Visit our Popular Forums

Lake-Effect · 22-07-2017, 08:59

Whew. the things you cruisers get worked up about. But I read the thread, so mea culpa too, I guess. (My excuse, it's raining)

My takeaway so far:
- the amount of waste from all pleasure boats is negligible, globally speaking.
- the worst effects are aesthetic and health-related, when waste is dumped near shore, in areas with poor circulation, near people or in concentrated (popular marinas and anchorages)

While I may agree that a 1 mile limit seems reasonable, I would say that a 3 mile limit is more practical, for the following reasons:

practicality in the face of human nature. If you intend to stop all discharge within one mile of shore, legislate it at 3 miles.
it reinforces, in effect, that all cruisers will have MSDs, and that marinas will have to have adequate pumpout facilities
the 3 mile mark is a better signal to cruisers to switch over their discharge to the tank. When you're at the 1 mile mark, you're more preoccupied with preparing to get into your port or anchorage, etc.
it's more practical to enforce. Someone within 3 miles of shore is most likely to be on a short trip or coastal cruise, and if they were found set to overboard discharge, it's more likely that they weren't switched to tank to begin with.

I also think (enforced by the things brought up here) that the actual environmental impact of having MSDs aboard (weight, fuel consumption, etc) is miniscule and lower than negligable, and confounded and swamped by MANY other boat-related factors. Common sense and a small consideration for others are more than enough to justify the use of MSDs (and sensible laws around dumping, where necessary). No EIS required or warranted.

Cottontop · 22-07-2017, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Whew. the things you cruisers get worked up about. But I read the thread, so mea culpa too, I guess. (My excuse, it's raining)

My takeaway so far:
- the amount of waste from all pleasure boats is negligible, globally speaking.
- the worst effects are aesthetic and health-related, when waste is dumped near shore, in areas with poor circulation, near people or in concentrated (popular marinas and anchorages)

While I may agree that a 1 mile limit seems reasonable, I would say that a 3 mile limit is more practical, for the following reasons:

practicality in the face of human nature. If you intend to stop all discharge within one mile of shore, legislate it at 3 miles.
it reinforces, in effect, that all cruisers will have MSDs, and that marinas will have to have adequate pumpout facilities
the 3 mile mark is a better signal to cruisers to switch over their discharge to the tank. When you're at the 1 mile mark, you're more preoccupied with preparing to get into your port or anchorage, etc.
it's more practical to enforce. Someone within 3 miles of shore is most likely to be on a short trip or coastal cruise, and if they were found set to overboard discharge, it's more likely that they weren't switched to tank to begin with.

I also think (enforced by the things brought up here) that the actual environmental impact of having MSDs aboard (weight, fuel consumption, etc) is miniscule and lower than negligable, and confounded and swamped by MANY other boat-related factors. Common sense and a small consideration for others are more than enough to justify the use of MSDs (and sensible laws around dumping, where necessary). No EIS required or warranted.

LakeEffect's excellent post brings to mind another beneficial effect of the three-mile rule: it's enough of a pain that many will chose to use pump out facilities, which results in more pump out facilities, which results in less dumping, a salubrious feed-back loop. Pump out facilities are becoming common in the US; I understand they're hard to find in Europe.

Cadence · 22-07-2017, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Whew. the things you cruisers get worked up about. But I read the thread, so mea culpa too, I guess. (My excuse, it's raining)

My takeaway so far:
- the amount of waste from all pleasure boats is negligible, globally speaking.
- the worst effects are aesthetic and health-related, when waste is dumped near shore, in areas with poor circulation, near people or in concentrated (popular marinas and anchorages)

While I may agree that a 1 mile limit seems reasonable, I would say that a 3 mile limit is more practical, for the following reasons:

practicality in the face of human nature. If you intend to stop all discharge within one mile of shore, legislate it at 3 miles.
it reinforces, in effect, that all cruisers will have MSDs, and that marinas will have to have adequate pumpout facilities
the 3 mile mark is a better signal to cruisers to switch over their discharge to the tank. When you're at the 1 mile mark, you're more preoccupied with preparing to get into your port or anchorage, etc.
it's more practical to enforce. Someone within 3 miles of shore is most likely to be on a short trip or coastal cruise, and if they were found set to overboard discharge, it's more likely that they weren't switched to tank to begin with.

I also think (enforced by the things brought up here) that the actual environmental impact of having MSDs aboard (weight, fuel consumption, etc) is miniscule and lower than negligable, and confounded and swamped by MANY other boat-related factors. Common sense and a small consideration for others are more than enough to justify the use of MSDs (and sensible laws around dumping, where necessary). No EIS required or warranted.

amen!

jamhass · 22-07-2017, 09:58

To get back to the original question for a moment: i.e. how much excess fuel is used to transport s#$&?

I have found in several years of coastal cruising that with some frequency we move the boat specifically to transport s#$& to the pump-out station, or well out of anchorages.

This may happen perhaps weekly, and it usually involves 30 minutes to an hour of engine time, and it isn't just the extra weight of the s#$* that is transported, it is the entire boat. Don't have a real clue what percentage of the fleet engages in this, or how often, and it also depends in part on how many are full-time cruisers and/or live-aboards.

