Derelict boat solution?

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
https://www.winknews.com/2022/07/15/florida-seeks-to-curb-problem-of-derelict-boats/

 

[Comodave]

Sounds better than nothing, which is what they used to do.

 

[Art]

 

[psneeld]

I wonder what the numbers are where derelicts are the result of abandoned boats.

Abandoned boats are probably not going to be 'turned in".

May help somewhat, but I think it has to be more aggressive, like some of the "abandoned auto/towing" policies around the country.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. C. I think some efforts were made to clean up the waterways with the limited funds available. Perhaps seeking funds from the last registered owners might cause those who abandon them to re-think how they dispose of a vessel they no longer want, need or can afford. Setting a few well publicized examples would go a long way in minimizing abandonment IMO. MANDATORY transfer of ownership would also eliminate the "I gave it to some guy" excuse.

Given that some of these vessels are "owned" by the homeless makes for an extememly complicated situation IMO.

 

[mvweebles]

I wonder what the numbers are where derelicts are the result of abandoned boats.

Abandoned boats are probably not going to be 'turned in".

May help somewhat, but I think it has to be more aggressive, like some of the "abandoned auto/towing" policies around the country.

I agree. Program essentially assumes the owner of a derelect boat is an otherwise responsible and active participant in society. My limited interactions with derelects are the owner/occupants are true one-percenters who are, for whatever reason, at the fringes of society. What might work is if there was a payment for turning in the derelict boat.say, $500 or so.

Peter

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. mv. Good idea BUT will $500 be enough incentive. It might be for some but...


The case of the 1% seems to be more of a social problem than an environmental problem at least in the early stages of their boat "ownership". As I mentioned, a complicated situation.

 

[Art]

Greetings,
Mr. mv. Good idea BUT will $500 be enough incentive. It might be for some but...


The case of the 1% seems to be more of a social problem than an environmental problem at least in the early stages of their boat "ownership". As I mentioned, a complicated situation.

Maybe... $500, a free pup tent with sleeping bag and pillow as well as 3 months worth of gift cards to McD's??

I'm sorry to be so cynical and mean no offence to those down on their luck. However... in reality... the general feeling of "not my responsibility" has become a sickness that permeates sectors of society. I call it "giveupness"... i.e. a consuming mental deterioration wherein self worth becomes a no longer desired nor practiced attribute.

IMO - There needs to be some way that many of the people who have become afflicted with giveupness can have their own self worth reestablished. A big project for sure!

 

[High Wire]

It’s very frustrating because the cost to recover a sunken derelict belongs with the owner. LEOs need to verify links to at risk boats to their owners while they are still floating. When they sink, the owners are financially responsible for the cost.
One FL county makes wreck recovery costs “court legal fees” due by the owner.

 

[tiltrider1]

This is the rule in Washington State

SELLERS OF VESSELS more than 35 feet in length and more than 40 years old are to provide the buyers with marine survey inspection information before transferring the title, and they need to see proof that the buyers have secured marine insurance coverage.
BUYERS OF THESE VESSELS are to secure marine insurance and provide proof of coverage to the seller, and either the Department of Licensing upon registration, or the Department of Revenue upon paying any taxes, if applicable.

A BUYER who fails to secure and maintain the minimum marine insurance coverage is guilty of a misdemeanor. Most importantly, they will incur liability for the vessel if it becomes derelict or abandoned. In addition, their moorage facility may cancel their moorage agreement for noncompliance.
The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may contact any vessel owner required to have an insurance policy to ensure compliance with this legal requirement.
A SELLER who chooses to finalize a sale or transfer with a buyer who has not provided proof of a marine insurance policy, assumes secondary liability for the vessel (consistent with RCW 79.100.060) if the vessel is later abandoned by the buyer/transferee or becomes derelict prior to a later ownership sale/transfer.


The law is aimed at preventing the abandonment of commercial fishing vessels in Washington.

 

[Larry M]

This got my attention. In additional to extra funding it gives LEOs more authority.

...State lawmakers this year increased funding for the removal of derelict vessels from $3.5 million to $8.2 million, after earlier giving law enforcement more authority to address at-risk vessels that have no effective means of propulsion and have taken on water or are on the verge of becoming unanchored....

