Can I anchor in Canadian water?

[HeadedToTexas]

Specifically Crystal Bay on the Canadian side of the Detroit River. I get that I do not meet the criteria to enter Canada, but the rules for entering Canada are muddy these days. The page below summarizes important information for private boaters who are navigating Canadian waters or hoping to enter Canada by boat.

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/pb-pp-eng.html

The language in question is about a third the way down the page:

If you enter Canadian waters for leisure and touring, including pleasure fishing, sightseeing and other discretionary purposes (known as loop movements), you are not required to report to the CBSA as long as the boat does not land on Canadian soil, anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters.​

I do not plan to land on Canadian soil nor anchor alongside another boat in Canadian waters. My plan is to anchor all by my lonesome on some quiet weekday and enjoy the clear waters and nearby ship traffic in the Detroit River. It really comes down to how you read all those commas in that last compound sentence.

Anyone know of a ruling or clarification on that section?

 

[Comodave]

Specifically Crystal Bay on the Canadian side of the Detroit River. I get that I do not meet the criteria to enter Canada, but the rules for entering Canada are muddy these days. The page below summarizes important information for private boaters who are navigating Canadian waters or hoping to enter Canada by boat.

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/pb-pp-eng.html

The language in question is about a third the way down the page:

If you enter Canadian waters for leisure and touring, including pleasure fishing, sightseeing and other discretionary purposes (known as loop movements), you are not required to report to the CBSA as long as the boat does not land on Canadian soil, anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters.​

I do not plan to land on Canadian soil nor anchor alongside another boat in Canadian waters. My plan is to anchor all by my lonesome on some quiet weekday and enjoy the clear waters and nearby ship traffic in the Detroit River. It really comes down to how you read all those commas in that last compound sentence.

Anyone know of a ruling or clarification on that section?

It says anchor or moor. That is pretty definite IMO.

 

[Bacchus]

"If you enter Canadian waters for leisure and touring, including pleasure fishing, sightseeing and other discretionary purposes (known as loop movements), you are not required to report to the CBSA as long as the boat does not land on Canadian soil, anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters."

Pretty clear to me and consistent with my prior understanding.
You can "pass through" Canadian waters as long as you DO NOT ANCHOR (among other conditions.)
Comma - ANCHOR - comma makes it very clear. I don't see how you can interpret that so that anchoring is allowed???

 

[guy with a boat]

No, you can't anchor in Canada without clearing into Canada. Anchoring is a clear violation of their regulations.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

I do see that interpretation, and I also see this one.

I do not intend to land on Canadian soil, and I do not intend to anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters. I plan to be anchored all by myself well away from any other boat.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

It would be abundantly clear if put this way:

You are not required to report to the CBSA as long as the boat does not:

1. Land on Canadian soil
2. Anchor
3. Moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters

Instead, they left it quite unclear. Landing on Canadian soil is definitely different than getting close to another boat in Canadian waters, true? So the following three verbs act on the noun "boat" in Canadian waters:

1. Anchor
2. Moor
3. Come alongside

 

[guy with a boat]

I'm sure the Canadian border officers will be entertained by your interpretation. Hopefully they won't bother and you won't have to find out.

I understood your question to be if you can legally anchor in Canada without clearing into the country. The answer to that question is no, regardless of your attempts at creative interpretation of the rules. You can proceed how you wish with that information.

 

[Jeff F]

I'm sure the Canadian border officers will be entertained by your interpretation. Hopefully they won't bother and you won't have to find out.

They might be entertained. Or they might threaten to seize the boat and ban you from entering the country ever again. The rule is clear, and violation is a serious offence.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

How is it that you are so sure, guy?

 

[BandB]

I do see that interpretation, and I also see this one.

I do not intend to land on Canadian soil, and I do not intend to anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters. I plan to be anchored all by myself well away from any other boat.

You're beating your head against a wall. The law is clear. It's never wavered or changed. You cannot anchor in Canadian waters or any other country's waters without clearing. Simple.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

So again, does anyone know of a ruling or clarification on that section?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The words are separated by commas and that makes each action a separate action. The comas are a shortening of the following statements.

“As long as the boat does not land on Canadian soil.
As long as the boat does not anchor in Canadian waters.
As long as the boat does not moor in Canadian waters.
As long as the boat does not come along side another boat in Canadian waters.”

This is not even a grey area or ambiguous wording.

 

[tiltrider1]

Canadian Boarder Patrol is quite clear hear in the PNW. Don't drop your anchor unless you have cleared Customs. There is an understanding that if you have an emergency that you can drop anchor after declaring the emergency to the Coast Guard and fly the Quarantine flag. I have seen this happen on boats intending to pass through the inland water way with out stopping.

A couple of years ago the CBP started cracking down on US fishing boats that dropped anchor to fish. They were fine with you fishing and trolling but no anchor dropping.

 

[John R M]

Why not just call CBSA and ask them?

 

[catalinajack]

It would be abundantly clear if put this way:

You are not required to report to the CBSA as long as the boat does not:

1. Land on Canadian soil
2. Anchor
3. Moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters

Instead, they left it quite unclear. Landing on Canadian soil is definitely different than getting close to another boat in Canadian waters, true? So the following three verbs act on the noun "boat" in Canadian waters:

1. Anchor
2. Moor
3. Come alongside

Go ahead, give it a try. Let us know how it turns out.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

Why not just call CBSA and ask them?

I have tried that on a border issue. They were no able to provide an answer and said to check the website periodically for a ruling. That was in November 2021. Nothing yet.

Perhaps I will call tomorrow and report what I hear.

