What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program?

[Cadence]

Lets face. Some people are discharging in marinas mostly at night. I don't swim at night so if its gone on a sufficient tide I could close a blind eye, Enforcement is expensive an the cost has to be weighed against effect. If it's in a creek where it comes back every tide I would have a problem with it. An example would be the canals of Cape Coral.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Finally at the end, we are finally getting you to consider things logically. Compliance can be studied. If there is evidence that a greater distance results in greater compliance, then fine but again, without evidence it's speculation not a justifiable rule.

Hmm, life in an idealistic world not so good? Government policy makers not logically? Rules not justifiable? Is this your first experience with the real world?

Yep, the 3-mile limit was EASY! It's the old international limit, it's already drawn on all charts! There isn't a 1 mile line on the charts!

I would not support any tax $$ spent to study the issue in hopes of changing the rule to 1 mile before finding out how many infractions of the current rule are cited between 1 and 3 miles offshore! I'll bet 99.999% of all illegal discharge infractions are issued between 0 and 1 mile offshore. So, no point to spend $$ on a study that will have zero effect on what's happening currently!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

People having to see $h1t etc in the water, in places where they expect to hang out, swim, float, waterski, tube, canoe, windsurf, snorkel, etc. Isn't that a problem worth solving? This is where 90+% of recreational boating happens.



Yes you've tried to rationalize that, and I'm still not buying it. The goal is 100% reduction where people are likely to be, btw. 30% is a fail.

You're not going to get 100% reduction from any measure whatsoever, so you can forget about that. By this standard, everything is a fail.


If the goal is to make it healthy for swimmers, but also aesthetic! And I agree 100% that this should be the goal of boat discharge rules! Then we need reasonable rules which people respect. You can't force everyone to obey rules which are unreasonable -- some people just won't do it no matter how many potty police you deploy or fines you issue.

If you want to eliminate turds in the water, a lot better way to do it would be to require all waste discharged to be macerated. This will cause it to disperse and break down far more quickly. I guess that if treatment systems like Lectra San have any actual beneficial effect, that 99% of it comes from maceration.

Otherwise in my opinion Lectra Sans (and we had one when we were cruising U.S. waters) are a fairly expensive but effective way to get out of stupid discharge rules. The dreaded Potty Police also would disappear cheerfully and immediately, when they saw the device on board.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If you want to eliminate turds in the water, a lot better way to do it would be to require all waste discharged to be macerated. This will cause it to disperse and break down far more quickly. I guess that if treatment systems like Lectra San have any actual beneficial effect, that 99% of it comes from maceration.

Otherwise in my opinion Lectra Sans (and we had one when we were cruising U.S. waters) are a fairly expensive but effective way to get out of stupid discharge rules. The dreaded Potty Police also would disappear cheerfully and immediately, when they saw the device on board.

Ground up $h1t is still $h1t. It still smells.There's still the public knowledge that boats are discharging their mess, ground up or not, in areas used by others.

I'm amazed how hard people are trying to justify not being responsible, considerate boaters. Propose a limit you consider reasonable and enforceable.

[newhaul]

Just require all boats that have a head use composting heads. Problem solved and no saying it was an accident if you put poo in the water.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ground up $h1t is still $h1t. It still smells.There's still the public knowledge that boats are discharging their mess, ground up or not, in areas used by others.

I'm amazed how hard people are trying to justify not being responsible, considerate boaters. Propose a limit you consider reasonable and enforceable.

I already did propose a reasonable limit -- a mile. At least 4 or 5 times the distance where you could possibly do any harm to people near shore.

"Ground up ***" is not indeed the same as whole turds. I don't think you read my post. The sea is an extremely efficient waste treatment plant. Macerating the waste greatly accelerates the process. Once it's broken down, it doesn't smell.

I don't see anyone on here "justifying not being responsible, considerate boaters". Not a single person advocated discharging anywhere, where it can affect people.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I already did propose a reasonable limit -- a mile. At least 4 or 5 times the distance where you could possibly do any harm to people near shore.

