anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem

[CaptTom]

Reading this, it struck me that the problem is humans.

Compare the "ecological damage" caused by one anchored boat, to one suburban McMansion. Or fly over a shallow anchorage, then over a subdivision on land, and look down. What's happened to the natural habitat of each?

Ditto for a city, or a farming area.

Is anyone telling the land dwellers that they must leave so the area can go back to supporting all the native flora and fauna which was there before humans moved in?

I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the environment - quite the opposite. We should do everything we can, short of asking our fellow humans to stop living so that things can go back to the way they were before us.

And we should recognize that we all share both the burden, and the blame.

[Chotu]

Now, I may not understand California or this particular bay. However, Florida has already solved this problem. You aren’t allowed to anchor on the sea grass. It is a protected area. Plenty of other spots to anchor. Is that not the case here?

I feel that this is one thing Florida actually got right. They have protected Marine sanctuary areas where you have sea grass growing and a vibrant ecosystem. And boats aren’t allowed to anchor in them.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Most well meaning organizations, whether government or NGO, start with a good idea then morph into a self-centered economy with the primary focus being on the growth and power of the organization. UN, CITES, Red Cross, NRA, etc. all exist today with the primary focus being the subsidy and empowerment of the organization first, and the purported goal being secondary.
Thus everything they do must be suspect. To determine why something happens, follow the money. Figure out who will profit from it, and work backwards to figure out what has been excluded, omitted, or ignored in the process. Armed with that, one can typically determine if such activities are holistically truthful or not. In almost all cases the answer is “not”

You seem to mistrust/distrust* pretty much everything.

You're not alone. We seem to be living in an age of pervasive decreasing trust and increasing cynicism.

“Distrust everything I say. I am telling the truth.” ~ Ursula K. Le Guin

Only a third of Americans now trust their government “to do what is right” (a decline of 14 percentage points from last year), according to a new report by the communications marketing firm Edelman*.
Forty-two percent trust the media, relative to 47 percent a year ago.
Trust in business and non-governmental organizations, while somewhat higher than trust in government and the media, decreased by 10 and nine percentage points, respectively.
Edelman, which for 18 years has been asking people around the world about their level of trust in various institutions, has never before recorded such steep drops in trust in the United States.

“The 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer”
* ☞ https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer

*Distrust is a complete lack of trust, and it’s often based on experience.

Mistrust is a general lack of trust or confidence (unease or uncertainty), sometimes based on instinct or feelings. Mistrust can be considered as a type of anxiety that specifically applies to another person’s/organization’s motives and trustworthiness. Like anxiety, mistrust is often not based on concrete and clear information, but rather on a hunch or gut feeling.

“What makes people distrust science? Surprisingly, not politics” ~ by Bastiaan T Rutjens
☞ https://aeon.co/ideas/what-makes-peo...y-not-politics

[Argyle38]

Whenever a study uses statistics to determine outcome, which would be most studies that do not involve active experimentation, I ask myself, if the results had been the opposite of what is being reported, would the results still have been released?

If the answer is likely 'no' then the results must be considered suspect.

In this case, if the Audubon Society had found that the effect of anchored boats was statistically insignificant to the overall health of the bay, would those findings have been published?

I kind of doubt it based on the reputation of the organization. This doesn't mean that they are wrong, but it does justify skepticism of their research.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Now, I may not understand California or this particular bay. However, Florida has already solved this problem. You aren’t allowed to anchor on the sea grass. It is a protected area. Plenty of other spots to anchor. Is that not the case here?

In the central SF Bay there are only a few places to anchor. That includes Clipper Cove, Paradise Cove and China Camp. Clipper Cove falls under San Francisco's Laws, and they do have restrictions on anchoring long-term. Plus no dinghy docks.

Paradise Cove and China Camp are only protected from the West and can be quite rolly even then. of course neither location has Shore access or dinghy docks.

Sausalito is the only place, in the central Bay with dinghy docks. it has all sorts of shops restaurants etc etc. I think it's probably the only place in central California that offers dinghy docks.

there are other places to Anchor, but near about all others have no shore access. anchor outs have been in Richardson Bay for well over a hundred years. Really since the 1849 Gold Rush. now the area is extremely gentrified, with high-end shops.