I hope the program works for this type of situation. I was at a public meeting when a boat owner spoke about where he was going to keep his boats? He went on to say he has 3 boats anchored out because he cant afford to put them in marina. He's not a liveaboard and none of the boats have moved in over 2 years. He has a dream.

 

[Art]

This got my attention. In additional to extra funding it gives LEOs more authority.

...State lawmakers this year increased funding for the removal of derelict vessels from $3.5 million to $8.2 million, after earlier giving law enforcement more authority to address at-risk vessels that have no effective means of propulsion and have taken on water or are on the verge of becoming unanchored....

I hope the program works for this type of situation. I was at a public meeting when a boat owner spoke about where he was going to keep his boats? He went on to say he has 3 boats anchored out because he cant afford to put them in marina. He's not a liveaboard and none of the boats have moved in over 2 years. He has a dream.

I have a dream too: Selling our boats before legal-providence eco-positive walls come crashing in and it becomes nearly impossible to sell a boat! Only kidding - sorta!

 

[Bmarler]

This is the rule in Washington State

SELLERS OF VESSELS more than 35 feet in length and more than 40 years old are to provide the buyers with marine survey inspection information before transferring the title, and they need to see proof that the buyers have secured marine insurance coverage.
BUYERS OF THESE VESSELS are to secure marine insurance and provide proof of coverage to the seller, and either the Department of Licensing upon registration, or the Department of Revenue upon paying any taxes, if applicable.

A BUYER who fails to secure and maintain the minimum marine insurance coverage is guilty of a misdemeanor. Most importantly, they will incur liability for the vessel if it becomes derelict or abandoned. In addition, their moorage facility may cancel their moorage agreement for noncompliance.
The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may contact any vessel owner required to have an insurance policy to ensure compliance with this legal requirement.
A SELLER who chooses to finalize a sale or transfer with a buyer who has not provided proof of a marine insurance policy, assumes secondary liability for the vessel (consistent with RCW 79.100.060) if the vessel is later abandoned by the buyer/transferee or becomes derelict prior to a later ownership sale/transfer.


The law is aimed at preventing the abandonment of commercial fishing vessels in Washington.

is that over 35 feet, or 35 feet and over? i have a 35 footer up for sale now and this seems fairly important.
this puts survey requirements on the seller. this is contrary to securing insurance as a buyer as the insurance company typically wants to have a survey done in the buyers name.

 

[tiltrider1]

is that over 35 feet, or 35 feet and over? i have a 35 footer up for sale now and this seems fairly important.
this puts survey requirements on the seller. this is contrary to securing insurance as a buyer as the insurance company typically wants to have a survey done in the buyers name.

Over 35 and more than 40 years old. If you are both then require buyer to get a survey and show proof of insurance to close.

 

[jleonard]

Just at the one boat ramp I use near my home in Florida there have been at least 2 and possibly a 3rd removed in the past year that were anchored out and abandoned. And 2 the prior year, one of those had sunk.
And that’s only one tiny anchorage.

 

[Lollygag1]

Perhaps all boats should have to pass inspection every few years, we do it with cars. Yes more hassle, more government and more cost but we have to do this with other motorized vehicles.

We had some slug bring his crap boat into the cove, drove it up on the far shore and walk last year. We go to look at it all season. City finally removed but they should have been able to go after the owner.

 

[Art]

I am not pleased that boating is in midst of being harnessed tightly by numerous legal precedents; many being pre-set in and by other human activities.

Not that my dislike means much nor should or would necessarily be taken into account regarding freedom-constricting marine uses-laws and upon rights for ownership of marine vehicles. However, as often occurs, our litigious society's pendulum will likely swing too far before eventually attaining a reasonable list of statutes.

All in all... I sure am happy that I lived back in mid 20th Century when boating basically meant being free as a bird on the water.

I can just imagine the deep levels of legal constrictions soon to become laws placed upon marine doings.

Unfortunately but obviously true: Size and scope of boats on the water and marinas in existence, in relation to the perishing quality of marine life and troubles in other parts of earth's ecosphere, need to become controlled before shat hits the fan for our planet's entire eco-systemic stability.

Such is life!

 

[Portage_Bay]

This is the rule in Washington State

SELLERS OF VESSELS more than 35 feet in length and more than 40 years old are to provide the buyers with marine survey inspection information before transferring the title, and they need to see proof that the buyers have secured marine insurance coverage.
BUYERS OF THESE VESSELS are to secure marine insurance and provide proof of coverage to the seller, and either the Department of Licensing upon registration, or the Department of Revenue upon paying any taxes, if applicable.

