Ordered to raise anchor

[markpierce]

Late Christmas-day afternoon we anchored over an eighth of a mile (per radar) from the closest ship in the Suisun Bay mothball/reserve fleet.* Signs say anchoring is prohibited within 500 feet of the ships.* Shortly after anchoring, security came and said we were anchored illegally.* Wasn't about to argue, so motored a mile or two away to anchor overnight.

The security boat makes the rounds every half hour.* Wonder if the personnel were bored.

[psneeld]

I've been reading 500 yards in all references to naval vessel security zone...wonder if the sign was mis-marked feet instead of yards

"When within 500 yards of a naval vessel, all boaters, both commercial and recreational, shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course. In addition, boaters must comply with all direction given by the Coast Guard or the naval vessel inside the 500-yard zone. No vessel or person may approach within 100 yards of the naval vessel unless authorized by the Coast Guard or the naval vessel. "

Not sure what the status "anchored" is in the order...but I'm sure they were uncomfortable with you AND the naval vessels anchored within 500 yards of each other.


-- Edited by psneeld on Monday 16th of January 2012 07:39:29 AM

[markpierce]

No, it's 500 feet.* Per the Code of Federal Regulations:

"§ 162.270 Restricted areas in vicinity of Maritime Administration Reserve Fleets.


"(a) The regulations in this section shall govern the use and navigation of waters in the vicinity of the following National Defense Reserve Fleets of the Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation:

"(1) James River Reserve Fleet, Fort Eustis, Virginia.

"(2) Beaumont Reserve Fleet, Neches River near Beaumont, Texas.

"(3) Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet near Benicia, California.

"(b) No vessels or other watercraft, except those owned or controlled by the United States Government, shall cruise or anchor between Reserve Fleet units within 500 feet of the end vessels in each Reserve Fleet unit, or within 500 feet of the extreme units of the fleets, unless specific permission to do so has first been granted in each case by the enforcing agency.

"(c) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the respective Fleet Superintendents and such agencies as they may designate."


-- Edited by markpierce on Monday 16th of January 2012 12:25:05 PM

[Giggitoni]

Next time continue past the "Mothball" fleet into Montezuma Slough and a couple of hundred yards past Hunter Cut.* Beautiful area.* You can watch the otters play and stay out of the ship wakes.


-- Edited by Giggitoni on Monday 16th of January 2012 01:27:13 PM

[Marin]

markpierce wrote:
No, it's 500 feet.* Per the Code of Federal Regulations:

You have obviously not learned---- as we have in countless encounters all over the world--- that enforcement and "interpretation" of laws and rules that define everything from where you can anchor to customs clearance requirements are totally at the whim of the official in charge at the moment.* Where one guy may think it's fine that you filled out customs form 1561-7..2 and will wave you on through with your equipment without even looking at it, another guy in the exact same office on a different day will tell you that you not only need form 1561-7.2 filled out but you also need form 653PRJ filled out, too, and he is going to inspect every single equipment case.* These are the guys you always get when you're in a hurry.

So in your case it makes no difference what the sign might say, the only thing that matters at the time is what the official (or officer or crew guy in charge) says.

You can argue--- and not win because the enforcement team's ego and pride is at stake--- and if you really want to make an issue of it you can keep arguing until you are issued a citation or are arrested, at which point you can then take your complaint to court.*

You might or might not win, but if you win the chances are that if you continue to boat in the same waters, the USCG and Navy folks will "be on the lookout" for "that little boat with the green hull and yellow roof" and they will find an amazing number of legal and enforceable ways to make your boating somwhat less than enjoyable.

It doesn't matter if you like this or not, or think it's unfair--- the people in the patrol boats or the customs or security offices don't care what you think.* We learned years ago to simply play along.* In the long run, it makes life a lot more pleasant.

This situation is reality all over the world.

[psneeld]

markpierce wrote:
No, it's 500 feet.* Per the Code of Federal Regulations:

"§ 162.270 Restricted areas in vicinity of Maritime Administration Reserve Fleets.


"(a) The regulations in this section shall govern the use and navigation of waters in the vicinity of the following National Defense Reserve Fleets of the Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation:

"(1) James River Reserve Fleet, Fort Eustis, Virginia.

"(2) Beaumont Reserve Fleet, Neches River near Beaumont, Texas.

"(3) Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet near Benicia, California.

"(b) No vessels or other watercraft, except those owned or controlled by the United States Government, shall cruise or anchor between Reserve Fleet units within 500 feet of the end vessels in each Reserve Fleet unit, or within 500 feet of the extreme units of the fleets, unless specific permission to do so has first been granted in each case by the enforcing agency.

"(c) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the respective Fleet Superintendents and such agencies as they may designate."



-- Edited by markpierce on Monday 16th of January 2012 12:25:05 PM

*OK...it's 500 feet per that regulation...what if they are enforcing another regulation...right or wrong?* If they are more involved with the 500 yard reg per moving naval vessel...then maybe that's what they have in their minds...again...not saying they are right...just I've seen that happen before where regs are in conflict or the more current reg is used even in situations it doesn't apply.

[markpierce]

Marin wrote:
You have obviously not learned---- as we have in countless encounters all over the world--- that enforcement and "interpretation" of laws and rules that define everything from where you can anchor to customs clearance requirements are totally at the whim of the official in charge at the moment.*

*What you say about enforcement officials is true.* But I knew/know that.* As I said previously: "Wasn't about to argue, so motored a mile or two away to anchor overnight."