Really I find the grocery stores there to be too much for my purse. I really can't afford $10/lb hamburger. of course many of the folks that anchor out and to drink a bit and there are plenty of liquor stores there.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.
As the authors state:
"... If boats are removed from Richardson Bay, the eelgrass bed within the anchorage likely could recover in about three years and epifaunal* richness could restore in just one year..."

* “Epifaunal” means the (invertebrate) species regularly, or always, occur on the blades of eelgrass (rather than associated with sediment).

We get that, but what about this:

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

So where do the anchor outs in Richardson Bay go. Putting them on the streets and making them homeless doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do.

Rarely do such legitimate environmental concerns lend themselves to either/or solutions. Especially here where there are apparently large areas already cordoned off for natural habitat & wildlife, the anchorage area appears to comprise a much smaller percentage than is represented by the Audubon study, and there are few (if any) alternatives for boaters who cannot afford the area's high dockage/mooring rates.

Usually the "either/or" scenarios are pitched by those with agendas that purport to sync with the underlying environmental issues but are actually more self-interested. For example, wealthy homeowners with waterfront views, politicians looking for votes from gullible constituencies, or environmental organizations that have a more "preservationist" vs. "conservationist" bent. Even assuming the Audubon study is correct and the increase in anchored boats has in fact exceeded the sustainability of the seabed, there seems to be reasonable solutions which wouldn't bring to an end one of the last viable anchorages on SF Bay.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

I must be living on a different planet. The average home price in Sausalito is $1.3 million. Not quite the Bastion of affordability one would think of. Let's not even talk about Belvedere or Strawberry folk, who look down their nose on the poor people in Sausalito, that live in homes.

As far as the bird sanctuary area, most of it is 2 ft deep at mean low water. Not really a boating destination anyway.

Mind you when anchored in January some years back to witness the Herring run where flocks of hundreds of pelicans have a feast, I didn't really notice any birds hanging out in the Back Bay. At least not anymore than in the front Bay. Most birds in the know flock to the marshes of Sonoma and Solano counties. I saw a hundred thousand Birds in San Pablo Bay.

I stand completely by my numbers. As far as Mooring costs go they were talking at one point of $200 a month. Most of the folks living in Richardson Bay are pretty much down and out and couldn't afford $200 a month. That's okay let's just keep them all on the shore and they can be homeless there. Because birds are more important than people.

I'm all for for being environmentally friendly. Through at the same time I don't want to see people made homeless who are more or less self-supporting themselves at the moment. Currently there aren't 200 live aboard slips available in the entire Bay Area. In reality there is most likely less than 10. So in reality they have nowhere to go.

So where do the anchor outs in Richardson Bay go. Putting them on the streets and making them homeless doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do.

edit: using a floating Rode, on Moorings, I don't see that being a good idea. It would be way too easy to get that floating Rode wrapped on a prop. that would ruin somebody's day.

The rodes are generally elastic and aided in floatation by the buoy or the rode is held a afloat by underwater buoys. The rode is not floating on the top of the water some distance from the buoy where it could become an entanglement hazard. Accordingly there is no or little contact with the bottom. When an elastic rode is used, the elasticity aids in destressing the peak loads on the hardpoint attachment to the vessel thereby reducing the potential for the snubber to break. Finest system for mooring. Similar screw anchors and elastic rodes are used to station floating docks. Pictured below are images of traditional and environmentally friendly mooring [EFM]. Simple and very effective.

Liveaboard slips are limited to 10% in the marinas and there has been requests and discussions of increasing to 15%. The wait lists have become rather lengthy, largely due to the comparative affordability of renting a slip and owning a yacht compared to shorebased housing. A mere fraction of the costs of an apartment.

As to cost, that is a societal issue not an ecological issue. So the question then becomes to what extent should the public provide assistance, if any.

