Can I anchor in Canadian water?

[Comodave]

To the OP, you ask a question and don’t like the answers that every single one of us gives you so you keep arguing the point. Why ask if you don’t accept the answer that every single person gives you.

 

[Portage_Bay]

I agree with others that the language is clear and concise.

However consider this:

The land/dirt under the water is CANADIAN soil! When you drop an anchor, you are dropping it on Canadian dirt.

It can't be explained more clearly than ASD has done. You can't legally touch Canadian soil without clearing customs first. The only allowed exception is at a border station or dock while clearing customs.

 

[SteveK]

It can't be explained more clearly than ASD has done. You can't legally touch Canadian soil without clearing customs first. The only allowed exception is at a border station or dock while clearing customs.

Above is accurate.
You may anchor if conditions to proceed are considered unsafe, your judgement. This was discussed for transit to AK non stop. No one is going to get crazy if you are too tired to continue. Anchor because of weather.
You may want to report yourself to avoid being reported.

 

[BandB]

Rather than a bunch of nested commas and legalese, don't you think it would serve everyone better, including Canadians, for CBSA to be just that clear, Soo? I do.

Don't you grasp that they are clear to everyone but you?

 

[jleonard]

"In Jersey anything is legal as long as you don't get caught."

But you won't be in Jersey.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

To the OP, you ask a question and don’t like the answers that every single one of us gives you so you keep arguing the point. Why ask if you don’t accept the answer that every single person gives you.

I had no desire to be contentious or argumentative. Still don't. The opinions and interpretations offered in this thread have been virtually unanimous, yet no one has answered my only question. I asked if anyone knew of a ruling or clarification on the section I cited. Lots of opinions, no doubt very experienced and educated ones, but no rulings or clarifications of the section I cited.

In fairness, I could have been more explicit by asking if anyone knew of a ruling or clarification by the Canadian government on the section I cited.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

But Govt. have been at this a while with Covid, they tend to have it covered.

But then we would not have any need for bureaucrats or politicians or lawyers.

Hehe, so true!

The land/dirt under the water is CANADIAN soil! When you drop an anchor, you are dropping it on Canadian dirt.

Excellent point, and I am sure that is the foundation of Canada's rule (as well as the rest of the world's nations with similar rules).

 

[HeadedToTexas]

The presence of absence of the serial comma doesn't change the meaning or create ambiguity in the way you are wanting to interpret what's written.

Really? Each of the following iterations have different meanings. At least if you pay attention to the grammar. The author apparently was not.

1. "..as long as the boat does not land on Canadian soil, or anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters."
2. "..as long as the boat does not land on Canadian soil, or anchor, moor, or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters."
3. "..as long as the boat does not land on Canadian soil, or anchor, or moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters."

The first is the original as published by CBSA. The second has the Oxford comma which many academic types believe creates clarity, and the third is what I suspect CBSA intends the rule to mean. Are the three not materially different?

I appreciate, especially at this point in the conversation, that doggedly pursuing my tiny minority opinion is petty. But again, punctuation matters, and especially so in legal context.

 

[ghost]

A ruling? Not sure where we would see that.

Have we seen Canadian LE routinely enforce the no anchoring in the past year, absolutely here on the West coast. They were even trying to prohibit those who did not anchor but merely “cut the corner” but never landed or anchored. The fish community was actively chatting about this at one time about being harassed.

Yes, without a doubt, they intend to enforce this. Sorry, can’t refer to anyone specifically who got in trouble, you might be able to cruise the news over the last couple years to find someone who got used as an example, but then the profile of the cheaters was typically to get caught in multiple violations, so it might not be perfectly illustrative on your comma issue. All I can say is that the likelihood of getting an opportunity to argue officially about that comma is really high.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

Guess that's why a ruling or official clarification is worth seeking. Doubt any of us, and certainly not me, would wander into that territory without knowing the facts when the stakes are so high.

 

[guy with a boat]

Guess that's why a ruling or official clarification is worth seeking. Doubt any of us, and certainly not me, would wander into that territory without knowing the facts when the stakes are so high.

While its hard not to appreciate your persistence, no one else sees any need for rulings or clarification, so those things are unlikely to exist. The text is the ruling and is clear to all but you.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Well I guess we call all anchor out and watch OP confront CBSA on comas....

 

[SteveK]

Guess that's why a ruling or official clarification is worth seeking. Doubt any of us, and certainly not me, would wander into that territory without knowing the facts when the stakes are so high.

You want the answer. Go anchor in Canada without clearing customs and then make an anonymous call to customs to report a US flag boat at anchor.
Now I want to know the ruling too.

 

[SeaDogAK]

What would it even mean to anchor alongside another boat? Like sharing an anchorage? Or anchoring right up against someone? Your alternate interpretation is not plausible.

 

[slowgoesit]

HTT, Apparently there is only ONE person on the thread that appears to find the "nested commas and legalese" difficult to understand.
As suggested, for a definitive answer, contact CBSA, or just go do it . . . . let us know how it turns out . . . .

 

[tiltrider1]

I ain’t no grammar expert but the Canadian Boarder Patrol has done a few public announcements making it quite clear. No dropping anchor before clearing customs.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Op, to expand on my blunt response in post #32.

Based on a career that had me dozens of times working aboard a US flagged boat in BC with full permission of the Canadian government. I can tell you vessel movements are monitored. Even in remote areas. If there is any question about your legal presence you will be boarded, inspected and if in violation dealt with. From that experience the rules are clear. Docking, mooring, anchoring or tying to another boat that is cleared into Canada or Canadian is landing on Canadian soil. We once rendezvoued with another US boat outside the territorial limit to transfer gear. The other boat was not cleared. I had to deal with quite a bureaucratic pile of legal crap to prove we had done nothing illegal.

