Illegal Charters on Lake of the Ozarks MO

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Its not gray to me or a lot of folks when money is asked for up front.

There are gray areas but not many and then it just becomes harder to discover/enforce .
 
A bonofide cost sharing arrangement is not considered a "for hire" situation. Of course, if the owner's reimbursement exceeds the sum total of all beer, wine, food, fuel, toilet paper, etc. it might be construed as "for hire".
 
If it's being investigated by the authorities, you are probably already in trouble. Here the rental of boats with the electronics pre-programmed to take you to the fishing spot is a cottage industry. The charter industry is hot to eliminate competition, the cost of charters has shot through the roof with a day on the water $250 a day and up per person. If you have a couple of guys who want to fish, it's much cheaper for them to just rent a boat for the day.

I never let passengers contribute to my operating costs, I tell them to bring lunch and to be licensed when they come. One of the advantages to very low fuel consumption, then again we don't go very far either.
 
Illegal charters have become a real danger in some areas, not just a threat to the legal charters. South Florida and Lake of the Ozarks would be two of those areas. We've had deaths attributable to them in South Florida and other accidents.
 
Basically if you would not have been allowed on the boat without paying, it is a charter. Asking your passengers to contribute can be construed (and has been) as requesting payment. If your friends volunteer or ask if they can help pay then you will be OK.
If money is requested up front or you don't get to go, then you are a paying passenger and whomever is driving the boat had better be licensed and insured.
 
AKDoug said:
If it's being investigated by the authorities, you are probably already in trouble. Here the rental of boats with the electronics pre-programmed to take you to the fishing spot is a cottage industry. The charter industry is hot to eliminate competition, the cost of charters has shot through the roof with a day on the water $250 a day and up per person. If you have a couple of guys who want to fish, it's much cheaper for them to just rent a boat for the day.

I never let passengers contribute to my operating costs, I tell them to bring lunch and to be licensed when they come. One of the advantages to very low fuel consumption, then again we don't go very far either.
Click to expand...

True. You also have Commercial Fish trying to eliminate the charters.....
 
The charters have rules now limiting clients to one large halibut and one small one, private boats can take whatever size they want. Charters take 60% of the annual sports catch, and residents take only 40% of the annual. Commercial fishing takes over 90% of the annual harvest, and have been successful in lobbying to create the restrictions for charters. It has gotten increasingly hard to catch a sport limit near the ports due to charter activities, as they hit the same areas so consistently through the charter season.

There is a lot of pushback now for a more equitable division of resources between sport and commercial interests. Most people consider the charters to be "commercially" fishing, despite sport fishing licenses being required in order to fish from them.
 
BDofMSP said:
USCG has been shutting down illegal charters heavily on the Great Lakes this past summer. I've gotten numerous emails from them on the topic.
Click to expand...
and that certainly is good. People making money chartering without a license are short circuiting the protections we have established to protect the public from incompetent operators. That is where the licensing should coming into play. However, there are two additional points that IMHO need to be considered:
1) In recent years, the largest life losses due to vessel disasters occurred under licensed people. I am counting ferries and even passenger ship disasters.


2) As to liability, nothing prevents a group of free individuals to decide to mount a sea expeditions where each contributes to cover the expenses. Here, just a document indicating that each individual is providing their own insurance and that they take the trip at their own risk should be sufficient to shield the public from the costs associated with a mishap. Would the underwriters require some kind of licensing or an advanced boat safety course from someone aboard? May be maybe not.


If we make an analogy with a big van in the highway carrying 12 adults we see that the 6 pack charter license requirements may be obsolete. The question then is: Under what limiting circumstances is boating as safe as the highways? And if so, why a special licensing should be required to do a bit of business?


Whatever we (the public) decide on this matter, we need to have legislators codify it into law clearly so we can continue to enjoy our boats without undermining our admiration and respect for the Coasties (CG), the very guys who are going to risk their lives to save us when we screw up with our boats.



