anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... there are few (if any) alternatives for boaters who cannot afford the area's high dockage/mooring rates.
... 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.

I'd be interested to learn what you think those reasonable solutions would be?

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

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.

Of keen issue with a vessel is that generally the authorities do not have any place to impound it, unlike having an impound yard to haul a vehicle before it is auctioned off for value or scrap.

If due process was not proper than he likely can pursue a claim against the city, but that will take time and money to pursue with uncertain outcome. Very fact specific issue.

And in this instance they had a salvage crew contracted and ready to dispose of the previously target boats and the use of excavators is exactly the way one disposes of a glass boat to put it into a dump truck and take to a landfill. Metal hulled boats are typically hauled, cut up and then smashed and then transported to a metal recycler. There is generally no attempt to salvage parts or possessions.

Harsh to see, but that is often the norm. Some jurisdiction may impound and try to auction, but local law and procedure applies and disposal is apparently how the Oakland police handle it.

Shame he did not have the boat brought to his slip in Benicia. That is quite a ways north of the estuary and I suspect the rental rates are much less than in the Oakland area. Ya can't just keep your boat in some random place to make extensive repairs and one has to wonder if he was getting pump outs performed on his liveaboard if he wasn't moving it around. Ditto as to pump outs in Richardson Bays static boats.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I'd be interested to learn what you think those reasonable solutions would be?

Some have already been discussed, namely mooring balls whose costs could potentially be borne by the wealthy private interests who were concerned enough to fund the study. That way the people who are most concerned are also assuming responsibility for the impacts of their desired policies on poorer people (for a change ).

This is assuming we're not trying to find solutions in search of a problem. I gather you've read and had a chance to consider SailorChic's analysis of the actual amount (as a %) of eelgrass that the study claims is in peril. She is a local after all, and seems to have superior math skills. If correct, and given the abundance of wildlife reported to already be thriving in the area, then it appears a reasonable balance may have already been struck between the sustainability of the local environment and the needs of the boaters.

But then what is "reasonable" comes down to whether one cares about the environment as a "conservationist," or rather as a "preservationist" who wishes a return to "natural" conditions prior to the introduction of significant human impacts. If it's the latter, then it'd be easy to conclude that removing all the boaters is the only "reasonable" solution. Given the competing interests, however, it seems like compromise would be a more reasonable and realistic solution in this case.

[sailorchic34]

The issue is that the folks in Marin don't want any boats anchored in Richardson Bay. They would prefer not to have any mooring field or boats anchored out. The poor people in Sausalito, only own million-dollar homes. The prices go up as you go clockwise Around The Bay, till you get to Belvedere.

It's actually a bit worse than that. Two years ago, the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department went around to a few marinas trying to kick the legal liveaboards out. Seems that a county commissioner decided that people living on boats, legally in Marinas, were homeless vagrants. Even though the state and the federal government allows for liveaboard boats.

I think somebody that had a little bit of Common Sense squash that eventually. I heard this from a live-aboard at a marina I had a temporary slip, at the time. Luckily I've personally avoided any harassment.

It's a it's a problem. The people on Shore want that problem to go somewhere else.

[ThereAndBack]

It is really best to shut down anchoring altogether. It should be completely banned in all US waters without exception.

Government run and regulated mooring balls only. And the mooring balls only allowed after complete review by the EPA and any other body concerned with environmental regulation.

Also waste discharge (black or grey) should be completely banned in all cases, with only pump outs allowed. Thru hulls themselves should be banned. I know you're saying that we need them for engine cooling, but no, ban that and enforce all EV.

[comesatime]

The land version of anchor-out live-aboards, RV's:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...gle-s-backyard

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by ThereAndBack

It is really best to shut down anchoring altogether. It should be completely banned in all US waters without exception.

Government run and regulated mooring balls only. And the mooring balls only allowed after complete review by the EPA and any other body concerned with environmental regulation.

Also waste discharge (black or grey) should be completely banned in all cases, with only pump outs allowed. Thru hulls themselves should be banned. I know you're saying that we need them for engine cooling, but no, ban that and enforce all EV.

Well there's an enlightened Outlook. Are you sure you're even on the right forum. This is about cruising boats, that generally anchor out, when they're cruising. Good Lord I avoid Mooring balls, like the plague. I probably just need to go back to Rainbow Unicorn Land.

[ThereAndBack]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Well there's an enlightened Outlook. Are you sure you're even on the right forum. This is about cruising boats, that generally anchor out, when they're cruising. Good Lord I avoid Mooring balls, like the plague. I probably just need to go back to Rainbow Unicorn Land.

It was said tongue in cheek. But we've gotten to the point that people will take such a thing seriously.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ThereAndBack

It is really best to shut down anchoring altogether. It should be completely banned in all US waters without exception.

Government run and regulated mooring balls only. And the mooring balls only allowed after complete review by the EPA and any other body concerned with environmental regulation.

Also waste discharge (black or grey) should be completely banned in all cases, with only pump outs allowed. Thru hulls themselves should be banned. I know you're saying that we need them for engine cooling, but no, ban that and enforce all EV.

Kinda thinkin' this one was tongue & cheek. Or maybe just hoping so . . . .

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by ThereAndBack

It was said tongue in cheek. But we've gotten to the point that people will take such a thing seriously.

Ah, after 40 Years of engineering, I have a hard time telling when some people are joking. It sounded so rational after all

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

The issue is that the folks in Marin don't want any boats anchored in Richardson Bay. They would prefer not to have any mooring field or boats anchored out. The poor people in Sausalito, only own million-dollar homes. The prices go up as you go clockwise Around The Bay, till you get to Belvedere.

If this is really what's driving the issue, then otherwise well-intentioned environmentalists (and others who care about environmental issues) are being disingenuously used if not duped.

[ThereAndBack]

Originally Posted by Exile

If this is really what's driving the issue, then otherwise well-intentioned environmentalists (and others who care about environmental issues) are being disingenuously used if not duped.

Politics weaponizes the best of intentions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah, after 40 Years of engineering, I have a hard time telling when some people are joking. It sounded so rational after all

I noticed that from several of my friends who are or were engineers. The best I can describe it is they seem to interpret things quite "literally." Not that they don't appreciate sarcasm or humor mind you, just that I often have to point it out to them.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Exile

I noticed that from several of my friends who are or were engineers. The best I can describe it is they seem to interpret things quite "literally." Not that they don't appreciate sarcasm or humor mind you, just that I often have to point it out to them.

Guilt as charged. yeppers very literal. Apologies to the non-engineering Folk. Here I thought I was getting better....sigh

[Exile]

OK, no mooring balls. But since eelgrass apparently rejuvenates itself rather fast (1-3 yrs?), how about cordoning off small sections of the anchorage to allow it to grow back, and then rotating such sections back into the anchorage after a suitable amount of time? Sort of like crop rotation that farmers do. But maybe not realistic if the anchorage is that much more crowded these days.

In the bigger picture, aren't we talking about an urban area that seems incapable of executing policies that strike a reasonable balance between caring for homeless people and preventing the return of age-old diseases that result from people defecating & urinating on public streets? Not that San Fran doesn't share that distinction with many other US cities these days. As has already been pointed out, where are the priorities? So we can't fix serious public health issues that our forebears managed to eradicate centuries ago, but we're going to close down a 150+ year-old anchorage because we can't figure out the best way to preserve eelgrass??