Cruising in Shared/Adjoining US and CA Waters

Has anyone noticed or experienced increased enforcement of US and CA territorial waters? My reading online finds that the rules for US recreational boats in CA waters are much the same as for CA boats in US waters. Visiting boats have to sign in when docking or when anchoring. I also read that, for example, a US boat just passing through some anomaly in the border need not report in to CA but a recreational fishing boat which passes in and out of CA waters has to report.


My reason for posting is that CDN folks I know who've been sailing these waters for decades were boarded by armed agents and arrested having been anchored in US waters. They had to sign their arrest papers but were not given a copy of what they'd signed.


I imagine our agents were acting in accordance with the law but, given the current administration's behavior elsewhere towards all our long-time allies...

Historically, if you pass through and don’t touch land, did not require reporting. Anchoring was a grey area as to whether you “touched” land, but when we were diving across the border, the smart money was to clear customs first and upon return.

Not sure if it sounds like anything has changed? If somebody got hassled for anchoring, that’s always been a distinct possibility. Sounds like they probably should have cleared customs.

ghost said:

Historically, if you pass through and don’t touch land, did not require reporting. Anchoring was a grey area as to whether you “touched” land, but when we were diving across the border, the smart money was to clear customs first and upon return.

Not sure if it sounds like anything has changed? If somebody got hassled for anchoring, that’s always been a distinct possibility. Sounds like they probably should have cleared customs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was always my understanding. As long as you didn’t anchor or come ashore, or engage in fishing, or take on or off passengers or items, you were fine.

Not sure who would have arrested them. ICE certainly could, local LEOs could. Not sure who else would care.

Arrested? For what? I suppose if you don`t get a copy of the arrest papers you can`t know the charge.
Sounds as if "gunboat diplomacy" is alive and flourishing.

This changed about 2 years ago. US Customs now wants to be notified if you are transiting US waters. I mistook this to mean they want you to call when you cross the boundary, I was told not to call if I was continuing to a port of entry, but to call if I was transiting and returning to Canadian waters.

ghost said:

Historically, if you pass through and don’t touch land, did not require reporting. Anchoring was a grey area as to whether you “touched” land, but when we were diving across the border, the smart money was to clear customs first and upon return.

Not sure if it sounds like anything has changed? If somebody got hassled for anchoring, that’s always been a distinct possibility. Sounds like they probably should have cleared customs.

Click to expand...

Nothing gray about it. Maritime law allows for free transient passage. But as soon as you go to shore or drop anchor, you have entered the country and need to go through the entry process. So you could run from WA to AK without checking into Canada provided you run non-stop.

twistedtree said:

Nothing gray about it. Maritime law allows for free transient passage. But as soon as you go to shore or drop anchor, you have entered the country and need to go through the entry process. So you could run from WA to AK without checking into Canada provided you run non-stop.

Click to expand...

+1

On my Great Loop trip, crossing back and forth between countries in the Great Lakes and waterways was not an issue as long as you didn't anchor or dock. The one notable exception was the Canadian lock going into Lake Superior. Even though you sort of tether to the wall, they don't consider it formal entry into Canada.

Ted

O C Diver said:

+1

On my Great Loop trip, crossing back and forth between countries in the Great Lakes and waterways was not an issue as long as you didn't anchor or dock. The one notable exception was the Canadian lock going into Lake Superior. Even though you sort of tether to the wall, they don't consider it formal entry into Canada.

Ted

Click to expand...

Dhays brought up a couple of other finer points, namely no fishing or other harvesting of resources, and no coming along side other boats.

Think this is the letter of the law. You can see a very narrow exception on anchoring.

SUBSECTION A. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SHIPS


Article 17
Right of innocent passage

Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.


Article 18
Meaning of passage

1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:

(a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or (b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

2. Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.

Along with what TT said, you cannot drop anchor in Canadian or US waters before clearing customs. There are a few exceptions as noted.

Also, if you have AIS your current and historical movements are monitored 24/7. Satellites are tracking many non AIS vessels with notifications shared amongst agencies on both sides of border. Given the high volume of illegal traffic, namely drugs, fishing and “immigration”, vigilance by the authorities is common place, now supported by computer tracking. I’ve friends in this business and best I can say is stay legal, you’re being watched.

There is definitely stepped up activity and stopping or inspecting. While laws may not have changed, interpretation and activity have. Using Lake Erie as an example, when we looped, we were told as long as we were going from a US destination to a US destination, crossing the imaginary line into Canada was fine. We were told that previously it had not been considered so, but never confirmed that. However, today, boats going from Canadian destinations to Canadian destinations and US to US are sometimes being stopped on the way and required to explain their transit. Anchoring, other than in an emergency would get you ticketed.

Just look at the jogger who was taken into custody and held for two weeks for crossing the US border between White Rock, BC and Blaine, Washington. She was jogging along the beach and there was no indication of a border. In a different environment, she would have been admonished and turned around and sent back to Canada.