Just my 3 cents.
 
Other than the safety issue there is the fairness issue. You have operators who go to the expense to get inspected, meet all the requirements, get licensed, get insurance etc etc. And then you have some yahoo who decides he wants to make some money and does not follow the rules. No insurance, no license, no inspection and when something happens the rest of us are left holding the bag. And since they are not following the rules they can charge less and the legitimate operators are left sitting at the dock. And it gets worse if you want to carry more than six passengers.

My question has always been "Why is it ok to take six on an uninspected vsl but not seven? Who decided that having six people die was ok but seven was too many. If EVERY vessel carrying passengers for hire was required to get inspected would that cut back on the illegal charters?
 
wwestman said:
Other than the safety issue there is the fairness issue. You have operators who go to the expense to get inspected, meet all the requirements, get licensed, get insurance etc etc. And then you have some yahoo who decides he wants to make some money and does not follow the rules. No insurance, no license, no inspection and when something happens the rest of us are left holding the bag. And since they are not following the rules they can charge less and the legitimate operators are left sitting at the dock. And it gets worse if you want to carry more than six passengers.

My question has always been "Why is it ok to take six on an uninspected vsl but not seven? Who decided that having six people die was ok but seven was too many. If EVERY vessel carrying passengers for hire was required to get inspected would that cut back on the illegal charters?
Click to expand...

If they were going to make a change, it would likely be to allow 12 on an uninspected boat. They do so in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, I believe. That was to compete fairly with other countries chartering for 12.
 
wwestman said:
Basically if you would not have been allowed on the boat without paying, it is a charter. Asking your passengers to contribute can be construed (and has been) as requesting payment. If your friends volunteer or ask if they can help pay then you will be OK.
If money is requested up front or you don't get to go, then you are a paying passenger and whomever is driving the boat had better be licensed and insured.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. If folks are sharing expenses, there's an argument to get paid before hand as a few folks have no clue what the fuel costs on a boat. The fact that the owner is compensated for fuel regardless of when folks pay for it is no indication of a charter by itself.

I've been out many times with friends with big boats and when they pull up to the fuel dock, some of the other passengers ignore what the bill is or say, "I'll catch you later" and never do. There's a few folks out there that just don't pay their fair share. I'd often pay the whole tab so we could enjoy future rides.

Now heres a question:
Take the above situation... all friends or acquaintances go for a boat ride. No one is licensed as a captain. If we pay for fuel in advance does that make the trip less safe?
 
There are very god points made here. The question of fairness is valid.

IMHO the key update to the law here would have to do with the relationship among the people in the boat trip. Certainly, a member of the public unrelated to the crew in the capacity of passenger should expect that a vessel represented as chartered should comply with safety requirements and operated by a licensed crew. Though fairness should not be misconstrued to mean a gimmick to force people into chartered boats or burdening boaters with licensing qualifications of dubious safety value--keep it simple. Instead, the key issue should be safety and liability. So if the participants do not care about their safety, sign releases and pay a modest fee to cover beefing up the CG for their protection, then they could be considered all as crew and not passengers. So be it. In that case, we should not be wasting CG resources to check about charters and licenses. The private relationships among boaters who are just pooling their resources to have fun should be all considered as crew just like is the cases in ocean races--self-insured and traveling at your own risk.

All CG or LEOs would have to do is request liability release forms or insurance or oral representations that the people in the boat agreed to board and participate in the trip as crew, and without the additional safety benefits provided by a chartered vessel operated by a licensed crew. The transfers of money in this case is irrelevant.

There is always room to improve the language in the law. This is just an example and there may better ones.
 
Last edited:
rolomart3 said:
..... we should not be wasting CG resources to check about charters and licenses.........
Click to expand...

I don't think the average person can sign away responsibility for things they don't understand. If you're not a boater, you may think its just like driving a car, its just like getting an Uber ride. BUT....just think about the examples of carelessness and stupidity you've seen on the water. Would you want your friends and family to go out on boats with operators like that ?