Besides the Audubon Societies large sanctuary waters that cover the north third of the Bay, there are three other public jurisdictions covering Richardson Bay. Reference Map of Richardson Bay below. Belvedere is the largest and forms the southern east half which is exposed to the westerly and southerly winds so not well sheltered, and which city also does not provide any public access to and from the Bay so it is inconvenient for transiting by dinghy. I am not sure if Belvedere doesn't allow anchoring either transient or permanent but there aren't boats in that city's waters. Marin County has a thin strip of the bay positioned between Sausalito waters and Belvedere's and this is administered by the Richardson Bay Regional Authority and that is where most of the anchor outs are located and where the damage is considerable due to the high concentration and continuous anchoring. Sausalito withdrew from the RBRA in 2017 and now self administers their city's waters. Then there is the Sausalito waters which include the main navigation Channel and the western bay waters and the marinas. There are fewer now 'grandfathered in" anchors outs near the Sausalito shore than in the east side of the Channel and RBRA waters. Sausalito has implemented its water front plan and the number of anchors out in the city waters is decreasing. They have impounded / collected about 18 boats that were abandoned and about 50 unused old moorings and some sunken boats and obstacles.

By court case law, under the eighth amendment of the US constitution it is illegal to kick someone off of public lands if they do not have a home or shelter to occupy, hence none of the occupied anchor outs have been told to leave in either Sausalito waters or the RBRA waters. Cities provide shelters so as to provide for persons that otherwise would sleep in parks or on the streets. Sausalito has provide financial assistance to several persons to obtain shelter / homes on land and guidance as to attaining other public assistance [State and Federal] and several have moved ashore from their boats. Sausalito has also provided for free mobile showers for use by persons who are homeless, Tuesdays and Thursdays, about 45 persons have used such shower facilities in the last month, all but two were anchor outs, the other two live in vans. Sausalito is the only place on that bay which provides for public access to the Bay, e.g., boat ramp and dinghy dock. Sausalito performed 17 extensive surveys recording GIS and documenting the status of location and of occupancy of each and every of the boats anchored in the Bay over many months and almost all of the boats were static, NEVER MOVED. No new boat is allowed to anchor out in Sausalito waters, so by attrition and impoundment and removal of abandoned / derelict / unoccupied boats there becomes fewer and fewer. Three boats were lost in recent storms and required public salvage removal and two drifted from RBRA waters into Sausalito waters and became impounded. Sausalito police aided a number of occupied boats that went a drift in the Bay during the storms and were able to get them reset. To date three impounded boats have had their impoundment proceedings suspended as the owners were located and claimed the vessel as their place of occupancy, hence presumed to be legal to keep them in the Sausalito water of the Bay unless alternative shelter is available.

The thin strip of RBRA waters just to the east of the Sausalito Channel is and has been the main concentration of anchor outs and is the place in the Bay where the damage is localized and most extensive. The analysis indicates a 41% damage level compared to non-damaged areas. Literally wear and tear. The Belvedere waters are comparatively pristine since there hasn't been anchoring there for many years, if ever.. The RBRA waters do not have a city active in regulating their use, Marin County is still making plans. The number of boats in the RBRA waters has increased considerably in the past decade, since the Great Recession of 2008 and is far greater than during my youth. A quick look at photos progressively taken over the years reveals a complete change of burdensome use in that Bay. There used to be only a modest number of boats anchored and those were typically not permanent, static vessels, but instead transients visiting the north bay, seeking the shelter of that remarkable and ecologically important Bay.

"February 2019: At its January meeting at Tiburon Town Hall, the Richardson Bay Regional Agency board of directors, which manages the anchorage between Belvedere and Sausalito, agreed to draft a letter to the county of Marin requesting that those living aboard anchored-out boats on the bay be given priority for onshore public housing. Sausalito officials had drafted a similar request in December after a man died trying to get from shore to his boat in heavy weather, one was pulled from the waters and survived. County officials, however, say subsidized housing is scarce, and changing their needs-based ranking priorities for housing will not be easy: The privately developed scoring tool now in use doesn’t consider anchor-outs to be as vulnerable as, for example, homeless who primarily live on the streets, and it can’t be changed by county officials — even if they wanted to."

Pelicans in particular can be found where the large schools of fish are present, fisherpersons keep a keen eye out for them as they are nature's fish finders.

