background check (which isn't necessarily required by the USCG).

I've given boat rides for years, and as a professional pilot and recreational pilot, and not once has a passenger ever asked for my credentials or licenses, nor have I had a background check for any of the above.

Filling the car tank just isn't gonna work. Cash works when sharing. And if you filled the boat captains car and the CG found out, that would be MUCH more of a red flag than just being open about sharing expenses.

 

[psneeld]

I can't say that "money up front" is the only metric used in determining the charter.


It might be probable cause to investigate further...but can anyone say that is the only evidence needed?


At some point, every USCG licensed captain is required to get a TWIC card that involves a fairly extensive background check. Not sure that a criminal background check was what Old Dan was referring to though.

 

[wkearney99]

Why would anyone consider chartering a boat without a USCG background check of the captain and vessel inspection records?

Because people are greedy and stupid? Hello, like you have to even ask that? From both the perspective of someone wanting to run a half-ass 'charter' operation to someone looking for a 'bargain'.

Everyone wants to rail against regulations, laws and rules... until they're the one suffering harm from unscrupulous people 'taking advantage' of them (for being stupid/stingy/greedy). It's a back-and-forth effort. Sometimes there's not enough, sometimes it's taken too far. Along the way lots of people gripe about "bad it's become" but do nothing to change it. Same old, same old...

 

[BandB]

Why would anyone consider chartering a boat without a USCG background check of the captain and vessel inspection records?

.

Most people have no idea about such things. Asking that question among a group of active boaters, you'll get agreement, but we're not among those who might fall victim. It's the uninformed.

 

[FF]

Many of the licensing requirements are created to serve only the folks that have a license.

Hundreds of hours to cut HAIR?

Used to be anyone that worked for a liar for hire could eventually take a bar exam , does anyone think the liars for hire are less self serving today?

 

[Pau Hana]

SO WHAT! I really have heartburn about a guy taking friends for a boat ride and someone pays him a few bucks more than the fuel costs... is he REALLY being compensated? And why does money alone make it unsafe?

Deliberately and consistently demanding money up front when sharing expenses is just GOOD PRACTICE. I means you don't end up chasing folks after the trip. I've been on many trips where there's often a friend of a friend and just doesn't understand what the boat costs to run and never even pays his share of the fuel.

And illegal charge is when the operator HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC, AND OFFERS BOAT RIDES TO ANYONE FOR A PRICE. He could offer boat rides for a price below the cost of his fuel and STILL BE ILLEGAL! It's the holding out to the public that makes it a charter, NOT taking friends and acquaintances for a ride.

And....you are incorrect. That is because the law is very clear with regards to the definition of charter- despite what tribal knowledge or the dock talk might suggest.

Requiring compensation is charter, pure and simple. Sharing of expenses is exactly that- sharing. This means it is not a requirement for carriage. It does not matter whether the vessel is offered to the public, or its a bunch of friends that decide to go fishing or cruising.

For the record- I run the charter insurance operation for a major marine insurance carrier, and am a USCG 100 ton license holder (near coastal with tow endorsement).

 

[BandB]

Many of the licensing requirements are created to serve only the folks that have a license.

Hundreds of hours to cut HAIR?

Used to be anyone that worked for a liar for hire could eventually take a bar exam , does anyone think the liars for hire are less self serving today?

You just love insulting every profession that you can don't you? That's the only thing I see self serving here.

I prefer lawyers who know the law and find our lawyers to be extremely professional and resent you terming them as you did.

As to hair. Cosmetologists do much more than cut hair. Their knowledge of and using proper sanitation and health practices is very important. Learning to use the chemicals they use on hair properly is important as is learning various techniques. Knowledge of hair issues which may even be broader health issues. Do you have any idea what they are taught in cosmetology school? Perhaps educate yourself on that before condemning it.

 

[Woodland Hills]

Many of the licensing requirements are created to serve only the folks that have a license.

Hundreds of hours to cut HAIR?

Used to be anyone that worked for a liar for hire could eventually take a bar exam , does anyone think the liars for hire are less self serving today?

Am I the only one who finds this offensive? I have several friends who practice law including before the CA Supreme Court and it really bothers me that some will call them “liars” without knowing anything about them or their practice.

I’ve always wondered what folks like this will do when they have an intractable dispute with a neighbor, business, insurance company etc? Do they still turn to a “liar for hire” to help them? If so how do they handle the internal contradiction?

 

[BandB]

Am I the only one who finds this offensive? I have several friends who practice law including before the CA Supreme Court and it really bothers me that some will call them “liars” without knowing anything about them or their practice.

I’ve always wondered what folks like this will do when they have an intractable dispute with a neighbor, business, insurance company etc? Do they still turn to a “liar for hire” to help them? If so how do they handle the internal contradiction?

I imagine the lawyers on this forum, and there are several, find it offensive too. I find demeaning all those in any profession offensive and don't think he'd appreciate his former profession being spoken of like that.

 

[psneeld]

No worse than the constant attacks on Government employees....


Thick skin and knowing better helps, but just throw it back like I do.

 

[wkearney99]

Am I the only one who finds this offensive? ?

No, you're not alone, but some folks are just idiots and will never change.

Keyboard bravery, late night posting, binge-drinking, etc, makes for all kinds of stupid replies.

But then sometimes it's just their own genetic stupidity.

 

[Larry M]

Illegal charters came up in a conversation last night. The USCG is taking it serious at least in South Florida. I think this guy got off pretty easy considering what could have happened. Go Coast Guard!

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article236252638.html

 

[Comodave]

He should have gotten a much more severe sentence.

 

[OldDan1943]

He should have gotten a much more severe sentence.

 

[Comodave]

Putting 36 people on a 45’ boat should get him more than that alone. Plus he was actively telling people to lie to the CG...

 

[tiltrider1]

I think he got off lucky.

 

[OldDan1943]

Putting 36 people on a 45’ boat should get him more than that alone. Plus he was actively telling people to lie to the CG...

I wonder if he had enough PFD onboard?