[markpierce]

Giggitoni wrote:
Next time continue past the "Mothball" fleet into Montezuma Slough and a couple of hundred yards past Hunter Cut.* Beautiful area.* You can watch the otters play and stay out of the ship wakes.

*Ray, I'll have to do that some time.*

[RickB]

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...cfr110.224.pdf

[rwidman]

Funny, the water belongs to everyone (the public), but when someone with a big gun mounted on the front of his boat tells you to move, the water now belongs to him.

Somehow, we lose a lot of our rights as soon as we step onto a boat.

[psneeld]

rwidman wrote:
Funny, the water belongs to everyone (the public), but when someone with a big gun mounted on the front of his boat tells you to move, the water now belongs to him.

Somehow, we lose a lot of our rights as soon as we step onto a boat.

*For the total amount of water the US Govt declares restricted or prohibited...I think that's a bit over the top.

[jleonard]

psneeld wrote:rwidman wrote:
Funny, the water belongs to everyone (the public), but when someone with a big gun mounted on the front of his boat tells you to move, the water now belongs to him.

Somehow, we lose a lot of our rights as soon as we step onto a boat.

*For the total amount of water the US Govt declares restricted or prohibited...I think that's a bit over the top.

*I also agree that statement is not waranted. I boat in a very active Navy area with the Groton sub base being right next door to Mystic. Yes I was "shadowed" a couple of times as I ran the boat past the sub base, but I think that is the Navy's duty to protect it's fleet and sailors. I have been "chased" twice by Navy or CG inflatables and told to turn around until a submarine passed by. Big deal, it was never intimidating, always done with respect.

*

[Marin]

rwidman wrote:Somehow, we lose a lot of our rights as soon as we step onto a boat.

So do the drug cartels, terrorists, and human cargo smugglers.

[FlyWright]

Last June, I was approaching Port Chicago while a large ship was being loaded with munitions.* I was approached by the USCG and very politely and almost apologetically directed to follow a secondary channel further from the loading dock.* I found the CG personnel to be extremely professional and pleasant.* No complaints here.* They're just doing their jobs and I'm glad they are there.

[markpierce]

Twenty-eight or so years ago I was adrift on a windless day in my Bluewater-Blackwatch pocket cutter when a fellow with a loudspeaker said I was in the prohibited zone along the Port Chicago ammunition pier.* Had to crank up the Seagull to "get out of Dodge."

Sister boat:

http://www.sailingtexas.com/sblackwatch24100.html


-- Edited by markpierce on Wednesday 18th of January 2012 12:15:09 AM

[koliver]

This guy chased us out of an active military zone while sailing off the Turquoise coast.* Took them seriously.* Later in the day we heard the unmistakable sound of live shells hitting their practice range targets.

The charts given to us at the charter office failed to note a 2 mile deep expansion of the active military zone.*

Similar to our WG (Whiskey Gulf) Military activity zone that keeps us out of a portion of Georgia Strait when the US destroyers are practicing torpedo firings.

[jleonard]

Luckily they don't find 40 Albins to be a challenging target

[skipperdude]

It's like stepping off a curb in a cross walk if you are hit by a truck.

You may be right.

Dead right.

SD

[rwidman]

Marin wrote:rwidman wrote:Somehow, we lose a lot of our rights as soon as we step onto a boat.

So do the drug cartels, terrorists, and human cargo smugglers.

My point was more about being boarded and inspected than about exclusion zones.

Yes, the drug cartels, terrorists, and human cargo smugglers lose their rights, but so do we.

Would it be tolerated by the public if the police could pull cars over*at random on land and inspect them for illegal drugs or weapons?* Would it be a violation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights?

It certainly would be an effective tool to reduce crime, but it's not legal.* Why is it legal on the water?

[Marin]

rwidman wrote:

It certainly would be an effective tool to reduce crime, but it's not legal.* Why is it legal on the water?

You'll have to take that one up with the USCG.* I know that "rights" on the water have been different than "rights" on land for a long, long time.* Dating back to the early days of the country, I think.* But I don't know the particulars.

We've been boarded by the USCG a couple of times.* No big deal, we didn't even have to alter course or slow down (not that 8 knots is fast).* My wife opened the boarding gate, the SAFE boat came alongside, the three-man boarding party stepped aboard, the SAFE boat dropped back to hold station on our starboard quarter, and we kept heading for our destination.

Inspection was about 30 minutes long, we had everything on board we were supposed to have, we learned somehting about our auto-inflatable life vests that we didnt know, the guys were nice on each occasion, they filled in their form, gave us a copy, the SAFE boat came back in, the boarding party stepped over, my wife closed the boarding gate, end of story.

Total non-issue in our minds.* We didn't feel like our rights had been violated or that we had given up any of our freedoms.* We did our thing, the Coast Guard guys did theirs, and that was that.

I guess if one gets all wrapped around the axle at anything that even appears to "threaten" ones rights this might have been an unsettling experience.* Our attitude is that the USCG is paid (by us) to do a job-- part of which are random searches to give people acting illegally an additional element of risk to deal with-- they're doing the job we're paying them to do, so we're getting our money's worth.