Canada extends cruise ship ban until Feb 2022

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
Status
Not open for further replies.
The last thing I would take to AK this coming summer is a dog. Until things change, shore patrolling a dog in BC seems problematic at best and vessel forfeiture or fines at worst.

It is simple, get in your boat, cross into BC to check in, anchor to sleep or do a weather layup and plan a fuel stop ( this may not be allowed this year) in say Port McNeil if needed. Transiting BC will likely be the same this year. It worked OK and CBP were happy so they tell me.

Last year AK said their quarantine began once on your boat and headed north sans shore stops.

Canada has their own problems to deal with regarding the virus. We US boaters need to lighten up, again, on this oft discussed topic.
 
While this will create economic hardship for those who rely on cruise tourism I think Canada made the right call in that it also creates certainty and will allow folks to plan accordingly.
 
jungpeter said:
And Fido (and I) WILL go ashore to pee!.
Click to expand...

sunchaser said:
The last thing I would take to AK this coming summer is a dog. Until things change, shore patrolling a dog in BC seems problematic at best and vessel forfeiture or fines at worst.
Click to expand...


Don't take Fido to shore if you are anchored. You and Fido are not allowed ashore.

Leave Fido at home or teach them to go on a pad on the bow of your boat.
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction said:
Don't take Fido to shore if you are anchored. You and Fido are not allowed ashore.

Leave Fido at home or teach them to go on a pad on the bow of your boat.
Click to expand...

So Tom, based on what you know today, are you going to make the inside trip to AK this season, ignoring dog issues? :confused: I'm in the process of buying a RV to hedge my bets.
 
Ken E. said:
So Tom, based on what you know today, are you going to make the inside trip to AK this season, ignoring dog issues? :confused: I'm in the process of buying a RV to hedge my bets.
Click to expand...

As of today, Yes we will head north through B.C. to SEAK. Once I enter B.C. the only land stop would be for fuel. I would only need to stop once.

Will start more detailed planning in April.
 
The link I sourced that previous information from is saved on my computer at work, but it was found on their Transport Canada page on pandemic transportation issues. I originally found it through a Google search.


And yes their intention seems to be that you report all land-side and boat contacts. I’m not sure I would report going ashore for a doggie break but contacting other vessels and going ashore for food and fuel seems to be clearly included. You report the same as how you report a border crossing by phone, which after having done numerous times i can report is much easier and quicker than the US system fwiw. They truly intend that you remain quarantined on your boat as you move through and obviously would prefer that one didn’t need to provision or fuel at all. It’s our own fault. We’re among the top (or maybe the top) virus-ridden countries on the planet.
 
Last edited:
soin2la said:
Please provide the information to support that. A link would be nice.
Click to expand...

Alaskaflyer said:
And yes their intention seems to be that you report all land-side and boat contacts. I’m not sure I would report going ashore for a doggie break but contacting other vessels and going ashore for food and fuel seems to be clearly included. You report the same as how you report a border crossing by phone, which after having done numerous times i can report is much easier and quicker than the US system fwiw. They truly intend that you remain quarantined on your boat as you move through and obviously would prefer that one didn’t need to provision or fuel at all. It’s our own fault. We’re among the top (or maybe the top) virus-ridden countries on the planet.
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the Canadian boarder rules (can't seem to put my fingers on it) they state if you anchor for crew rest or weather, you are not allowed to go ashore. You must quarantine on your boat. If you can't go to shore, then how do you take Fido to shore?

So here is a question: Are you or will you be required to fly a Q-flag? :confused:
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction said:
Somewhere in the Canadian boarder rules (can't seem to put my fingers on it) they state if you anchor for crew rest or weather, you are not allowed to go ashore. You must quarantine on your boat. If you can't go to shore, then how do you take Fido to shore?
Click to expand...
OK. I thought the comment I questioned was a general one. My mistake.

Fido? Well, lots of BC boaters have turf trained man's best friend. And their dogs as well.
 
Alaskaflyer said:
I’m not sure I would report going ashore for a doggie break but contacting other vessels and going ashore for food and fuel seems to be clearly included. They truly intend that you remain quarantined on your boat as you move through
Click to expand...

This thinking is exactly what will ruin it for everyone else who is going to play by the rules! Leave Fido at home, fly Fido to AK, If Fido is on the boat, just make sure Fido NEVER goes ashore. Don't screw it up for everyone else!
 
With all respect, I think that the intent of the rules is pretty clear and - more importantly - pretty generous. The Canadian government (at least as things stand now) is willing to allow Americans to transit through BC so long as they do it as quickly as possible (within the bounds of safety) and without unnecessary shore visits. That doesn’t seem hard to understand at all, especially when viewed in light of the global context.

I, too, have a dog that is not boat turf trained. Would I like to bring her up with me on our transit to AK this spring? Yes. Could I do just “quick” and discrete poop visits to shore? Probably. But why rock the boat? Why do something that you know is an affront to the host country that is generously opening its doors for you? Why not display some appreciation, and simply vow that you’ll follow all the rules? If the CBSA says “no shore visits” - which they have done loud and clear - do they really need to add that that includes for your dog to relieve itself?