And I'm onside with a mile, from the standpoint of harm and effects.

Setting the legal line from 3 mile to 1 mile will result in more boaters switching the valve than when the limit was 3 miles, which will lead to more people being charged just because they forgot, and will result in more accidental discharges closer to shore.

You ok with that?

(to restate - I think a limit of one mile creates more problems for most boaters and LEO)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And I'm onside with a mile, from the standpoint of harm and effects.

Setting the legal line from 3 mile to 1 mile will result in more boaters switching the valve than when the limit was 3 miles, which will lead to more people being charged just because they forgot, and will result in more accidental discharges closer to shore.

You ok with that?

(to restate - I think a limit of one mile creates more problems for most boaters and LEO)

Human behavior is a fairly complex thing, but I don't think that setting the limit to a more reasonable distance will result in more "accidents" or violations.

On the contrary, I think that the more reasonable the rules are, the more likely they are to be followed. I think there is a fair amount of evidence people mostly behave like this.

If I were King, I would abolish all the ridiculous Potty Police -- recognizing that enforcement is basically impossible (zip ties? dye bombs? ridiculous) with regard to boats which move around, and invest money instead in education.

I would require holding tanks and macerators on any boat with a bed.

Any enforcement I might do would be concentrated on liveaboard boats which don't move and which are located near where people swim -- which are the real problems in any case. It would be a challenge to do this in a humane and respectful way, but I guess you could seal off their discharge valves and make sure they have access to a mobile pumpout of some kind.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You keep harping on the disease/ecology thing, even though we've all agreed that recreational boats have a net effect that's mostly negligable. Do you not recognize the other reasons we don't particularly want discharges close to shore?

It's pretty clear too that you're only thinking about cruising boats, and not the vast majority of boats that have MSDs and are NOT cruisers.



Here's a possible benchmark - if someone making recreational use of the water is likely to have to travel through your discharge before it has dissipated, it's in the wrong place.

So there, I've just framed a logical defendable study. What's the distance X at which less than say 5% percent of other water users are likely to encounter your discharge? Of course with the reasonable (yet unresearched) assumption that those out past distance Y would be the sort of user that would not be concerned with the discharge (eg they are other cruisers or transiting boats). I'd be ok with 1 mile as this distance, except that I don't think it can be efficiently enforced, and it results in MSD behaviour that's more likely to result in more illegal discharges. Hence my support of 3 miles.

Honestly, what is the likelihood of a swimmer crossing your stern 2.9 miles out? 2 miles out? 1 mile out? Or even 500 yards out?

The discharge doesn't remain where you discharged it forever; if macerated it breaks down and is rendered harmless (in fact beneficial) to the environment within minutes.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Honestly, what is the likelihood of a swimmer crossing your stern 2.9 miles out? 2 miles out? 1 mile out? Or even 500 yards out?

The discharge doesn't remain where you discharged it forever; if macerated it breaks down and is rendered harmless (in fact beneficial) to the environment within minutes.

Canoes, SUPs, kayaks, windsurfers, kiters, waterskiiers, divers...

I don't think maceration is quite that magical, but anyway - would you be comfortable taking your kids to the beach knowing that it's Ok for the boats anchored off the beach to be discharging? OK maybe not you, but the average family on a beach weekend?

All of this twisting and turning by you guys...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If I were King, I would abolish all the ridiculous Potty Police -- recognizing that enforcement is basically impossible (zip ties? dye bombs? ridiculous) with regard to boats which move around, and invest money instead in education.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I would require holding tanks and macerators on any boat with a bed.

Any enforcement I might do would be concentrated on liveaboard boats which don't move and which are located near where people swim -- which are the real problems in any case. It would be a challenge to do this in a humane and respectful way, but I guess you could seal off their discharge valves and make sure they have access to a mobile pumpout of some kind.