 

[twistedtree]

It would be abundantly clear if put this way:

You are not required to report to the CBSA as long as the boat does not:

1. Land on Canadian soil
2. Anchor
3. Moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters

Instead, they left it quite unclear. Landing on Canadian soil is definitely different than getting close to another boat in Canadian waters, true? So the following three verbs act on the noun "boat" in Canadian waters:

1. Anchor
2. Moor
3. Come alongside

A comma list is just that - a list. It's not two things with a sub list. I think there is zero ambiguity with the language.

 

[koliver]

Pretty simple.
All you have to do is clear Customs, then you can anchor. Problem solved.

 

[Bacchus]

I do see that interpretation, and I also see this one.

I do not intend to land on Canadian soil, and I do not intend to anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters. I plan to be anchored all by myself well away from any other boat.

I believe you might have a point if it read anchor, moor AND come alongside another boat. The OR says you can't do any of those not just some convoluted combination that's prohibited.

The key point is you are OK as long as you are floating / cruising in Canadian waters and have NO attachment or connection to Canadian soil... even if you don't but you connect to another vessel that does.

Don't take our collective word.... call the Canadian authorities and inquire or just go ahead and try to explain it to the officer. Just be aware that $1,000 fines are fairly common for violations and confiscation of property (boat) isn't out of the question.

Bacchus out and back to Ch 16!

 

[BruceK]

HTT, You are trying to add an exclusion from the anchoring prohibition in these terms: "Provided that you may anchor if you do not intend to anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters and you plan to be anchored well away from any other boat."
It`s just not there, is it? Worse still your "exclusion" is relies on "intentions". Your present "intentions" can change.

 

[bowball]

How is it that you are so sure, guy?

Probably because when you google it, every cruising guide and all other references state you can’t anchor without clearing customs.

 

[BandB]

So again, does anyone know of a ruling or clarification on that section?

We don't need rulings and definitely don't need clarification on something that is crystal clear. Most are lucky and only get small fines of $1000 or so and banned from entering Canada which I assume by your tone, you already are? DWI?

Canada is no different than any other country but typically less harsh. Bahamas, I've known people not allowed to leave until paying fines of $10,000 and more. They see it as a great avenue of revenues. One couple couldn't pay and were put on a plane to France, their sailboat kept by the Bahamas.

Nothing muddy about it and no challenges as no lawyer would take them.

 

[HeadedToTexas]

The key point is you are OK as long as you are floating / cruising in Canadian waters and have NO attachment or connection to Canadian soil... even if you don't but you connect to another vessel that does.

I get that is the intention and I get that it is a universal approach to border management. Sorry for infusing grammar into a boat conversation, but damnit, punctuation matters. And it really matters in legal documents when the stakes are high.

https://pwrites.princeton.edu/tools-and-insights/defining-understanding-and-using-the-serial-comma/

Worse still your "exclusion" is relies on "intentions".

Just to be clear, I asked if anyone know of a ruling or clarification on the section I cited. In the environment that blew up quickly in this thread, I should never have been so sloppy as use the term "intend." All purely hypothetical, of course. I would never roll the dice when the stakes involve law enforcement and fines and such without a clear ruling from Canada.

 

[SteveK]

Pretty simple.
All you have to do is clear Customs, then you can anchor. Problem solved.

But he cannot clear customs, unvaccinated.

NO YOU CANNOT ANCHOR UNLESS YOU CLEAR CUSTOMS.
There is an emergency exception AND YOU DO NOT QUAILFY FOR THAT EITHER.

sorry for yelling

 

[HeadedToTexas]

NO YOU CANNOT ANCHOR UNLESS YOU CLEAR CUSTOMS.

Rather than a bunch of nested commas and legalese, don't you think it would serve everyone better, including Canadians, for CBSA to be just that clear, Soo? I do.

 

[BruceK]

Exploring Govt restrictions for a way around, or an avenue not blocked, makes sense. But Govt. have been at this a while with Covid, they tend to have it covered.

 

[SteveK]

Rather than a bunch of nested commas and legalese, don't you think it would serve everyone better, including Canadians, for CBSA to be just that clear, Soo? I do.

But then we would not have any need for bureaucrats or politicians or lawyers.

 

[twistedtree]

I get that is the intention and I get that it is a universal approach to border management. Sorry for infusing grammar into a boat conversation, but damnit, punctuation matters. And it really matters in legal documents when the stakes are high.

https://pwrites.princeton.edu/tools-and-insights/defining-understanding-and-using-the-serial-comma/



Just to be clear, I asked if anyone know of a ruling or clarification on the section I cited. In the environment that blew up quickly in this thread, I should never have been so sloppy as use the term "intend." All purely hypothetical, of course. I would never roll the dice when the stakes involve law enforcement and fines and such without a clear ruling from Canada.

The presence of absence of the serial comma doesn't change the meaning or create ambiguity in the way you are wanting to interpret what's written. The examples in the Princeton link shows where the absence of the serial comma makes it ambiguous whether the last comma delineates and appositive, or if it's a serial comma.


The sentence could be read as you are interpreting if it were reworded to be



"..as long as the boat does not land on Canadian soil, or anchor, moor or come alongside another boat in Canadian waters."

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I agree with others that the language is clear and concise.

However consider this:

The land/dirt under the water is CANADIAN soil! When you drop an anchor, you are dropping it on Canadian dirt.

 

[angus99]

Jeez, I was thinking AT LAST I get to put that undergrad English degree to work, but others have handle the grammar questions admirably.

Just to note, however, despite all the ominous consequences for ignoring Canada’s sovereignty, it is a remarkably welcoming country for visitors who clear customs.