I think if you are taking people for hire, you should have a captain's license. It not only proves that the operator of the boat has had some training and experience, its something that can be revoked if you screw up and people get hurt, so you don't keep hurting more people. For example, I would assume that Missouri Duck Boat captain will have his license revoked and will not be able to endanger anyone else.
 
Benthic2 said:
I don't think the average person can sign away responsibility for things they don't understand. If you're not a boater, you may think its just like driving a car, its just like getting an Uber ride. BUT....just think about the examples of carelessness and stupidity you've seen on the water. Would you want your friends and family to go out on boats with operators like that ?

I think if you are taking people for hire, you should have a captain's license. It not only proves that the operator of the boat has had some training and experience, its something that can be revoked if you screw up and people get hurt, so you don't keep hurting more people. For example, I would assume that Missouri Duck Boat captain will have his license revoked and will not be able to endanger anyone else.
Click to expand...


" its something that can be revoked if you screw up and people get hurt"


This is key....it is also the reason so many states started requiring a "boating safety certificate" for operation..... as worthless as the classes sometimes are.
 
BandB the change in the USVI was that they accepted the inspection certificate from the BVI's for US boats so that they did not have to endure two inspections. When I left a few years ago there was probably less than twenty boats who took part in that program. The BVI inspection was more difficult than the USCG, but if they had to have it in the BVI they could use it in the USVI. The BVI was using the British inspection blue and yellow codes.
 
wwestman said:
BandB the change in the USVI was that they accepted the inspection certificate from the BVI's for US boats so that they did not have to endure two inspections. When I left a few years ago there was probably less than twenty boats who took part in that program. The BVI inspection was more difficult than the USCG, but if they had to have it in the BVI they could use it in the USVI. The BVI was using the British inspection blue and yellow codes.
Click to expand...

The specifics as you said:

Now, with the passage of the Coble Act, vessels of 80 feet (24m) and less operating in the U.S. Virgin Islands will be permitted to carry up to 12 passengers. In order to use this new privilege, a charter yacht must be certified to one of the following safety standards, as quoted from the Act:

the Code of Practice for the Safety of Small Commercial Motor Vessels (commonly referred to as the Yellow Code), as published by the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and in effect on Jan. 1, 2014; or
the Code of Practice for the Safety of Small Commercial Sailing Vessels (commonly referred to as the Blue Code), as published by the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and in effect on such date.
 
Seevee said:
The fact that the owner is compensated for fuel regardless of when folks pay for it is no indication of a charter by itself.
Click to expand...
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!
 
wwestman said:
Basically if you would not have been allowed on the boat without paying, it is a charter. Asking your passengers to contribute can be construed (and has been) as requesting payment. If your friends volunteer or ask if they can help pay then you will be OK.
If money is requested up front or you don't get to go, then you are a paying passenger and whomever is driving the boat had better be licensed and insured.
Click to expand...

It is not always black or white, for instance organising a long and costly cruise with friends, having to provision thousands of $$ for fuel and supplies and conditioning the feasibility of the cruise to cost sharing shall not be considered as a charter, there is not profit made out of it.
 
No, but it's not that grey either in the vast majority of cases.



Friends that accept partial or overpayment aren't that tough to figure out what their true relationship is based on other evidence.


If there's doubt about that relationship, then expect it to be considered a charter.
 
psneeld said:
No, but it's not that grey either in the vast majority of cases.



Friends that accept partial or overpayment aren't that tough to figure out what their true relationship is based on other evidence.


If there's doubt about that relationship, then expect it to be considered a charter.
Click to expand...

Saying it's not clear black and white is just a cop out. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck. There has been no doubt on any of those arrested at this point. Saying it's a grey area is the technique used by those trying to circumvent the law. The boats being stopped are being found to be in violation not of one law, but many.