Just look at the immigration checkpoints on the highways in New Hampshire of all places.

We were advised to be especially diligent on our current trip, crossing both ways. We are not proceeding to Lake Ontario but we were advised of taking extra care if we did.

One other piece of advice is to carry your passport at times you otherwise might not have. Some traveling with us, had a van in Boston and decided to make day trips to New Hampshire and Vermont and were advised strongly by locals to carry their passports, especially those who are first generation Americans and might have the looks of foreigners. Otherwise, you're stopped and asked if you're a citizen and you have no proof at all. Some of those stopped on the highway in New Hampshire found it very frightening to be questioned and have no way of proving they were telling the truth.

twistedtree said:

So you could run from WA to AK without checking into Canada provided you run non-stop.

Click to expand...

Well maybe. As we were entering Prince Rupert B.C., a feet of fishing vessels were heading south through Canada (inside passage). They call VTS to get a "permit" for passage. All done over the radio.

But I too have heard you could transit so long as you don't touch land. In the OP case they should have reported into a Customs station.

ghost said:

Article 18
Meaning of passage

1. Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:

(a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or (b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.

Click to expand...

I think this is key. Canada for example, claims parts of the Northwest passage, and the straits of Georgia as internal waters. The US disputes some of that. The Salish sea has been in dispute for some time.

Different reason, but if you are heading out of Mex into CA waters you can be stopped by the Feds for a drug search. IE, they can come along side and ask you questions. I suppose if the interviewed party looks or acts guilty, it gets escalated from there. This happened to me about 4 years ago, but have not heard of any such stops since so I can't be sure if they are still doing it.

Gee, when I travel internationally via air I'm searched, patted down, and radiated, as well as interviewed. And you expect less when traveling by boat? This is what the world has become.

BandB said:

There is definitely stepped up activity and stopping or inspecting. While laws may not have changed, interpretation and activity have...

Just look at the jogger who was taken into custody and held for two weeks for crossing the US border between White Rock, BC and Blaine, Washington. She was jogging along the beach and there was no indication of a border. In a different environment, she would have been admonished and turned around and sent back to Canada.....

Click to expand...

Surely the jogger story is urban myth. Arrested? Held in custody for 2 weeks? It either didn`t happen or there is more to it.
OTOH, I read Mexican border crossers separated from their children are now having DNA tests to work out whose children are being held separately,I suppose the children are being tested too. So it could be true. Could be some surprises from DNA testing,that`s another problem, it can`t determine guardianship.

BruceK said:

Surely the jogger story is urban myth. Arrested? Held in custody for 2 weeks? It either didn`t happen or there is more to it.
OTOH, I read Mexican border crossers separated from their children are now having DNA tests to work out whose children are being held separately,I suppose the children are being tested too. So it could be true. Could be some surprises from DNA testing,that`s another problem, it can`t determine guardianship.

Click to expand...

Not an urban myth, story here.....

BruceK said:

Surely the jogger story is urban myth. Arrested? Held in custody for 2 weeks? It either didn`t happen or there is more to it...

Click to expand...

Sad, but true.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...order-from-b-c-detained-for-2-weeks-1.4717060

rochepoint said:

NOT A URBAN MYTH, story here.....

Click to expand...

Thanks, maybe there was more to it. The young lady jogger appears in the pics to have dark skin which ought not to but might have bothered the apprehending officers. What if she was a Mexican masquerading as a jogger,entering from Canada,while claiming to be French and even worse,perhaps speaking French as her first language? Off to jail!

DHeckrotte said:

Has anyone noticed or experienced increased enforcement of US and CA territorial waters? My reading online finds that the rules for US recreational boats in CA waters are much the same as for CA boats in US waters. Visiting boats have to sign in when docking or when anchoring. I also read that, for example, a US boat just passing through some anomaly in the border need not report in to CA but a recreational fishing boat which passes in and out of CA waters has to report.


My reason for posting is that CDN folks I know who've been sailing these waters for decades were boarded by armed agents and arrested having been anchored in US waters. They had to sign their arrest papers but were not given a copy of what they'd signed.


I imagine our agents were acting in accordance with the law but, given the current administration's behavior elsewhere towards all our long-time allies...

Click to expand...

Yes. We have noticed. / Len


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...nts-intercepted-at-least-10-canadian-fishing/

Escalating!! / Len


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/lobster-fishermen-stopped-us-border-patrol-1.4735171

Description & map of Grey Zone. / Len
https://thisfish.info/fishery/atlantic-lobster-canada-lfa38B/

BruceK said:

Thanks, maybe there was more to it. The young lady jogger appears in the pics to have dark skin which ought not to but might have bothered the apprehending officers. What if she was a Mexican masquerading as a jogger,entering from Canada,while claiming to be French and even worse,perhaps speaking French as her first language? Off to jail!

Click to expand...

Sadly this is a true story. Not sure she will plan to have any vacation soon in US after such an experience
Positive point,she got a special tourist tour few got, prison tour is not so much common

L

BruceK said:

Surely the jogger story is urban myth. Arrested? Held in custody for 2 weeks? It either didn`t happen or there is more to it.
OTOH, I read Mexican border crossers separated from their children are now having DNA tests to work out whose children are being held separately,I suppose the children are being tested too. So it could be true. Could be some surprises from DNA testing,that`s another problem, it can`t determine guardianship.

Click to expand...

The jogger story is most definitely not urban myth. Jogger was from France, visiting her mother in BC. Now it did take her 3 days to get her travel documents to authorities but after that it took another 11 days before US and Canadian officials agreed she could return to Canada. The officials all had their reasons, but the point made was it's a different environment so something that might have gotten you admonished and sent on your way, now might get you locked up. And, to the OP's question, you must be more careful on the water.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/23/us/canada-jogger-detained-us-border/index.html

Someone mentioned the dispute over lines on the west coast, well there's a dispute on the east coast with Machias Seal Island and a dispute at the Maine-New Brunswick border. Now, the dispute has long existed. However, the number of Canadian vessels stopped and questioned (no arrests) has increased dramatically.

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...tigates-run-ins-us-customs-fishermen-56390918

News is not always reported accurately. The French girl was not jogging down some nice sandy beach that just happened to cross the boarder with no signs. You can’t get to we’re she was easily. There is a fence and signs but at lower low water you can easily find a 100’ of beach but you are only 500’ from the boarder station. She could see all the cars lined up going through customs, she knew she was close to the border and yet she jogged into the US by accident. Of course the boarder patrol picked her up, she just illegally entered the country (even if she was a US citizen it was an illeagle entry). Now they have a person with no ID claiming to be French and claiming it was an accidental crossing (isn’t that exactly what some one sneaking across the boarder would claim). Then it took 3 days to get here travel papers to the US and 11 more for both Canada and the US to figure out were to send her. It’s very possible Canada didn’t want here back after all she is not Canadian and worse she is guilty of immigration violations.

The jogger story is a travesty. Many, many people should have lost their jobs over that fiasco. She definitely should have been approached and stopped, and I could even see a detainment for an hour or so. But I am sure that the CBP officers could have gotten a copy of her passport photo and information in that time. If a local cop in a rural town can get a copy of my driver's license during a traffic stop, I am sure there was an easier solution than an 2 week detainment. She will now have trouble traveling internationally for the rest of her life and will have a harder time getting a job. All because a couple of small minded automatons couldn't think for themselves, and their bosses don't have any problem with that.

That is just such a shame, and a waste of resources. Think about the man hours involved in arresting, booking, interviewing, transporting and housing her.

THIS is why there is so much anti American sentiment in the world. We need a new cabinet position: Secretary of The United States Image.

Read this today:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-border-patrol-stops-canadian-vessels-in-disputed-waters/

Many Canadian boats that stray into US waters in the Straits of Juan de Fuca are being boarded by US Cosat Guard vessels (whale watching, fishing, etc.). They sit and watch for boats and dash out and intercept and board. So the advice in the BC/Washington boarder area is don’t go into the US waters unless you plan to and then check in as required.

There is a lot of drug trafficking/transporting in the area and they are being very vigilant.

If I am right, going from lake Ontario to Montreal in St Lawrence, you have no choice to go through Eisenhower lock in US. In that case as you need to go from CA to US to lock through, do you need to report your entry?
It would be nice if Cornwall canal was still open so it would be possible to stay on CA side but I don't think it is. Not that I have anything against going in US just need to avoid the hassle of going through customs for nothing much.

L

L

tiltrider1 said:

News is not always reported accurately. The French girl was not jogging down some nice sandy beach that just happened to cross the boarder with no signs. You can’t get to we’re she was easily. There is a fence and signs but at lower low water you can easily find a 100’ of beach but you are only 500’ from the boarder station. She could see all the cars lined up going through customs, she knew she was close to the border and yet she jogged into the US by accident. Of course the boarder patrol picked her up, she just illegally entered the country (even if she was a US citizen it was an illeagle entry). Now they have a person with no ID claiming to be French and claiming it was an accidental crossing (isn’t that exactly what some one sneaking across the boarder would claim). Then it took 3 days to get here travel papers to the US and 11 more for both Canada and the US to figure out were to send her. It’s very possible Canada didn’t want here back after all she is not Canadian and worse she is guilty of immigration violations.

Click to expand...

I noticed the same. She is literally in view of both the car crossing, the giant peace arch monument and everything. If a nervous person in a car lane wanted to get out, sneak around the border and get back in on the other side, this is exactly where you would go.

Sorry, but this gal shares 90% of the blame. Funny how such an obvious aspect to the story is basically not mentioned. It’s as if a normal person could easily find themselves in this situation...I don’t think so. This is just such an obvious straw man article, giving permission to those who are already looking for an excuse for outrage. That’s your real story here.