Really just another example of how these analyses can quickly fall into the absurd.

Cadence · 22-07-2017, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamhass

To get back to the original question for a moment: i.e. how much excess fuel is used to transport s#$&?

I have found in several years of coastal cruising that with some frequency we move the boat specifically to transport s#$& to the pump-out station, or well out of anchorages.

This may happen perhaps weekly, and it usually involves 30 minutes to an hour of engine time, and it isn't just the extra weight of the s#$* that is transported, it is the entire boat. Don't have a real clue what percentage of the fleet engages in this, or how often, and it also depends in part on how many are full-time cruisers and/or live-aboards.

Really just another example of how these analyses can quickly fall into the absurd.

I think the original question was absurd. JMHO

buzzstar · 22-07-2017, 10:34

Amazing the number of bureaucrats, budding bureaucrats, wannabe bureaucrats, and former bureaucrats that participate. Formulas without values, pooh-poohing the poo, and fuel consumption, with much, much, more, all in order to complicate a simple issue. No human waste from boats within 12 miles of a shore is simple, and it seems to reduce encounters with turds while at sea and on the beach. Old sewer outfalls and storm drains are separate problems that may be bigger and more difficult, but are not an excuse for boats. I still recall having to figure out what to do when the regs came into being (oh, what do I do?) but as much as I dislike bureaucratic control, I am now glad they did.

**newhaul** · 22-07-2017, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Amazing the number of bureaucrats, budding bureaucrats, wannabe bureaucrats, and former bureaucrats that participate. Formulas without values, pooh-poohing the poo, and fuel consumption, with much, much, more, all in order to complicate a simple issue. No human waste from boats within 12 miles of a shore is simple, and it seems to reduce encounters with turds while at sea and on the beach. Old sewer outfalls and storm drains are separate problems that may be bigger and more difficult, but are not an excuse for boats. I still recall having to figure out what to do when the regs came into being (oh, what do I do?) but as much as I dislike bureaucratic control, I am now glad they did.

Brian its 3 miles from shore for sewage and 12 miles for oily waste, or oil contaminated bilge water.

buzzstar · 22-07-2017, 12:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Brian its 3 miles from shore for sewage and 12 miles for oily waste, or oil contaminated bilge water.

You are, of course, correct. I was definitely referring to human waste, not oil. This distance applies to the USA, and many other countries, although I believe there are a few with 12 miles, and some/many (?) with less than 3 miles.

I find it amazing that we who are, were, or will be "cruisers" are so frequently bothered, hugely inconvenienced, and offended by the concept of having to travel more than three (or even one or two miles in some places) offshore when we want to dump sewerage if no legal pump out is immediately available. Are we starting to confuse cruising with being on a boat for a long time?

Jason Flare · 22-07-2017, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzstar

I find it amazing that we who are, were, or will be "cruisers" are so frequently bothered, hugely inconvenienced, and offended by the concept of having to travel more than three (or even one or two miles in some places) offshore when we want to dump sewerage if no legal pump out is immediately available. Are we starting to confuse cruising with being on a boat for a long time?

The thread is about the increased carbon footprint of boaters resulting from compliance with the clean water act.

**newhaul** · 22-07-2017, 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

The thread is about the increased carbon footprint of boaters resulting from compliance with the clean water act.

It doesnt change my carbon neutral status. I am a composter. Not a pumper.

AKA-None · 22-07-2017, 18:23

Hmm along the same line of thought what about the increased costs of hauling overweight people? This all goes down some odd rabbit holes.

**a64pilot** · 22-07-2017, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Hmm along the same line of thought what about the increased costs of hauling overweight people? This all goes down some odd rabbit holes.

Now your thinking like the airlines, but try to charge a 300 lb passenger more than one that weighs 120, see how many cries of discrimination that will raise.
The 300 lb one cost way more in fuel of course. I remember a lawsuit coming from a Woman was so large she took up two seats and was outraged when the airline charged her for both seats.
Logic does not apply, emotions do.
This isn't the one I remember there must be others?
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/fat-fly...ry?id=16271932

Lake-Effect · 22-07-2017, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

The thread is about the increased carbon footprint of boaters resulting from compliance with the clean water act.

It might be an interesting thought experiment or school math problem, but for all practical purposes I'm still pretty much convinced that the increase in carbon footprint of boaters resulting from compliance with the clean water act is simply too insignificant to warrant serious consideration.

buzzstar · 23-07-2017, 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

The thread is about the increased carbon footprint of boaters resulting from compliance with the clean water act.

Oh really? Gee, I actually thought (and think) it was/is one of the better trolls I've seen recently.

I am in my 70's and it is not to much trouble to make sure my s**t is properly handled and damn the few extra miles I might need to sail or motor to do it. BTW, "carbon footprint" is an inane term popularized to take advantage of the guilt ridden while providing income for those with spare trees. The calculations and formulas presented are likewise so meaningless as to belong in a third rate Comedy Club when even the stand-ins are on summer recess.