Pending Legislation for raft-ups

D

Dusty Rhoads

Member
Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
RO Number
10868
Messages
820
Saw in the local paper today, there is a bill (#127) being introduced to require a formal permit for a raft-up over 50 boats. This came from Bumper Bash that is held every yr. on the Magothy, and can get too large. DNR says they can't offer enough police support wth this large of a gathering.
 
What defines a "raft-up" under this rule? If there are 80 boats in the same vicinity, and they tie up in 2 strings of 40 each, does that counts as an illegal 80 boat raft-up, or would it count as 2 perfectly legal raft-ups of 40 boats each?

If it's the latter, it would seem easy enough to "break" the raft after each 50th boat to keep each raft-up from going over 50.

At the big Columbus Day Regatta boat party near Miami, they only allow a maximum of 5 boats per raft, but there are about 2,000 boats there.
 
The actual wording is "marine gathering" of more than 50 boats. I don't think they care if you're tied up or not. I assume it would work like a public gathering/mob - the police rally don't have to prove that all 50+ boats are organized together, they can just come along and say that you have to leave because you don't have a permit to gather more than 50 boats. It doesn't matter that you are or aren't "officially" part of the gathering, you may just be an "innocent" by-stander in the area.
 
I guess the next logical question is what defines a "marine gathering"?

What is the size of the area limited to 50 boats?

They would have to define an area size cut-off somewhere. If it is not defined, what's to prevent them from saying, "There are 51 boats anchored on the Sassafrass River. You all must leave."

Those boats might be anchored hundreds of yards apart, and a water cop who is having a bad day, and has the power of enforcement "left to his discretion", could make them leave if there is no area limit defined in the law.
 
Ah, that will not play well in Rock Hall on July 4th or Annapolis when the Blue Angels are in town. Another stupid Maryland legislator trying to pass another stupid law.
 
Do the first 49 boats get to stay? How do they know which ones got there first?

Another STUPID law.
 
Every raft up I've been at, many, but never any approaching 50 boats have never needed any police support............

Does the permit fee pay for the extra 'police' needed?

What a total joke.
 
If it is just a bunch of people who wind up in the same spot, such as the 4th of July, who has to get the permit?
 
DNR says they can't provide "protection" but, I'll bet they can muster up enough Gestapos to come write tickets to extort money from you.
 
Here's the Bill's status page: http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/sb0127.htm

And here's the full bill: http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/sb/sb0127f.pdf

The wording of this Bill is going to need to be closely watched: "MEANS AN INTENTIONAL CONGREGATION OF AT LEAST 50 VESSELS IN THE WATERS OF THE STATE THAT, BY ITS NATURE, CIRCUMSTANCES, OR LOCATION, CREATES EXTRA OR UNUSUAL HAZARDS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY..."

Scenario - Snotty homeowner on the water doesn't like the fact that they overlook an anchorage. All the boats that show up are there "intentionally", thus homeowner calls NRP (Natural Resources Police) to harass anchored boats.
 
To contact the members of the committee that are hearing this Bill, you may use this link:

http://actionmail.ksconline.net/index.php?id=19

Be sure to be polite in your wording. Also, if I remember correctly, you have to "shift-click" each member's name to include them in your e-mail. I think I got pretty good at wording such messages back a few years when I was fighting NDZ legislation. I'm going to have to think about this one before I send a message though.
 
Thanks Kurt. I wrote them a message explaining why I thought it was not a good bill as written. Hopefully others will too and they will re-write it to say the organizers of planned or sponsored events need a permit or vote it down all together.
 
Dusty,

Would you mind changing the title of this topic to draw a little more attention? Something like "pending legislation" or the such?

Thanks.
 
Indeed at CDR there are are thousands of boats anchored within a small area, in national park waters. A few years ago, the park service set a rule limiting raft up to no more than 5 boats and setting a minimum 50' separation from raft up. This was needed as there had been fights and other emergencies where LEO could not get to the problem. That said they don't really enforce the rule, at least not strictly as I ve seen 5 to 10 boats raft up

In the case of the Proposed MD bill, this is plain stupid. I m sure that just like down here there are many gatherings of way over 50 boats just because it's a nice long week end in a nice anchorage. Happens every week here At most sandbars with well over 100 boats anchored in a small area.

As usual the legislators are clueless... Just do like the national park service and set minimum distance to ensure LEO/CG/EMS can move around
 
Maybe I am reading this to literally but the bill says "Prohibiting a person from sponsoring or holding a marine gathering". If 1,000 boats independantly decide to anchor in the same place, I do not see how this bill applies to them. It limits a persons ability to organize events, not where boats can anchor. It also does not say that DNR can make the boats move using this law as the laws violation would be the failure to get a permit not unlawful marine gathering (whatever that is). Now if they could include wedding event planners, I will vote for this one...Tim
 
Is it just me or has the wording of this bill changed significantly since originally posted?
 
I don't think it's been updated. I'll try and research.

Here's wording that bothers me: A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION OR A REGULATION 6 ADOPTED UNDER THIS SECTION IS LIABLE TO THE STATE FOR THE COST OF DISBANDING THE MARINE GATHERING OR IMPLEMENTING THE PERMIT TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

So let's say I post on BE that we're going to have a BE raft-up near Mike's house on Still Pond. Somehow, all of us show up along with Mike's neighbors in runabouts for the afternoon and we total over 50 boats. Does that mean I'm liable for expenses? All it takes is one annoyed homeowner to make a call and the hammer drops.

Personally, I think this legislation was introduced through DNR via some homeowner or homeowners who don't like boats anchored near their houses. There are plenty of such people.
 
Kurt...
In my waters we would only hold you responsible for bringing the beer! So, when do you want to do it?? :)
 
quote:
Originally posted by MikeeH

Kurt...
In my waters we would only hold you responsible for bringing the beer! So, when do you want to do it?? :)

Click to expand...


Any time other than May as we're heading back to the Bahamas then. I think the earlier in the season the better. Letting it go tends to make it never happen.
 
quote:
Originally posted by jmeirhofer

Is it just me or has the wording of this bill changed significantly since originally posted?

Click to expand...


I just checked. It looks like there hasn't been a second hearing yet, so the wording is exactly the way it was when this topic started. Don't be mislead by the first part of the bill that states it's supposed "purpose". Read the rest of it and imagine how it can be abused as worded.

"We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in the bill." Famous words from one really ugly b|tch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top