It’s not so hard to figure out if you really want your dog with you in Alaska. Leave Fido at home, and when you get to Ketchikan or Juneau or wherever, then fly home to pick her up and fly back to AK with her.

IMHO, those of us who plan to transit BC should be EXTRA considerate this year in appreciation for the transit. Surely you know that no shore visits means no shore visits, even if your dog would prefer land. Acting kindly and with common sense is always in fashion, and now more than ever.
 
Last edited:
Kawini said:
With all respect, I think that the intent of the rules is pretty clear and - more importantly - pretty generous. The Canadian government (at least as things stand now) is willing to allow Americans to transit through BC so long as they do it as quickly as possible (within the bounds of safety) and without unnecessary shore visits. That doesn’t seem hard to understand at all, especially when viewed in light of the global context.

I, too, have a dog that is not boat turf trained. Would I like to bring her up with me on our transit to AK this spring? Yes. Could I do just “quick” and discrete poop visits to shore? Probably. But why rock the boat? Why do something that you know is an affront to the host country that is generously opening its doors for you? Why not display some appreciation, and simply vow that you’ll follow all the rules. If the CBSA says “no shore visits” - which they have done loud and clear - do they really need to add that that includes for your dog to relieve itself.

It’s not so hard to figure out if you really want your dog with you. Leave Fido at home, and when you get to Ketchikan or Juneau or wherever, then fly home to pick her up and fly back to AK with her.

IMHO, those of us who plan to transit BC should be EXTRA considerate this year in appreciation for the transit. Surely you know that no shore visits means no shore visits, even if your dog would prefer land. Acting kindly and with common sense is always in fashion, and now more than ever.
Click to expand...
I agree. Good post. Canada is not the USA and the USA is not Canada. Canada is its own country and when we enter, we must obide by their rules and regulations. Funny how some folks (both sides) believe there are no borders.
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction said:
As of today, Yes we will head north through B.C. to SEAK. Once I enter B.C. the only land stop would be for fuel. I would only need to stop once.

Will start more detailed planning in April.
Click to expand...

Hi Tom, are you worried or preparing for complete travel ban closures.

Let it be land, air, sea! Maybe stranded in Alaska a good thing?
 
Kawini said:
With all respect, I think that the intent of the rules is pretty clear and - more importantly - pretty generous. The Canadian government (at least as things stand now) is willing to allow Americans to transit through BC so long as they do it as quickly as possible (within the bounds of safety) and without unnecessary shore visits. That doesn’t seem hard to understand at all, especially when viewed in light of the global context.

I, too, have a dog that is not boat turf trained. Would I like to bring her up with me on our transit to AK this spring? Yes. Could I do just “quick” and discrete poop visits to shore? Probably. But why rock the boat? Why do something that you know is an affront to the host country that is generously opening its doors for you? Why not display some appreciation, and simply vow that you’ll follow all the rules? If the CBSA says “no shore visits” - which they have done loud and clear - do they really need to add that that includes for your dog to relieve itself?

It’s not so hard to figure out if you really want your dog with you in Alaska. Leave Fido at home, and when you get to Ketchikan or Juneau or wherever, then fly home to pick her up and fly back to AK with her.

IMHO, those of us who plan to transit BC should be EXTRA considerate this year in appreciation for the transit. Surely you know that no shore visits means no shore visits, even if your dog would prefer land. Acting kindly and with common sense is always in fashion, and now more than ever.
Click to expand...

K you nailed it!

Everyone is welcome here, just not now. Both sides need to get a handle on this, it’s gone on long enough for everyone......

I am amazed how humanity can’t control themselves for a mere 14 days to smother this virus, or still don’t believe it is real.

Believe me we have our share of anty maskers here also.
 
Kawini said:
With all respect, I think that the intent of the rules is pretty clear and - more importantly - pretty generous. The Canadian government (at least as things stand now) is willing to allow Americans to transit through BC so long as they do it as quickly as possible (within the bounds of safety) and without unnecessary shore visits. That doesn’t seem hard to understand at all, especially when viewed in light of the global context.

I, too, have a dog that is not boat turf trained. Would I like to bring her up with me on our transit to AK this spring? Yes. Could I do just “quick” and discrete poop visits to shore? Probably. But why rock the boat? Why do something that you know is an affront to the host country that is generously opening its doors for you? Why not display some appreciation, and simply vow that you’ll follow all the rules? If the CBSA says “no shore visits” - which they have done loud and clear - do they really need to add that that includes for your dog to relieve itself?

It’s not so hard to figure out if you really want your dog with you in Alaska. Leave Fido at home, and when you get to Ketchikan or Juneau or wherever, then fly home to pick her up and fly back to AK with her.

IMHO, those of us who plan to transit BC should be EXTRA considerate this year in appreciation for the transit. Surely you know that no shore visits means no shore visits, even if your dog would prefer land. Acting kindly and with common sense is always in fashion, and now more than ever.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...what a relief! A common sense neighbourly/empathetic viewpoint.