Based on an experience in the 70s long before modern surveillance when on a lark we crossing the US Canada border in the 1000 Islands region bar hopping. Stupid kid stuff. The boat belonged to a Canadian. During the night the owner of the boat was paid a visit by the RCMP who told him not to pull such a stunt again and very clearly told him where and what time each violation had occurred.

You have asked the hive mind of TF if it's OK to anchor in Canada without clearing customs. The overwhelming response is no it's not OK. I hope I've given you reason to understand the likelihood of being caught is high. Try searching the phrase "US boat anchors Canada fines" Very instructive.

You ask for rulings. Without access to Canadian court records that will be difficult. However the search results of violators being fined should make the point as well as any ruling.

You state in your OP "...but the rules for entering Canada are muddy these days....". No, the rules regarding customs clearance and the definition of Canadian soil are not muddy. They are well established and unchanged for decades. The rules in flux are the rules related to covid. Don't confuse the two.

Please respect Canadian law. Respect Canada's right to regulate and protect herself. Don't look for gray areas to push the boundaries. Clear in and be free to anchor. Or not.

 

[BruceK]

Guess that's why a ruling or official clarification is worth seeking. Doubt any of us, and certainly not me, would wander into that territory without knowing the facts when the stakes are so high.

Interpretation can depend on punctuation. Time is awasting, surely your best course is asking the Canadian authorities for the ruling/clarification you think worth seeking. And post the result.

 

[Benthic2]

....I asked if anyone knew of a ruling or clarification on the section I cited. Lots of opinions, no doubt very experienced and educated ones, but no rulings or clarifications of the section I cited....

Why would anyone issue a clarification of something that is already perfectly clear ?

Can you imagine getting up in traffic court and telling the judge that "Speed Limit 50 mph" was not clarified anywhere, so you were unsure of the speed limit ?

There are no dumb questions, but it was asked and answered in the first 3 posts.

And yes, punctuation matters.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

Why not just call CBSA and ask them?

As suggested, for a definitive answer, contact CBSA, or just go do it . . . . let us know how it turns out . . . .

Interpretation can depend on punctuation. Time is awasting, surely your best course is asking the Canadian authorities for the ruling/clarification you think worth seeking. And post the result.

So I called the CBSA this morning and spoke with a very pleasant and helpful agent about the wording and intent of the ArriveCAN reporting requirements for foreign national boaters who anchor in Canadian waters, but do not come ashore, or moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters. She listened intently, put me on hold twice to ask a supervisor for clarification, asked me a few follow up questions. While not in writing, it's as clear as Canada can make it. And while Trawler Forum membership affords us little or no authority when it comes to border issues, it is rewarding to see that virtually everyone here was right about their interpretation of the rule.

In addition to landing on Canadian soil, mooring to a structure connected to Canadian soil, or coming along side another boat in Canadian water, anchoring in Canadian water also requires the boater to use the ArriveCAN system. And as Soo pointed out, for me, until the rules change, it ultimately would come down to vaccine status. If you are not "vaccinated," you can not anchor in Canadian water.

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/pb-pp-eng.html

For what it's worth, the very pleasant and helpful agent also wrestled with the wording and had to seek an interpretation from her supervisor twice. I was grateful that she was not dismissive and went to lengths to clarify the wording.

In the end, perhaps I should have posted this question at an English grammar forum rather than a boating forum. And yes, Benthic, punctuation does matter.

 

[Comodave]

Ok, so are we at the end of this thread now?

 

[SteveK]

Ok, so are we at the end of this thread now?

But, we have not discussed what kind of anchor.

 

[Comodave]

But, we have not discussed what kind of anchor.

Well, whatever anchor you are using is the wrong one…

 

[SteveK]

Well, whatever anchor you are using is the wrong one…

OK, we can close this thread, thanks for the answer

 

[HeadedToTexas]

Ok, so are we at the end of this thread now?

Hehe, yes indeed.

 

[Slowmo]

You an be sure the authorities will interpret the regulation in the most conservative manner, meaning you can transit but not anchor. You won't win an argument with a customers officer and you could end up in massive trouble. Look at from Canada's view: you're anchored and have an emergency (say the boat catches fire), now you have to go ashore in a hurry. Where would you land? Canada. Now you're on Canadian soil illegally. The Canadian government might even confiscate your boat, don't play games with them.

 

[slowgoesit]

So we now have confirmation that the clearly stated provision of Canadian law meant exactly what it clearly stated! Cool!

Glad that's behind me, as I've been loosing a lot of sleep over it lately, what with wondering if all those English classes I took in High School and College were all wrong!
Now, what type of anchor were we discussing?!?

 

[OldDan1943]

Is it so difficult or time consuming to clear Canadian customs?
I think a lot depends upon the attitudes of both you and the customs officer.
Just do as you are told.... and dont try to be a Sea Lawyer. They may make an 'on the spot' decision that your boat needs a complete, in-depth inspection aka call a crew in to take your boat apart and let you put it back together.

The Custom Officers hold to key to the entrance and exit gate and worse of all, purgatory. They can keep you waiting, sitting in that chair forever.

 

[tiltrider1]

Wait, what is the ruling if your anchor is on the US side but the boat is on the Canadian side?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Wait, what is the ruling if your anchor is on the US side but the boat is on the Canadian side?

Oh that is mean!!!!