Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Sojourner]

Actually, as someone noted above to the contrary, I do think it would be very very easy to regulate so that recreational boaters do not get hit with unfair responsibilities.... simply regulate anything that has a commercial license. That includes partyboats, cruises obvs, and maybe even charter boats. If you are making money from being on the water, collect your crap (I still don't think it matters in the grand scheme, but whatever). If you are a private vessel, you're fine. Maybe include a size limit on that as well, like they do in the EU for vessels over 20 meters private or not, due to the increased hazards a huge ship presents in a lot of ways, as well as the physical room needed onboard for the appropriate tankage.

Like that thing they're doing in Turkey, requiring on paper at least, that EVERYONE collects their graywater too??? Absolute lunacy. On that 25 meter megasailboat chartering for 20k a week? Sure. On grandpa's 36 foot bennie? Get outta here.... go for a swim, grandpa, just let it go. No one can fine you for that (yet)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Unless you are very close to the visible discharge cloud, I doubt swimming in seawater in the vicinity of mascerated discharge is as dangerous as eating chicken.

Still... I would rather eat chicken than to intentionally swim in the area of someone's boat discharge. Maybe it's just me...

[john61ct]

The distinction between an evidence-based decision and one based on feelings and preference

is exactly the topic of this thread

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by john61ct

The distinction between an evidence-based decision and one based on feelings and preference is exactly the topic of this thread

... or maybe we just have better chicken. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Pelagic]

If you are what you eat.

What about the stuff that passes thru? [emoji57]

[Uncle Bob]

Who needs science when you have uniforms with badges and patches, fast boats and guns.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Still... I would rather eat chicken than to intentionally swim in the area of someone's boat discharge. Maybe it's just me...

The whole point is you are making an emotional not fact based assessment and that is how discharge has been legislated...emotion not fact.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The whole point is you are making an emotional not fact based assessment and that is how discharge has been legislated...emotion not fact.

If I happen to hear the call of nature while traversing a city park, and I nip behind a tree to answer that call... and I get caught with my pants down, so to speak, I will be charged with a misdemeanour. This is even though the same park is frequented by pets, some of whose owners do not observe the poop n' scoop ordinances. AND in the absence of any scientific proof about how my unsanctioned contribution degrades the environment.

Should such an unlikely situation ever arise, I shall be sure, while being dragged off, and later in court, to shout out that I'm being persecuted (and prosecuted) for a law that is an emotional and not a scientific assessment. That'll work, yeah.

My points:
- there are other reasons besides science for prohibiting an action
- laws must be sensible and enforceable. Adding all sorts of exemptions, particularly ones that only affect a small percentage of the target population, increases the cost of enforcement and also probably reduces the likelihood of overall compliance, from the harder-to-understand regulation.

Finally, there ARE scientific rationales for declaring some areas an NDZ. I'm pretty sure, if people made some basic searches or inquires, besides just whinging in a cruisers' forum, they could easily find out what those are.

[john61ct]

More likely to be arrested for indecent exposure, branded a sex offender for life these days.

[hellosailor]

I've never met a public park that didn't come with a specific set of town laws and park regulations. 'Public exposure' and 'Public indecency' usually will apply, the actual fertilizing of the bushes like the dogs do is not necessarily the issue.

So, it isn't quite on a par with boats in public waterways. Except for that indecent exposure.

Or perhaps you have heard the ruckus from Paris, where they've erected very scanty public pissoirs this year, and gotten a lot of flack over just how scanty they are. Among other things. Considering American attitudes, I'm actually amazed that toilet paper isn't required to be sold in brown paper wrapping, over the counter on request from the pharmacist only.

[Pelagic]

Potty laws are social, therefore based on the emotional beliefs of those who happen to be in power at the time, for that particular area.

You hope that common sense would dictate that the higher the population density, the greater the control and enforcement on healthy potty practices, there would be.

However, that is not always the case.

Sometimes grander social positions influence the local administration to turn off their olfactory senses along with their common sense.

A good example is sanctuary cities where defecations on the sidewalks are part of the social scene amongst the homeless I.E's.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If I happen to hear the call of nature while traversing a city park, and I nip behind a tree to answer that call... and I get caught with my pants down, so to speak, I will be charged with a misdemeanour. This is even though the same park is frequented by pets, some of whose owners do not observe the poop n' scoop ordinances. AND in the absence of any scientific proof about how my unsanctioned contribution degrades the environment.