As to the determination of shared cost of infrastructure and fees that is always a point of debate as to subsidization for services and use. By way of reference and example, public transit fees for a ferry ride from Sausalito are subsidized for Seniors, Youth and low income persons. The standard adult commute fee to San Francisco [the primary place of employment] is $12.50 ONE WAY, $25 round trip, but a person with a Clipper Card can travel for 50% less. Seniors are charged $7.50 each way, children between 5 and 12 also $7.50 and below 5 years of age ride free, [i.e., public assistance to young families]. Whereas a short bus ride to or from Sausalito / Tiburon and SF is $6.50 one way, $13.00 round trip. Boats are expensive to operate, hence the fee is higher but the bus commuters greatly subsidized the boat fleet commuters. It costs the transit authority about $18.00 per passenger one way to operate the ferry. And the car driving commuters pay a toll at the bridge which collectively heavily subsidizes all of the public transit systems. To use a State lands boat ramp cost $7.00 to $10.00 per launch, to park your car in a State park costs $10 day. To park a car in a Sausalito public parking lot cost $4.00 per hour / $40 maximum per day, free between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Residents obtain Resident Parking Passcards which allow them to park on the highly congested streets and to obtain discounts for public parking.

Life in California is expensive which definitely makes it harder to be of low income or wealth but which is also why California has considerable public assistance programs and high taxes to support the cost of government and services.

The cost of home ownership or renting has increased hugely in the Bay Area. By way of example, I rented a beautiful two bedroom apartment in Menlo Park, in the mid 80's and it had escalated to cost $450 per month; today that same apartment rents for $2,800 per month and the cute Spanish style complex has aged and it is not as nice as it once used to be. The same 2 bedroom, town home we sold on the waters of Redwood Shores for $225,000 before moving to Montana are presently priced at $1 million which homeowners association fees are now $536 per month, up from $125. If one was to put 20% down, [$200,000] the monthly cost of principal / interest / property taxes /insurance / HOA would be $5,630. Heck property taxes alone are stated to be $1,089 per month which is about 9 times what we pay for a much larger home and expansive yard in Montana [albeit we have three residences in Montana, therefore collectively the property taxes and insurance becomes burdensome, but still a fraction of what a California residence would cost]. And of course there are other cost of home ownership such as utilities and maintenance. Albeit, the heating bill in Montana can be onerous, I recall one month just our large 1895 Victorian home cost $675 for utilities during a cold February a few years ago. There being no insulation to speak of in that formerly coal fired steam boiler home which was built before there was running water or electricity in town. Imagine a home before electricity or plumbing. It has both now. Ah, but it did / does have a water well positioned conveniently just outside one of the seven doors leading outdoors, a modern convenience at that time. And the original hitching post is still at the street curb side, which hitching post is still on rare occasions used to tie up a horse or a wagon team.

One year, my daughter rode in an open horse drawn wagon across town to her high school winter prom through the falling snow along with her beau and two other couples after they had all dined at our home, with all us parents cooking and attending to the kids special evening. Not your ordinary city prom evening. A team of two beautiful, orange and white paint, draft horses, expertly driven by her best friend's father who stayed out in the falling snow for several hours, hooking up the team and awaiting the kids to finish dinner and for the ladies to finally get ready for prom in their gorgeous gowns and splendidly done up hair, which hair was styled by one the three boys. Guys decked out in tuxes. I learned that it takes a lot of time to do up three young ladies hair just right and to his high satisfaction; the young man had several older sisters whose hair he regularly cut and styled, and had garnered quite the self learned salon skills. Himself being an athletic, brilliant, damned handsome, gay, guy and very popular with the ladies.

Whereas this year our marina fees are $1,100 for the three + month "sailing season". The four seasons of Montana being June, July, August and Winter . May and September being my favorite months, constituting the Spring and Fall seasons. There being some fresh fallen snow on the tops of the mountains outside of town this morning but none in the valley which has greened and with abundant flowers blooming. Presently, the Spring freschet is causing the huge alpine Flathead Lake [larger and more beautiful and far less developed than Tahoe] to rise quickly so our middle sized sailboat [one of three sailboats we own] will be launched a bit after Memorial Day, achieving full pool likely by the second week in June. And the water temperature is also rising, this morning reaching a balmy 39.6 F, the towns many beaches will soon get busy with bathers as school is nearing completion and the tourists are beginning to show up from out of state. Unfortunately there being no floating docks in that tribally owned marina so you got to patiently await for the lake to fill by about 10 feet as it is drawn down for the winter to reduce ice damage to docks and storm erosion of the shoreline and to provide some degree of flood control to the Columbia Basin. The marina being too rough for floating docks, what with three foot waves entering if the wind comes harshly from the northeast, sometimes topping the docks and rising over the breakwater.

