Another Great Weekend!

And certainly extenuating circumstanmces as his BAC was over double the limit not to mention the cocaine in his system. (Which he pleaded guilty to yesterday). I agree they could do a lot better on the barges but I think this is a little different issue. I like the peaceful surroundings of Bowline as much as the next person and would not like to see it overrun either. So my question would be if we did not take advantage of those surrroudings, would everyone feel the same about the authorities not doing anything about this hazard? (Rhetorical question)
 
I'm sure a lot of boaters coming in or going out of Bowline are over the limit, or under the influence...
 
Isn't Bowline a "man made" body of water? Technically it was/is private property?

I agree with Hogan, since it is not a navigable waterway then marking channels and obstacles becomes a local/private matter. Somehow I don't see the power plant spending any time and/or money since it won't benefit them in anyway.
 
I do not believe it is privately owned and by that definition, any dredging is man-made so that would not exclude it. I don't understand the "not a navigable waterway". Why is not? We certainly navigate into it. The hazard is identified on the charts so someone has deemed it to be a "valid waterway". Why is it different then Croton or any othe accessible cove or bay?
 
"Navigable waterway" refers to commercial vessels, ships and tugs. The minimum depth for them is 32'. So even though pleasure boats go in there, to the Coast Guard it's not navigable. I'm suprised the Sheriff hasn't put the buoy back. It's better than nothing.
 
The Sheriff has no jurisdiction to put a buoy anywhere. If they put it there and someone goes to the right of it and hits the wall, the Sheriff could be liable. Just like if a boater puts it there, that person could be held liable.
 
quote:
Originally posted by pocket change

"Navigable waterway" refers to commercial vessels, ships and tugs. The minimum depth for them is 32'. So even though pleasure boats go in there, to the Coast Guard it's not navigable. I'm suprised the Sheriff hasn't put the buoy back. It's better than nothing.

Click to expand...


Ok. I accept that definition but clearly there are buoys and hazard markers in many areas that do not meet the Coast Guard's definition/ criteria. Read the long post on the LI thread about all of the channel markers on the North Shore which clearly is not 32 feet or navigable under that definition. Somebody places all of those and takes responsibility for them. Who? The answer on Bowline hazard is pretty clear. Nobody wants to take responsibility. Does someone have the obligation to own it?
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchor Management

The answer on Bowline hazard is pretty clear. Nobody wants to take responsibility. Does someone have the obligation to own it?

Click to expand...


Only the captain of each boat that enters
 
You are correct. However, the question is why are there markers anywhere if it is solely the Captain's responsibility? In my mind it is to assist and keep boaters safe. It is surprising to me that given the high rate of incidents here, this has been ignored for so long. Somebody is taking responsibility for all other marked hazards. Very weird to me.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchor Management

quote:
Originally posted by pocket change

"Navigable waterway" refers to commercial vessels, ships and tugs. The minimum depth for them is 32'. So even though pleasure boats go in there, to the Coast Guard it's not navigable. I'm suprised the Sheriff hasn't put the buoy back. It's better than nothing.

Click to expand...


Ok. I accept that definition but clearly there are buoys and hazard markers in many areas that do not meet the Coast Guard's definition/ criteria. Read the long post on the LI thread about all of the channel markers on the North Shore which clearly is not 32 feet or navigable under that definition. Somebody places all of those and takes responsibility for them. Who? The answer on Bowline hazard is pretty clear. Nobody wants to take responsibility. Does someone have the obligation to own it?

Click to expand...

The channel markers not put in by the Coast Guard show on the chart as "privately maintained". That's like the ones to Mineceongo. They put them there, not the Coast Guard. I've seen boats aground in that channel but I doubt the yacht club is overwhelmed with lawsuits. If someone or the sheriff puts the buoy back at least the hazard is marked.
 
If they were to do that, it would be irresponsible to only put up one marker as that helps nothing. Getting back to my earlier question, if Coast Guard only puts in markers in navigable waterways by their definition, who is putting up all the other markers? In my example of the North Shore, none fit that criteria. Does the town do this out of courtesy? If so, why would Haverstraw not do it for the same reasons?
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchor Management

If they were to do that, it would be irresponsible to only put up one marker as that helps nothing. Getting back to my earlier question, if Coast Guard only puts in markers in navigable waterways by their definition, who is putting up all the other markers? In my example of the North Shore, none fit that criteria. Does the town do this out of courtesy? If so, why would Haverstraw not do it for the same reasons?

Click to expand...

Haverstraw may not mark the hazard because no one told them about it. Of course they may say "It's not our problem" if you went to a town meeting and told them. I think most of these privately maintained buoys are put in by the various marinas. I wish Patsy's Bay and SPBM would get together and put 4 on each side of the channel out to deep water but I'm not holding my breath until they do.
 
They have in the past but they usually had an issue with the red/green thing. :) I doubt that marinas mark all hazards and channels that are not entry ways to their marinas. Some other authority must if they don't. Does Coast Guard do this sort of thing if it is not the Navigate able waterway?
 
The Coast Guard only maintains the buoys on navigable waters, where commercial boats go. They don't mark hazards outside the main channel. Why should they. Those hazards are our problem.
 
I understand but I am still curious on who maintains all other markers that are not entrance ways to marinas which are common in all waters.
 
many, like Minesceongo and SPBM are put in and maintained by the marinas themselves. As you noted, whoever put SPBM's had no idea that red and green actually had meaning.
 
The USCG places and maintains federal Aids to Navigation (ATON's), but private entities may apply to USCG to place and maintain private Aids to Navigation (PATON's). Those aids are authorized by the Waterways Management Division of the local USCG (in our case, the 1st USCG District in Boston), and are placed, maintained, repaired by the private entity. The PATON's to Minesceongo and SPBM should be in this category. The Coast Guard, usually thru the USCG Auxiliary, periodically verifies ATON's and PATON's, to ensure they are "watching properly" e.g., on station, properly lit, proper color/number, not sinking . . . you get the idea.

Could the obstructions and navigable channel be properly marked? sure. Mike's point is well taken - who's gonna take responsibility for a PATON in the cove?
 
I highly doubt that SPBM applied for authorization. And clearly the USCG Aux has never checked them for being on station. At least one year, there were red and green on the same side of the channel.
 
I can't speak for your side of the river (West Shore), Mike - my experience is on my side. I do know that, as result of USCG Aux inspections, Viking was issued Notice last year for PATON's not on station . . ..

The report form used for ATON/PATON verification does have provisions for reporting "Not Permitted" PATON's, so a Verifier could (and should) identify and report PATON's not authorized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top