You've just confirmed that you are disregarding the majority of boats - all the head-equipped day-trippers, weekenders, rentals - who are most likely to be close to shore 99% of the time, and congregating at the popular spots. These are the ones most likely to dump unmacerated waste at those spots. With a limit set at 3 miles, these folks would almost never set their valve to overboard, whereas at 1 mile, more would do it, and thus more would forget and more improper discharge would happen.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Canoes, SUPs, kayaks, windsurfers, kiters, waterskiiers, divers...

I don't think maceration is quite that magical, but anyway - would you be comfortable taking your kids to the beach knowing that it's Ok for the boats anchored off the beach to be discharging? OK maybe not you, but the average family on a beach weekend?

All of this twisting and turning by you guys...

Most of the people on the beach are either pissin' or crappin' in the water anyway, so what's your point? To believe otherwise is being very naive. Just look at the facts... no beach public restroom facilities, thousands of people, what do you think they do.... hold it all day?

I have no problem going in the water with boats anchored nearby, even here where there're no pumpouts anywhere.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. . . You've just confirmed that you are disregarding the majority of boats - all the head-equipped day-trippers, weekenders, rentals - who are most likely to be close to shore 99% of the time, and congregating at the popular spots. These are the ones most likely to dump unmacerated waste at those spots. With a limit set at 3 miles, these folks would almost never set their valve to overboard, whereas at 1 mile, more would do it, and thus more would forget and more improper discharge would happen.

So your idea is to make discharging in the sea so onerous for these "day trippers" that they just can't do it at all, since 3 miles out is unreachable for them? And you think that will help prevent discharges where it's really harmful?

How do you figure that will encourage compliance? Do you think that accidentally leaving seacocks open is a bigger problem than people just not respecting the law and ignoring it?

I don't.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Human behavior is a fairly complex thing, but I don't think that setting the limit to a more reasonable distance will result in more "accidents" or violations.

On the contrary, I think that the more reasonable the rules are, the more likely they are to be followed. I think there is a fair amount of evidence people mostly behave like this.

If I were King, I would abolish all the ridiculous Potty Police -- recognizing that enforcement is basically impossible (zip ties? dye bombs? ridiculous) with regard to boats which move around, and invest money instead in education.

I would require holding tanks and macerators on any boat with a bed.

Any enforcement I might do would be concentrated on liveaboard boats which don't move and which are located near where people swim -- which are the real problems in any case. It would be a challenge to do this in a humane and respectful way, but I guess you could seal off their discharge valves and make sure they have access to a mobile pumpout of some kind.

You right on the zip ties. Put a pair of dikes and a supply of ties in a container next to the toilet paper.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Hmm, life in an idealistic world not so good? Government policy makers not logically? Rules not justifiable? Is this your first experience with the real world?

No, I have quite a bit of work experience with policy making. Best thing you can do is get ahead of it and lay out a clear defendable plan. You probably won't get everything you want but you will get far more.

Yep, the 3-mile limit was EASY! It's the old international limit, it's already drawn on all charts! There isn't a 1 mile line on the charts!

In the 1860's, this might have been an argument. In the modern world, computers can draw a line at any distance you like. Of course, without those computers, you would be hard pressed to determine your boat is just outside the 3 mile limit. Easy is not the goal. Eliminating a problem is the goal.

I would not support any tax $$ spent to study the issue in hopes of changing the rule to 1 mile before finding out how many infractions of the current rule are cited between 1 and 3 miles offshore! I'll bet 99.999% of all illegal discharge infractions are issued between 0 and 1 mile offshore. So, no point to spend $$ on a study that will have zero effect on what's happening currently!

I wouldn't support a study that pre-determines the answer either. It could be 1/2 mile. It could be 10 miles but the point is people are vehemently defending the 3 mile limit when there is no evidence it is an appropriate distance.

So if 99.999% of all infractions are between 0-1miles offshore...why is the law 3 miles? Seems like you are claiming the 3 mile limit isn't appropriate and most people recognize it.