But then I fondly recall the Bay Area before there was a thing called the Silicon Valley. Santa Clara County then being the largest fruit growing county in the USA, orchards and row crops everywhere, and Stanford University was called "The Farm" for a good reason because Palo Alto was a sleepy farming community and just a whistle stop on the railroad and El Camino Real was The Highway on the Peninsula. Fisherman's Wharf in SF was mostly a real commercial wharf, the tourist traps of today were much less prevalent. Is it still called Fisherman's Wharf? Or has the city changed its name to be more PC, to Fisherperson's Wharf which is the nautical term I prefer to use, my wife is the Captain, I'm the deckhand and dockmate. We left the Bay Area 26 years ago so as to raise our child in a more rural setting and because far too many people moved in and thus frankly it then lost much of its natural appeal; but I still enjoy visiting it, yet I am almost always glad to leave, [except when it is late in the winter and I see that it is below zero degrees Fahrenheit up here and comparatively warm in California, e.g., say highs in 40s or 50s]. Yet the Bay calls to me during every trip and friends often take me out for a sailing cruise or an overnighter. My next door neighbor was one of the two owners of the Hornblower Yacht Fleet of charter yachts, dining cruises, ferry service, tourist attractions, and commuter ferry. I understand that line of ships has grown to 30 large vessels located in all the major ports of California and now in New York / New Jersey where he owns the concessions to service Liberty [Statute of Liberty] and Ellis Island. And one of my undergraduate college roommate's father developed, owned and managed one of the major marinas in SF Bay along with the associated yacht dealerships, chandlery, yacht service yard and restaurants.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34
So where do the anchor outs in Richardson Bay go. Putting them on the streets and making them homeless doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do.

Originally Posted by Exile

...Usually the "either/or" scenarios are pitched by those with agendas that purport to sync with the underlying environmental issues but are actually more self-interested. For example, wealthy homeowners with waterfront views, politicians looking for votes from gullible constituencies, or environmental organizations...

Some people don't connect the dots between "saving" the seaweed today at the expense of losing it in 10-30 years secondary to general socioeconomic decline specifically linked to today's seaweed saving activities. The people least able to make this connection appear to be the people who put food on their own plate today by saving the seaweed today (justifying their activities in a manner akin to "you've got to burn the village to save it" or something).

Otherwise the least inclined people to care about 30 years from now are the people will not be there in 30 years (including those who can readily afford to move to some other place with less poor people, better seaweed).

[sailorchic34]

I will note that when I do anchor and Richardson Bay I tend to AnchoR toward the Belvedere side. Especially if the winds will be coming from the north. Nothing really prevents anybody from anchoring near Belvidere it's just that most don't do it.

I have to agree with the county that getting the homeless off the streets into heated enclosures is more important then removing anchor outs from the bay. And yes there is major Lack of beds for homeless in the Bay Area. I believe there's not enough beds for the homeless nor enough low-income housing which of course creates more homeless.

Oakland just a few weeks ago removed a few boats from the estuary. Including at least one that someone was living on, who was away that day to work. So he became instantly homeless and lost most of his possessions.

[Montanan]

Sounds like Oakland may have failed in adequately surveying the occupied vessel. It is typical for a city to place a notice on a building, or vehicle, trailer or vessel stating it as a condemned / occupiable space. No water, no toilet, no occupancy. Power is not allowed to be turned off to a property if the ambient temperature is forecast to below freezing, or obvious broken pipes reasons. This notice often coincides with the turning off of utilities or due to a health and safety inspection. Similarly as to a vehicle or vessel being given notice that it will be towed and impounded, generally three days notice.

So if a person was in fact living aboard there was either a lack of communication by the authorities, or a failure of the vessel owner to contact the authorities, or the occupant was away for a period of time.

[sailorchic34]

My premise is that the eelgrass is unaffected in over 80% of Richardson Bay. Yes some eel grass does get damaged, but far less then indicated in the report. From an environmental standpoint, one could argue that anchor outs do less damage to the environment then their neighbors on shore. Their carbon emissions are much lower, they don't have fertilizer and weed killer being dumped into the bay from their yards.

