Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

[QC]

Just got this from Boattest.com via email Act blocked by ONE senator

It appears that the impossible as just become possible again . . . I called Sen. Murkowski's office, and to her credit, they answered and spent a few minutes with me. There appears to be some confusion as to which commercial fishermen are to be exempted (small commercial in pleasure craft type boats vs. large commercial operators).

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME and this is VERY real

 

[dingbat]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

Barb Murkowski is a stand woman (Dem - Md.) She?s taking a stand to include family run charter boats in the legislation which I full hearty support.

These boats (6 -pack charter) are for the most part small family run operations that just barely squeak out a living is it is.

I'm count many of these captains as personal friends and I for one are happy that Barb stood up for these guys. As currently written the legislation as written would put the Maryland Charter fleet out of business



http://www.marylandcharterboats.com/

 

[cordell]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

I thought we were going to pull this off. I just e-mailed a piece of my mind to her!!!

cordell

 

[QC]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

dingbat, I am confused . . . LISA Murkowski is a Republican from Alaska . . . Coincidence? Based on the link, "pleasure craft" type boats used in a Charter business would be exempted under the current language . . .

 

[dingbat]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

dingbat, I am confused . . . LISA Murkowski is a Republican from Alaska . . . Coincidence? Based on the link, "pleasure craft" type boats used in a Charter business would be exempted under the current language . . .

I just assumed it was Barb. She's very vocal when it comes to protecting the Bay and Maryland's waterman. Someone attacking the charter fleet would surly set her off. Doubt she would give a darn about Alaska tho?

I'd be interested in what continues a "please craft". Have a link to the bill?

 

[QC]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

Clean Boating Act 2008

Based on my understanding, OUPV (Six Pack) vessels (uninspected) are exempt as written.

 

[dingbat]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

Thanks

 

[QC]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

Here is the language that exempts 6 packs:​

??(B) EXCLUSION.?The term ?recreational
vessel? does not include a vessel that is subject
to Coast Guard inspection and that?
??(i) is engaged in commercial use; or​

?(ii) carries paying passengers.??.​

Six Packs, or more correctly, any "uninspected" vessels would be exempt based on my understanding of the above wording.​

 

[External Combustion]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

I am confused QC. What part of "six passengers for hire" aka "six pack" is not "(ii) carries paying passengers"?

I also read that the regulations concerning exempted vessels will be promulgated within one year of passage of the bill and that recreational vessels will have to comply to the new rules. Very tenuous in my eyes.

 

[QC]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

I read it as "inspected" AND "carries passenegers for hire". Six Packs are UNinspected vessels, and the associated Captain's license is Operator of Uinspected Passenger Vessell (OUPV) . . . That's my take and it may be what the confusion is all about. I didn't see the one year deal. Looking now.

 

[QC]

Re: Clean Boating Act of 2008 Threatened

OK, here's how I spin that . . .

1st it says that the Administrator (EPA?)

??(i) I

N GENERAL.?The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary
of the department in which the CoastGuard is operating, the Secretary of Commerce, and interested States, shall deter
mine the discharges incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel for which it is reasonable and practicable to
develop management practices to mitigate
adverse impacts on the waters of the
8 United States.​

And then it says:​

Administrator shall develop management
practices for recreational vessels in any
case in which the Administrator determines that the use of those practices isreasonable and practicable.​

What that says to me is IF they all can agree on discharge that is "reasonable and practical" for them to develop ways to mitigate, then they can add that stuff to the permitting process. I don't think that means we are screwed in a year. It means to me that they will figure out it is NOT "reasonable and practical" and recreational vessels will remain exempt until they also determine the same thing 5 years later . . .​

My spin. What a mess, and those who subscribe to the Religion of Health and the Environment are to blame. And a Religion it truly is . . . ​