A BUYER who fails to secure and maintain the minimum marine insurance coverage is guilty of a misdemeanor. Most importantly, they will incur liability for the vessel if it becomes derelict or abandoned. In addition, their moorage facility may cancel their moorage agreement for noncompliance.
The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may contact any vessel owner required to have an insurance policy to ensure compliance with this legal requirement.
A SELLER who chooses to finalize a sale or transfer with a buyer who has not provided proof of a marine insurance policy, assumes secondary liability for the vessel (consistent with RCW 79.100.060) if the vessel is later abandoned by the buyer/transferee or becomes derelict prior to a later ownership sale/transfer.


The law is aimed at preventing the abandonment of commercial fishing vessels in Washington.

Do you know when this law went into effect? I bought a 43 yr old boat in 2016 and sold it in 2019. Private sale both times. All parties unaware of the law. Dept of licensing did not say anything either time. Makes me uneasy the state can potentially come at me years later if the current owner abandons the boat. Last I heard the boat has become a run down liveaboard dock queen.

Sent from my SM-T500 using Trawler Forum mobile app

 

[tiltrider1]

Do you know when this law went into effect? I bought a 43 yr old boat in 2016 and sold it in 2019. Private sale both times. All parties unaware of the law. Dept of licensing did not say anything either time. Makes me uneasy the state can potentially come at me years later if the current owner abandons the boat. Last I heard the boat has become a run down liveaboard dock queen.

Sent from my SM-T500 using Trawler Forum mobile app

The law went into affect in 2014. It’s a derelict law which means you might be required to prove you didn’t sell a derelict if the boat ends up abandoned and the buyer has no means to dispose of the vessel.

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and...large-and-older-vessel-ownership-requirements

 

[Portage_Bay]

The law went into affect in 2014. It’s a derelict law which means you might be required to prove you didn’t sell a derelict if the boat ends up abandoned and the buyer has no means to dispose of the vessel.

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and...large-and-older-vessel-ownership-requirements

Thank you for the explanation. I have no idea how I'd prove it was not derelict when I sold it. I hear stories of the present owner that make me uneasy.

 

[Old Sea Dog]

Sounds like a survey every year to prove vessel is above derelict status.

Sent from my SM-G715U1 using Trawler Forum mobile app

 

[Art]

I provide the following link to an early 1970's delightful, uplifting Tollycraft song; to relieve some of the stress that this thread regarding derelict boats creates. After all... for the main part... most TF members are into boating to actually manifest and capture our dreams! Pleasure boating, as a pleasure pursuit, will always stand tall in the annals of time. Just imagine the teaching of history to children two hundred years form now [in 2222]... showing photos of our 20th and 21st Century fun-times of unabashed pleasure boating frolic!

Here is the official "Tollycraft Tollycraft" song, composed by Tollycraft staff in the 1970s.

https://www.tollyclub.com/the-tollycraft-song


VERSE:

We set out in the morning, Heading toward the sunrise,
The sky in the East was on fire with the dawn.
The water was churning, Our Tolly was flying,
With my face to the wind I was singing this song.

Chorus:
Tollycraft, Tollycraft take me away now, set me a course on a path to the sun,
Tollycraft, Tollycraft take me away now, away to a world where dreams are begun!

Out from the harbor, we cruise through the waters,
To our secret spot blessed by sun every day,
Down with the anchor, we bath in the sunshine,
And sing out this song as we head far away.

(Chorus)

We dance in the waters, free as the sea gulls,
That follow us out, and sing us their song,
The voice of the wind joins in harmony singing,
The sea makes the rhythm as we cruise along.

(Chorus x2)

Away to a world where dreams are begun…

 

[Steve1.0]

Unfortunately but obviously true: Size and scope of boats on the water and marinas in existence, in relation to the perishing quality of marine life and troubles in other parts of earth's ecosphere, need to become controlled before shat hits the fan for our planet's entire eco-systemic stability.

Such is life!

Yup, more government regulation.


Agreed, derelict boats are a problem. Mostly an eyesore and a potential hazard to navigation.



Not an existential threat.


Many reports (Boat US, Practical Sailor, etc,) have shown responsible boaters are far better stewards of our environment than most. Particularly in the U.S.



My personal experiences with the live-aboard population most likely to "abandon ship" are as mentioned above, a 1% kinda group. Many have psychiatric issues and more often than not are legal fugitives. When the law catches up with them, the vessels become unattended with predictable results.

 

[Bmarler]

The law went into affect in 2014. It’s a derelict law which means you might be required to prove you didn’t sell a derelict if the boat ends up abandoned and the buyer has no means to dispose of the vessel.

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and...large-and-older-vessel-ownership-requirements

interesting. i never heard of this law before. i've been a liveaboard for 30-ish years. didn't hear a whisper about this law.
i bought a boat last year that falls under these regulations and it wasn't even mentioned. as it happens, the seller did provide me with his recent survey, and as matter of course i had insurance lined up in advance, so i guess we were following the laws.

 

[tiltrider1]

interesting. i never heard of this law before. i've been a liveaboard for 30-ish years. didn't hear a whisper about this law.
i bought a boat last year that falls under these regulations and it wasn't even mentioned. as it happens, the seller did provide me with his recent survey, and as matter of course i had insurance lined up in advance, so i guess we were following the laws.

The law was originally aimed at commercial fish boats that were meant to be sold as scrap but ended up in the hands of mentally unstable people who abandoned them in the back waters. Originally it was for boats over 68’ but at the last minute they changed it to 35 feet and dropped the commercial part.

It’s a good law and most sales are legal by default but some day someone will sell a tired old boat to a seedy liveaboard and it will come back to bite them.

 

[High Wire]

Do you know when this law went into effect? I bought a 43 yr old boat in 2016 and sold it in 2019. Private sale both times. All parties unaware of the law. Dept of licensing did not say anything either time. Makes me uneasy the state can potentially come at me years later if the current owner abandons the boat. Last I heard the boat has become a run down liveaboard dock queen.

Sent from my SM-T500 using Trawler Forum mobile app

Florida motor vehicle / boat sale requires a separate form to be filled out by the seller that is independent of the title paperwork that is supposed to protect the seller in case the buyer never does anything to title/register the boat. Found out the hard way when I sold a moped once and the new owner never did anything with the paperwork. It shows up on the list of registrations for annual renewal.

 

[SeaDogAK]

Getting back to the original post, a vessel turn-in program sounds like a good solution, though it might be overwhelmed with boats. The idea that owners of derelict boats should be financially responsible sounds good on the surface, but derelict boats generally have derelict owners. The cost of chasing them for money would likely far exceed the money you could squeeze out of them.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Getting back to the original post, a vessel turn-in program sounds like a good solution, though it might be overwhelmed with boats. The idea that owners of derelict boats should be financially responsible sounds good on the surface, but derelict boats generally have derelict owners. The cost of chasing them for money would likely far exceed the money you could squeeze out of them.

Thats the unfortunate realiy of the situation.


Maybe, as much as I hate to suggest it, insurance or a bond that is part of purchase and registration to cover removal should it become necessary? Perhaps structured such that buyer A gets the cost of the bond back when buyer B takes possession and so on down the line. Each owner need not face the full cost of their boat's removal. Something like any insurance works, shared risk. The concept I'm thinking of the bond or coverage stays with the boat in the same way the MMSI does.

 

[slowgoesit]

Actually, as part of every annual boat registration in Washington State, there is a surcharge for "Derelict Vessel Removal". Each and every year. Unfortunately the funds collected are not fenced off, and they can be diverted to other purposes, which is what happened this year (2022) when the money was used to pay for fighting forest fires. Not sure what it will be diverted to next year after I pay my annual registration with next years Derelict Vessel Removal" surcharge.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Actually, as part of every annual boat registration in Washington State, there is a surcharge for "Derelict Vessel Removal". Each and every year. Unfortunately the funds collected are not fenced off, and they can be diverted to other purposes, which is what happened this year (2022) when the money was used to pay for fighting forest fires. Not sure what it will be diverted to next year after I pay my annual registration with next years Derelict Vessel Removal" surcharge.

Yes, that is a common occurrence in Wa state with taxes. Collected with the intention of being spent on a dedicated purpose but swept into the general fund and used anyway the govt wishes.