Myself for example have solar for power, that amounts to about 1 kilowatt a day, and I use about 60 gallons of potable water a month. Whereas the typical home will use approximately 30 kilowatts a day, and about a hundred gallons a day per person.

We all have an environmental impact. The folks who live on boats anchored out generally have a much smaller environmental impact overall.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Similarly as to a vehicle or vessel being given notice that it will be towed and impounded, generally three days notice.

So if a person was in fact living aboard there was either a lack of communication by the authorities, or a failure of the vessel owner to contact the authorities, or the occupant was away for a period of time.

if the boat had only been impounded, there would be options for the owner. The Oakland Place hauled it to a boat ramp and destroyed it with a backhoe that very next morning, along with a few other boats. The owner arrived after demolition had started.

There was a bit of a lack of due process there. That could have been me, except I would never anchor in the Oakland estuary. Nor would I anchor that long in Richardson Bay . I will say that the Marin Marine Patrol play by the book. Generally nice people.

[RaymondR]

Since the damage is done by anchor chain dragging around on the bottom and plow or claw type anchors maybe they should make nylon rodes on fishermans style anchors mandatory on the sea grass beds??

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

I will note that when I do anchor and Richardson Bay I tend to AnchoR toward the Belvedere side. Especially if the winds will be coming from the north. Nothing really prevents anybody from anchoring near Belvidere it's just that most don't do it.

I have to agree with the county that getting the homeless off the streets into heated enclosures is more important then removing anchor outs from the bay. And yes there is major Lack of beds for homeless in the Bay Area. I believe there's not enough beds for the homeless nor enough low-income housing which of course creates more homeless.

Oakland just a few weeks ago removed a few boats from the estuary. Including at least one that someone was living on, who was away that day to work. So he became instantly homeless and lost most of his possessions.

I do not recall there being any permitted anchorages in the Oakland / Alameda estuary for obvious navigational reasons in that narrow, heavy commercial and military traffic channel; only lots of marinas, and if I remember correctly all of the docks and marinas were private, commercial or military. It is heavily patrolled by the USCG, Alameda and Oakland law enforcement. I don't believe there are any public marinas, so if someone was occupying such without permission or paying rent then it would have been an illegal occupation / trespass and subject to immediate impoundment / removal. Odd though that the vessel and personal possessions would have destroyed so as to be lost to the owner within a single day, sounds like there is more to that story.

Last year when I travelled it, there are a fair number of smaller, derelict-like, unused boats in the some of the lesser, ill maintained marinas in Oakland south of Jack London square, but mostly well kept craft and rather full up marinas and some fine houseboats. My nephew and family live two blocks from the estuary in Alameda just over the bridge. I used to spend a lot of time at the Alameda Naval Air Station, being a military brat would use the golf course and sail in their wharf on dinghies. My mom learned to sail in the wharf that the aircraft carriers docked in. One day she ran hard into the side of the Enterprise, the Big E, when she was in a sailing class with a tiny El Toro. A couple of young sailors observed her coming near the ship, [they caused the incident by yelling repeatedly at my mom to "Watch Out!", such that she became highly flustered trying to figure out what it was she was to look out for and so she just closed in towards the Enterprise figuring that would be safest way from whatever it was that needed to be Watched Out from]. The sailors then reported the collision and caused the ship to set off it collision klaxons and make announcements with resultant lots of commotion arose on ship with many persons peering over the side to see what had collided into the ship. That was back far before the USS Cole incident so there was no security or barriers around the navy ships, one could routinely just walk up the gangway and ask to be given a tour of a ship or submarine, and navigate up to and touch the ship. Not many sailors can say they rammed a US aircraft carrier [and even fewer to say they lived to tell about it]. My mom, being a spouse of a retired senior officer and a great sport, recognized that the young sailors were just having some fun, likely being bored with duty aboard a docked ship. Even the officers were chuckling once they figured out what had happened, at first they were very concerned as to the safety of their ship and of what craft might have collided with the docked aircraft carrier. Afterwards they did send a couple of officers over to the dinghy dock towards the end of the class to check up on her and to apologize for the making of much ado about nothing. All in a good day had by all and likely a good practice drill for the skeleton crew remaining on board the massive ship; there probably having been many a hatch closed tight and damage control party assessments. The navy class instructor was in stitches laughing as were most of the classmates. It would have been a good COLREGs lesson. The way she told the story was grand. Miss her.

[Montanan]

Found the news report of the removal and disposal of the boats from the Oakland estuary. This is done periodically when the city gets State grant funding. Truly sad outcome. It had been previously tagged for drifting into the estuary and he was given 24 hours notice by the police but it was gone when he returned from an errand and he arrived to late to keep it from being destroyed.

An excavator certainly can make short work of a vessel.

Boat owner frustrated and homeless after sweep of Oakland estuary - Story | KTVU

Posted Apr 26 2019 08:05AM PDT

Video Posted Apr 25 2019 10:37PM PDT

"Timothy Cramer says Wednesday morning he was on his sailboat anchored in a cove along the Oakland estuary near Coast Guard island.

"I was completely out of everybody's way. It was not abandoned," said Cramer pointing the place where he says he'd been repairing his 33-foot sailboat.

He says he was fixing the vessel so he could sail it up to Benicia where he had a slip at a marina. He says an Oakland police sergeant approached him, told him the sailboat needed to move, but gave him one day to move the boat.

"Oakland PD, that's Oakland water, gave me 24 hours to be there," said Cramer.

When he finally tracked it down, he says he was shocked to see a backhoe had punched a hole through the deck and was loading pieces into a dumpster to be taken away.

Alameda police say they'd been asked by Oakland police to assist in a sweep of the estuary, removing derelict, abandoned, or unsafe boats from the water that had been tagged weeks or months before.

Cramer says his boat had been tagged last month after it had drifted in the estuary. He says he'd moved it from a private dock to the cove by the April 20th deadline.

He says it was federally registered with the Coast Guard and shouldn't have been towed. A Coast Guard official confirmed the registration, but says the law does not require local agencies to notify them.

"He does have a registered documentation with the coast guard a federal registration rather than with the state," said Lt. junior grade Courtney Hanson, a Coast Guard spokeswoman, "This is a local jurisdiction issue so we don't need to be notified in instances such as this."

Cramer says he's still in shock and wiped away tears as he talked.

He says the boat was his home and he'd poured hours of work into fixing it up.

He says he's a carpenter and says the backhoe that punched a hole in through the deck also destroyed his carpentry tools stored below that he needs to work

"My entire life was in there. I had lasers, I had floats, I had...I'm a contractor. I had all my tools in the berth. They bent lasers, they destroyed levels," said Cramer.

Cramer says he was able to salvage a few things. Those are now packed into his SUV.

"It was my home. I am now homeless," Cramer said, "I want the money that boat was worth, my tools were worth. I want to have the ability to get a place to live. I mean that was my everything."

Cramer says he'll have to live in his SUV for the time being, until he gets the situation sorted out. He says he has contacted attorneys and is considering legal action.

The captured boats were broken up, loaded in a dumpster and hauled away to the landfill. Some appeared to viable craft.

With help from the Alameda Police Department, Oakland Police officers spent the day making passes through the Oakland Estuary, hauling away abandoned and dilapidated boats.

Most of the boats were either left at public piers or found anchored off the shore.

"These are boats that we've identified over the course of six months, even up to a year,” Kaleo Albino with Oakland police.

The U.S. Coast Guard also helped out.

This operation is paid for by a $50,000 state grant the Oakland Police Department received this year. Officer Albino is in charge of the marine unit.

"Multiple times, we have found large amounts of narcotics paraphernalia on board. We've found gasoline spilled all over the bilge,” the officer said. “We found boats leaking into the estuary, and just stolen property as well."

Eight boats were dragged away.

The police department hired a marine salvage company to use an excavator to pull the boats out of the water at the Jack London Aquatic Center boat ramp.

The company removes all the hazardous material and then crushes up the boat. The debris was loaded into a dump truck where it was all disposed of at a landfill.

“It's important to keep the estuary clean and try and bring the families back down to the estuary to enjoy the city of Oakland,” Ofc. Albino said.

The police department says the state grant will pay for at least one more boat removal operation this year.

http://https://www.sfgate.com/local/...a-13795152.php