Should such an unlikely situation ever arise, I shall be sure, while being dragged off, and later in court, to shout out that I'm being persecuted (and prosecuted) for a law that is an emotional and not a scientific assessment. That'll work, yeah....

...Finally, there ARE scientific rationales for declaring some areas an NDZ. I'm pretty sure, if people made some basic searches or inquires, besides just whinging in a cruisers' forum, they could easily find out what those are.

As others have mentioned, the first and primary reason it would be illegal is due to public exposure...not an issue with a cruising boat dumping their tanks.

Second is from a scientific point of view, macerated waste discharged into the ocean, very quickly breaks down and becomes biologically harmless. It's highly unlikely to come into contact with humans before it breaks down. A pile of poo in a busy city park is likely to remain biologically active for at least a few days and it is in close proximity to humans with a high likelihood of a human coming into contact with it. Therefore your park example is drastically worse.

A more comparable example would be a lightly used state forest, not at all uncommon for people to wander 50yds off a trail and do it in the bushes but it's also unlikely that people will come in contact with it before it becomes biologically inactive.

As far as your final comment, no one disagrees that there are inappropriate places to discharge....50yd off a popular beach is easily justified scientifically...but so far no one has come up with a documented justification that covers the bulk of NDZs...so your premise that if you looked you would find it doesn't hold water. At least I couldn't find any...maybe you could point use to the scientific justifications for some NDZs.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

As others have mentioned, the first and primary reason it would be illegal is due to public exposure...not an issue with a cruising boat dumping their tanks.

Nice dodge. Eliminating in the park is itself prohibited. I didn't mention public exposure; it's a red herring.

your premise that if you looked you would find it doesn't hold water. At least I couldn't find any...maybe you could point use to the scientific justifications for some NDZs.

Nah, nobody's looking. it would spoil the argument.

No Discharge Zones
https://backcreekconservancy.org/wp-...hite-Paper.pdf
https://ncseagrant.ncsu.edu/coastwat...rs-designated/
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shoreli...Why-it-matters


Basically, a minority of boaters are whining about having to use their holding tank once in a while. Oh the injustice.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nice dodge. Eliminating in the park is itself prohibited. I didn't mention public exposure; it's a red herring.


Nah, nobody's looking. it would spoil the argument.

No Discharge Zones
https://backcreekconservancy.org/wp-...hite-Paper.pdf
https://ncseagrant.ncsu.edu/coastwat...rs-designated/
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shoreli...Why-it-matters


Basically, a minority of boaters are whining about having to use their holding tank once in a while. Oh the injustice.

No dodge, I addressed the real reason (indecent exposure) and the secondary reason (a much more real and probably health issue).

Did you actually read the links you provided? I took a quick scan thru them and found no scientific justification just an explanation of the rules and some patting on the back about implementing pump outs...as usual on a more emotional rather than scientific basis.

In fact the one suggested if all boat related sewage was eliminated it would reduce the nutrient load on the Chesapeake by 0.0017%...basically any scientist worth his salt would tell you that's not measurable by any reliable methods.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

In fact the one suggested if all boat related sewage was eliminated it would reduce the nutrient load on the Chesapeake by 0.0017%...basically any scientist worth his salt would tell you that's not measurable by any reliable methods.

Thanks for that one L-E. (and to Valhalla for actually taking the time to read it). And even more relevant to the thread topic, I have to wonder what the nutrient or other impact would be on the Chesapeake if all boats had Type 3 MSD's and treated sewage from boats was eliminated.

The city park example has obvious science supporting it, and so emotions & common decency logically flow therefrom. Attempting to analogize it to the thread topic has no science (at least none presented thus far), and so pure emotions, politics, and subjectively personal sensitivities are all that seems to be in play. That's all fine & good for individual preferences, but a recipe for unintended consequences when imposed on others by (threatened) force of law.

The reality that some don't want to confront is that, when pump-outs are non-existent, non-functional, or even inconvenient, and getting out to the 3-mile limit offshore is impractical or even just undesirable, there are going to be a certain number of boaters who discharge their sewage illegally no matter what the law says, whether within a NDZ or not. It would therefore be best if pubic policy did not at least discourage them from installing onboard treatment devices.