I also saw the word "profit" mentioned above and it doesn't have to be profitable to be a charter. Many legitimately run charters are not profitable.

As psneeld says, it's not hard to figure out what is going on.
 
I have a HUGE issue with the idea that making a profit is illegal, but that's the rules.

Why are we so hell bent on preventing profits over passenger safety? It's this way in boating and in aviation.

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" as a charter operator. However, that's the law and overall it sucks. Why isn't the law spelled out for safety instead of profit?

I've gone thru this in aviation (and probably will do it in boating). The regs are onerous and the requirements can be ridiculous. But you can be the best and highest rated captain in the world with the best of equipment and if you charge more than the fuel price, you're guilty. But the idiot that has barely started a boat can take 10 people out on his poorly maintained pontoon boat and not make a profit and be totally legal.

Go figure.....
 
I dont think anyone is declaring that profit is illegal...
Operating for hire has requirements in a lot of positions, professions, and businesses. I would not want to be on the road with a bunch of cowboys running 18 wheelers without any standards or testing / certifications.
If anyone has the knowledge passing the required tests / certifications shouldn't be all that difficult.
 
Seevee said:
I have a HUGE issue with the idea that making a profit is illegal, but that's the rules.

Why are we so hell bent on preventing profits over passenger safety? It's this way in boating and in aviation.

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" as a charter operator. However, that's the law and overall it sucks. Why isn't the law spelled out for safety instead of profit?

I've gone thru this in aviation (and probably will do it in boating). The regs are onerous and the requirements can be ridiculous. But you can be the best and highest rated captain in the world with the best of equipment and if you charge more than the fuel price, you're guilty. But the idiot that has barely started a boat can take 10 people out on his poorly maintained pontoon boat and not make a profit and be totally legal.

Go figure.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
BandB said:
Saying it's not clear black and white is just a cop out. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck. There has been no doubt on any of those arrested at this point. Saying it's a grey area is the technique used by those trying to circumvent the law. The boats being stopped are being found to be in violation not of one law, but many.

I also saw the word "profit" mentioned above and it doesn't have to be profitable to be a charter. Many legitimately run charters are not profitable.

As psneeld says, it's not hard to figure out what is going on.
Click to expand...

I guess my post has been misunderstood ( sorry for my poor english writing) I am not saying that the cases described are in a grey zone but simply emphasizing that sometimes you may need to collect funds in advance from friends if it is a long and expensive cruise or, as it happened once for me, we had choice to go for a short cruise by ourselves or organize a much nicer cruise on cost sharing basis with friends and we all had to make an advance fund provisioning. By the way in case of MYBA charter contracts for superyachts, the concept of Advance Provisioning Allowance is well accepted and defined, the same principles can be applied among friends again in case of significant costs involved
 
Big differerence with one being a boatowner and several sets of friends chartering a boat.....not that a chartered boat can't still be an illegal charter.
 
Last edited:
The other issue here is that the guys who have been getting -- quite rightly! -- caught and fined by the CG are doing this sort of thing on a schedule. They're doing it over and over, virtually every weekend. That is further clear evidence that they are not "just taking a few friends out and sharing the cost."


When you are running on a regular schedule, and consistently charging more than it costs you to operate the boat, how can anyone in their right mind defend that as not being an illegal charter!!??!! It's just beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blissboat
Conception dive boat fire
2 3
Replies
85
Views
9K
Delta Riverat
Delta Riverat
Alaskan Sea-Duction
More Charter Arrests
Replies
10
Views
1K
tiltrider1
tiltrider1
Lepke
USCG Releases Coronavirus Precautions
Replies
0
Views
929
Lepke
Lepke
Lepke
USCG Warns of Hazzardous Bars in PNW
Replies
4
Views
1K
Moonfish
Moonfish
Lepke
Right Whale Change In Speed Restriction
Replies
20
Views
2K
Lou_tribal
Lou_tribal

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom