Captains License - fishing license needed?

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by OS2Dude

No references to the insurance incident, but it was told to me by someone with a captain's licence.



As far as always being held to a higher standard at all times, this was told to me not only by the above captain but a representative of the USCG at a boat show as well.

Ive heard similar stories, but never concrete legal references either.

[jmschmidt]

OS2Dude you sound like a Brit. If so, you have a more sensible legal system than ours (US). We copied ours from yours and it worked fine for the first 150 years or so but it has been bastardized into a giant money grab by the lawyers, police (civil forfeiture) and the courts.

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Ive heard similar stories, but never concrete legal references either.

I've heard similar to, but only here on CF and from someone whom heard it from someone and so forth, never once come across an actual incident where this was the outcome......

Originally Posted by OS2Dude

NOTE: It is my understanding that is you hold a USCG Captain's ticket, your are NEVER 'off the clock'.

You will find nothing in maritime law stating the above, you may have a moral obligation to assist, but there is no legal one that requires you to take command and become the responsible person, never 'off the clock' is a total myth....

Originally Posted by OS2Dude

NOTE: You will be held to a higher standard than the average non-ticketed individual in all situations, even if just out on your own vessel for your own pleasure.

Yes you will be expected to 'know better' when in command of your own vessel, that stands to reason....

Originally Posted by OS2Dude

I've even heard of someone with a ticket who was a passenger on someone else's boat who the insurance company tried to hold responsible for an accident simply because he was present and 'should have prevented the situation'.

....so I presume this 'someone else's' boat has already got an insurance policy? and somewhere in this insurance policy (must be really small print) it states that if you take a passenger on board that is more qualified than the policy and boat owner, then the more qualified passenger becomes responsible for the safety and operation of the vessel? which means they are in effect in command of the vessel?

OS2Dude...does that mean when i step on your Catalina 30 that i take command? and you have no say in it? ........it's simple, you CANNOT be held responsible unless you are in command, hence why when the authorities step on board or start an investigation, 99.9% of the time they will ask who is/was in command first, not who is the owner or who has the highest qualification....

Originally Posted by OS2Dude

NOTE: It is one of the reasons I did not pursue a '6-pack' licence myself.

So in effect what you are also saying here is that you have an escape clause, that if you take a ticketed/licenced passenger out with you, and you make a mess of it, then they will be the ones taken to task for not preventing a catastrophe of your making?.....nice!

Lol.....i know exactly what would happen if i went out on a few of my mates boats and said 'you ain't got a ticket so move aside, i'm responsible so i'm in charge here'.......

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by OS2Dude

NOTE: It is my understanding that is you hold a USCG Captain's ticket, your are NEVER 'off the clock'. You will be held to a higher standard than the average non-ticketed individual in all situations, even if just out on your own vessel for your own pleasure. I've even heard of someone with a ticket who was a passenger on someone else's boat who the insurance company tried to hold responsible for an accident simply because he was present and 'should have prevented the situation'. It is one of the reasons I did not pursue a '6-pack' licence myself.

I heard those rumors too, but claim BS.
I held USCG tickets for 25 years +, the above has never been a problem or a factor.

If that is one of the reasons you did not pursue a 6-pack license..

[BigBoater917]

Originally Posted by CSY Man

I heard those rumors too, but claim BS.
I held USCG tickets for 25 years +, the above has never been a problem or a factor.

If that is one of the reasons you did not pursue a 6-pack license..

The USCG has stated that they hold licensed Mariners to a higher standard.
It's in the second to last paragraph.


Tug-barge hits boat anchored in channel - Professional Mariner - October/November 2007

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by BigBoater917

The USCG has stated that they hold licensed Mariners to a higher standard.
It's in the second to last paragraph.


Tug-barge hits boat anchored in channel - Professional Mariner - October/November 2007

While operating a commercial vessel...of course!

However, the oft repeated claim is a liscenced mariner may be held accountable even if only a passenger aboard a recreational vessel which he is not operating. Having been a USCG liscensed captain for over 20 years Ive never encountered this, never seen a statement from the USCG to this effect, and never heard of a verifiable case.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

While operating a commercial vessel...of course!

However, the oft repeated claim is a liscenced mariner may be held accountable even if only a passenger aboard a recreational vessel which he is not operating. Having been a USCG liscensed captain for over 20 years Ive never encountered this, never seen a statement from the USCG to this effect, and never heard of a verifiable case.

Not boating related, but similar? I was once involved with a UK university climbing club, and one thing we did was go out climbing with non-climbers to introduce them to the sport ... we were not formally teaching, just going out climbing with novices. At one point the government introduced a new qualification for teaching single-pitch climbing. Some people in the club thought it would be a good idea to get this qualification, so applied to the university for funding to do it. Initially the sports department thought it was a good idea, but the university lawyers shot it down saying that we were not in a formal teacher-student relationship that the qualification was designed for, just people of different experience levels climbing together, but by having a qualification we would be held to a greater "duty of care" in any liability lawsuit, therefore it was not in the university's interest (since they were the only deep pockets connected to the club) that any of us had qualifications ... if we wanted to get the qualification the university shouldn't pay for it.


It's probably the same on a boat ... a qualified captain among the passengers can expect to be held to a higher standard than any of the other passengers (which is setting the bar pretty low) ... supposing a clearly dangerous situation were unfolding, joe average may not have a clue, but a qualified captain should recognise it, and at the very least inform the crew of their concerns ... as a passenger it's not their job to be looking out for it, but once they are aware of it they should take some action or they could be found to have been negligent in their "duty of care", and that qualification is proof that they should have known better, so they will be held to a higher standard ... there may never have been a case, because ... after all, would you sit back and watch the disaster unfold while you were onboard?

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Not boating related, but similar? I was once involved with a UK university climbing club, and one thing we did was go out climbing with non-climbers to introduce them to the sport ... we were not formally teaching, just going out climbing with novices. At one point the government introduced a new qualification for teaching single-pitch climbing. Some people in the club thought it would be a good idea to get this qualification, so applied to the university for funding to do it. Initially the sports department thought it was a good idea, but the university lawyers shot it down saying that we were not in a formal teacher-student relationship that the qualification was designed for, just people of different experience levels climbing together, but by having a qualification we would be held to a greater "duty of care" in any liability lawsuit, therefore it was not in the university's interest (since they were the only deep pockets connected to the club) that any of us had qualifications ... if we wanted to get the qualification the university shouldn't pay for it.


It's probably the same on a boat ... a qualified captain among the passengers can expect to be held to a higher standard than any of the other passengers (which is setting the bar pretty low) ... supposing a clearly dangerous situation were unfolding, joe average may not have a clue, but a qualified captain should recognise it, and at the very least inform the crew of their concerns ... as a passenger it's not their job to be looking out for it, but once they are aware of it they should take some action or they could be found to have been negligent in their "duty of care", and that qualification is proof that they should have known better, so they will be held to a higher standard ... there may never have been a case, because ... after all, would you sit back and watch the disaster unfold while you were onboard?

The difference as I see it is whether the liscened mariner, or climbing leader, is taking an active role in the scenario. In the case of the climbing leaders above they are leading the outting so are clearly in an active role. Additional certification would document that they knew what they were doing and well aware of the potential danger (as oppossed to just a bunch of uncertified amatuers). I can see the logic of them, or the liscenced mariner in an active role, being held to a higher standard, but in a passive role (just among the passengers), no.

In an actual on the water situation, then no, I would not just watch the disaster unfold in front of me. I would take action...thus stepping over the line from passive to active role. Case in point: I found myself on the water one day in a high-performance power boat (Formula 44) with an owner/operator who turned out to be a total incompetent idiot (and Im being generous). Within a few minutes (he'd already nearly got us killed) I informed him that either I was taking over operation of the boat or getting off. He didnt object and I took the helm. In that case, Ive now clearly stepped into an active role and could/should be held to a higher standard.

I can see how one might argue that a pro mariner should step in when things are clearly about to go wrong, but I do not believe there is an actual statute or case law which establishes that obligation...or which would hold them accountable if they did not.


I know there are maritime attorneys who are members here, maybe they could chime in?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

While operating a commercial vessel...of course!

However, the oft repeated claim is a liscenced mariner may be held accountable even if only a passenger aboard a recreational vessel which he is not operating. Having been a USCG liscensed captain for over 20 years Ive never encountered this, never seen a statement from the USCG to this effect, and never heard of a verifiable case.

This is true of any licensed professional. They are held to a higher standard.

The idea is that they know more, so they have greater responsibility. They can't claim "they didn't know better".

Wouldn't stop me from getting any kind of license, but any license does come with legal responsibility to go along with that credential, and it applies even outside the work environment.

[IslandHopper]

The level of misinformation from the uninformed on CF never ceases to amaze me, it's always striving to reach new heights....