Might I request you share your thoughts here on TF more than 15 times a year?
 
One thing not mentioned here is, the final approval lies with the individual CBSA agent you make contact with.

Maybe he/she doesn't like your anchor or asks an innocent question, like; "where will your dog poop?"
 
Personally, I think instead a Jones Act waiver to avoid the cabotage laws, I would like to see these companies flag their vessels in the US. Then they could come and go from Seattle to Juneau as they please.

Why should it be to the corporations advantage, and not to the United State's advantage?

Booger those tax avoiding, foreign national employing, labour law dodging, offshore shipbuilding, cruise ship companies. The Jones Act is there for a damn good reason.

Disclosure: I was at one time in my life a US Merchant Marine Cadet.

PS: As an ex USN submariner, I have much stronger vernacular than "booger", just not allowed to use them here.
 
Last edited:
Northern Spy said:
Personally, I think instead a Jones Act waiver to avoid the cabotage laws, I would like to see these companies flag their vessels in the US. Then they could come and go from Seattle to Juneau as they please.

Why should it be to the corporations advantage, and not to the United State's advantage?

Booger those tax avoiding, foreign national employing, labour law dodging, offshore shipbuilding, cruise ship companies. The Jones Act is there for a damn good reason.
Click to expand...

I expect they'd be a lot more willing to flag in the US if they didn't need to have the ships built here. There likely aren't all that many places willing and able to build a cruise ship in the US anyway at this point.
 
Toki said:
Where are you seeing this?

As I read this new proclamation, it seems the border is now being opened to pleasure craft, as long as they don't venture into "Canadian artic waters" (above ~60th parallel). Am I reading this wrong?
Click to expand...

Either I read it wrong or just didn’t read enough.
Hope you haven’t been inconvenienced.
 
The border extension has been extended through the summer.

However the variable that controls this is very liquid.
It’s conceivable that things will get better fairly fast when they do. And the businesses going broke as time goes on may push the border issue in a good for us direction. There’s a lot of force on that border to open both politically and economically.
 
lwarden said:
Perhaps they should pull the SS United States out of mothball and fit her for cruising again? That's the largest US built passenger ship I know of besides the Pride of America which operates out of Hawaii.
Click to expand...

NCL tried doing that. It didn't work out. As impractical as I know it to be, I still wish someone would come up with a way to rescue her.

Oh, and dogs CAN learn to "go" on deck. We've taught two old (and in one case, not very bright) dogs that "out" means "on deck." Sure, they'd prefer to go ashore, but having the option to skip those trips sometimes is valuable.
 
Worth mentioning that the order that began this thread was issued by the Minister of Transportation i.e. Transport Canada.

Border entry issues and procedures are administered by the Canadian Border Services Agency in an entirely different ministry portfolio, Public Safety.

As a pilot flying near an international border I imagine it would be like trying to synthesize information from the FAA and USCBP. Bleah. That said, at least the current Canadian information isn’t directly contradictory.
 
Wouldn't a simple solution be to just waive the Jones Act restrictions on the Alaska cruise ships until the virus passes? Where's the harm?
 
Ken E. said:
Wouldn't a simple solution be to just waive the Jones Act restrictions on the Alaska cruise ships until the virus passes? Where's the harm?
Click to expand...

It isn't the Jones Act (which covers transportation of freight) that is preventing this, it is a different law - The Passenger Vessel Services Act - which sort of resembles the Jones Act but for passengers, and which doesn't appear to have a waiver process unlike the Jones Act. However, Congress could modify the law.

The only thing that executive rulemaking could do is zero out or otherwise greatly reduce the per passenger fine imposed on the operator :socool:

So many of these sailings depart from Vancouver that I wonder if it would even be logistically possible to modify their departure points to Seattle or Juneau at this late date anyhow.
 
Last edited:
markpierce said:
Not unusual for cruise ships to take the ocean route to/from Ketchikan.

What has been the effect on US ferries serving Alaska?
Click to expand...


The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States federal statute that provides for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine. Among other purposes, the law regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act is known as the Jones Act and deals with cabotage and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. The act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones. The law also defines certain seaman's rights.

Alaska Ferries follow the Jones Act so they are allowed to run.
 
Alaskaflyer said:
It isn't the Jones Act (which covers transportation of freight) that is preventing this, it is a different law - The Passenger Vessel Services Act - which sort of resembles the Jones Act but for passengers, and which doesn't appear to have a waiver process unlike the Jones Act. However, Congress could modify the law.

The only thing that executive rulemaking could do is zero out or otherwise greatly reduce the per passenger fine imposed on the operator :socool:

So many of these sailings depart from Vancouver that I wonder if it would even be logistically possible to modify their departure points to Seattle or Juneau at this late date anyhow.
Click to expand...

I do not feel the Passenger Vessel Services Act should be modified for this use. But that is just my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
Cruise Ships prohibited entering Canada
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
BandB
BandB

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom