Nanaimo Anchoring Fees !

[Paul L]

Brent,
I figured you were referring to nuke subs. You just have a way with words that seems to convey to the reader something outrageous even in the mundane

Paul L

[Brent Swain]

I remember heading from Nanaimo to Gibsons on a calm sumer day. I noticed a ripple on the water ahead, which grew quickly in size, then the coning tower of a sub appeared ,heading to whisky golf at great speed. Had I been a bit further along I would have been right in it's path, with no warning of its presence until it hit.
There are rumours of a tug, which went missing several years ago, having been sunk by a sub from the testing range.
A freind of mine had the bottom of his boat torn out by a sub from the range , who's crew had been drinking heavily before leaving port. He was picked out of the fridgid water, clinging to a propane bottle.
It took many years of court battles and delaying tactics before he got any compensation.
A mountie, who used to work in the area, told me they often blow holes in their own boats when the torpedoes go awry. How many leave the range, and become a threat to any boats in the area? They will never say.
Best avoid the area, by sailing due north from Silva Bay , or south from Sechelt, passing well east of the area.

[Brent Swain]

I sailed thru Nanaimo recently to have a look. Not much reduction in the number of anchored boats there. Half are paying to anchor, half are refusing. They don't bother the refuseniks, as they know that charging is illegal under the Canadian constitution, and they will lose any case they try to push.
They circled me , I gave them the finger, and they left. An English friend said it's like that recent case in England . A parking lot attendant on a municipal parking lot, after 25 years of collecting parking fees , didn't show up for work one day. Someone phoned municipal hall and said " Your parking lot attendant didn't show up today." The said "What parking lot attendant.? We don't have any parking lot attendant there."He had been collecting parking fees for 25 years and no one asked if he had any authority to do so. The same is the case with Nanaimo Port Authority .
When one of the boats in the anchorage dragged onto Newcastle Island they said ' We cant touch it." so the liveaboards in the anchorage got her off.That was supposed to be the excuse for the new laws.
When an abandoned boat which had been rotting away for years started to sink, and the rotten mast fell down, only badgering by anchored liveaboards motivated them to leave the coffee shop and deal with it.
Makes it clear that the new rules are envy motivated harassment for harassment's sake , and an attempt to set a precedent for charging anchoring fees.
Time for a boycott to nip it in the bud.

[SteveHoiland]

Originally Posted by Paul L

If you do go by Nanaimo, always make sure you wear your sun glasses when they are doing nuclear test explosions.

Paul L

Paul, I really don't see how sunglasses are going to help much being they would have to be so darned dark to be effective you wouldn't be able to see thru them.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

... An English friend said it's like that recent case in England . A parking lot attendant on a municipal parking lot, after 25 years of collecting parking fees , didn't show up for work one day. Someone phoned municipal hall and said " Your parking lot attendant didn't show up today." The said "What parking lot attendant.? We don't have any parking lot attendant there."He had been collecting parking fees for 25 years and no one asked if he had any authority to do so. The same is the case with Nanaimo Port Authority ...

Once again you take a position that may have merit, and buy it back with a patently false argument.

Although an interesting & entertaining tale, the entrepreneurial (but larcenous) parking lot attendant is an urban myth - entirely fiction.

Get your facts right, and some might listen to your argument, and a few might accept your conclusions, and adopt your suggestions.

I know it’s far easier just to accept something as "fact" instead of practising due diligence and making sure that what you've been told is accurate. I find it pretty sad that with the so-called wonder of the Internet, people are too bloody lazy to even make the extra mouse clicks needed to do a little research.

➥ Bristol Zoo Car Park Attendant Hoax

➥ snopes.com: Bristol Zoo Carpark Attendant

➥ Bristol Zoo parking attendant myth | Bristol News | This is Bristol

➥ The Bristol Zoo Parking Attendant - Urban Legends

[Dreaming Yachtsman]

I don't usually jump on minor discrepancies in posts of other forum members but Mr. Swain is so far off base in his post that I must comment.

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

Nuclear submarines are nuclear weapons. They and their sytems are often tested there.They never admit to any spills of radioactive materials . They are totally exempt from all environmental laws in Canada.

Nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons are totally different entities. Granted, most nuclear submarines do carry nuclear weapons but then so do aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, and many other surface ships. When I was a nuclear weapons custodian many years ago on a U.S. nuclear submarine, I read about a small nuclear weapon that could be hand carried, purportedly by Navy SEALS.

As most everyone knows, no nuclear weapons have ever been tested near Nanaimo. Thus there is no need to admit to any spill of radioactive material (apart from possible very minor leakage of some reactor coolant, which is in fact accounted for). The range primarily tests inert torpedoes which have many redundant safety devices to prevent them from impacting their target or the launching vessel.

Having been on the range in a submarine a number of times, I can assure you that most of the alleged reports of boats being sunk by submarines are pure fiction. The range operations maintains very close control of all vessels on the range when a test is in progress and takes extraordinary measures to direct the submarine via underwater telephone away from any surface vessel on the range. They are required to terminate any test in progress if the range is fouled by a non-participating vessel.

Sorry for perpetuating the thread drift but I could not let the bogus assertions stand.

[Brent Swain]

A military submarine is not a weapon? ********!
Any leaks of radioactive material is top secret. Why?
They are exempt from all Canadian environmental laws..
The mountie once in charge of the RCMP marine division told me they often blow holes in their own boats. With him being retired, I have more reason to believe him than anyone still under the military's thumb.
I watched one of their air drop flares narrowly miss my masthead, then narrowly miss a wooden deck, before landing in the bush, still burning. So much for their safety claims.

[s/v 'Faith']

Clearly there is a cover up of epic proportions!

Brent, did you ever consider that the oppressive actions of the Naniamo authorities are designed to keep people like you away? That way they can carry on their evil scheme to take over the world undiscovered?

Something to consider, if these drunken submariners and their lackeys are able to test nuclear weapons, attempt to incinerate vessels at anchor, and all other sorts of sorted activities, you may not be safe from them anywhere!

Please do be careful, they may well be coming to get you now!

[jrd22]

We were in Nanaimo last August and anchored by the park. The first morning we were there a young man and woman came by the boat in a small Whaler (I think they were with the Port, not sure) to welcome us to Nanaimo, gave us a visitors package with maps and iinformation (and free coupons for various things) and generally were extremely pleasant. They never mentioned any fee or any regulations for that matter, and did not ask about a holding tank. Laurie and I both were very impressed and wondered why other places didn't treat arriving boats the same way. There were several derelict boats anchored, no more than anywhere else though. Very nice place to stop, we'll definitely be going back.

[Brent Swain]

There are two sides to every official, one that they show to people with money and another very different one that they show to the not so rich,and which they make damned sure the rich never get to see. Try stay a little longer than a couple of weeks, and see which side you see.
Last summer that information package contained threats to sieze boats which they didn't like. Many left immediately.
In Canada, the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression and the right to move and persue a livlihood an where in Canada . This overides all other laws in Canada , including the Port Authorities new rules. They are trying to undermine this. Anyone who can't accept the charter of rights has no buisiness being in Canada, let alone be in any position of authority here. Burma would be more in line with their way of thinking.
Saying a nuclear sub is not a weapon is like saying a bow is not a weapon, only the arrow, or a gun is not a weapon , only the bullet.
When the USS Nimitz came thru Georgia Strait hey left at three mile wide oil slick behind them. An elderly couples classic wooden boat was rammed by the navy and holed there .
Ask Billy, the Govt dock wharfringer in Horseshoe bay, about how his son's boat was sunk by a submarine from the test site. The story was well covered by the media.
At any rate , one can easily avoid the mid strait Rambo show, by entering the Strait of Georgia by sailing thru Gabriola pass, one with less commercial traffic , and closer anchorages on either side, as well as in the middle, and sailing north to Sechelt or Secret cove from there, or by sailing up the main;and coast. This avoids waiting in perfect sailing weather for the military to finish their goofy little games.

[FrankZ]

This thread has gone well beyond the original topic of anchoring fees in a harbor. Can we try to keep it to that and not have political rants?

Thank you.

[Brent Swain]

Support anyone trying to set a precedent of charging cruisers for the use of their own anchors , with no opposition, and you can expect the number of harbours trying the same thing, to expand over time , quite quickly. Expect the two week limit to be an "introductory "policy which, if accepted, will be racheted down, until it becomes a daily fee. Expect the rates to also be an "introductory" rate, which, if unopposed, will quickly be raised, to the point where many of us have our freedom to cruise drastically curtailed. Expect the beneficiaries of this policy, such as employees of the port authorities , to masquerade as happy cruisers, to undermine any opposition and to ridicule opponents of such a threat to cruising freedoms. When your grandchildren can no longer afford the cruising lifestyle, you may be able to tell them that you had the opportunity to oppose anchoring fees, but did nothing, and are thus responsible for the high fees which prevent them from enjoying the cruising freedom which you have enjoyed.
Boycott is the only effective option we have at the moment. Several million dollars in lost cruiser income for the Nanaimo waterfront, is consumer power, especially when there are so many other reasons to avoid the place this summer. Not much of a sacrifice to preserve cruising freedom..

[Solitude]

I just heard on the news that Cowichan Bay is going to take a hard look at (the older derilict boats) anchored and get them out.

[Brent Swain]

They can define any boat that is not a floating gin palace as "Derelict" including your boat if a seagull shits on it while you are away. My prediction of the harassment expanding is coming true.
Nanaimo, who started the harassment campaign, can only be sent an economic message by boycotting them this summer. If you fail to do so, you lose your bitching rights when they start racheting up the definition of who is and who is not allowed in increasing numbers of harbours.

[Red Mantis]

Originally Posted by Brent Swain

If you fail to do so, you lose your bitching rights when they start racheting up the definition of who is and who is not allowed in increasing numbers of harbours.

I didn't realize the City Council had that kind of power. Scary!