close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

New $800 Boating Permits!

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Erterbass, Jun 7, 2007.

  1. Erterbass

    Erterbass Ohio Angler

    714
    0
    721
    You need to check this out and vote.

    http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

    If you own a boat that exhausts water or returns water - like live well or bilge water - back into the waterway you will be paying annual fees of $800 or more if this new ruling isn't overturned. This is not an internet fraud or other joke - my brother-in-law is a rep for MasterCraft, one of the major ski and wakeboard boat companies, and he confirmed to me last night that this ruling would have huge implications for ALL recreational boating. Be sure to click through the link and then send an email to your Congressional representative so that your voice is heard.

    This affects all of us even here in Ohio - it's a nationwide law, not just California :mad: .

    Bob
     
  2. does this include outboard cooling water?
     

  3. Seems to include cooling water, bilge water, livewell water, any water that enters and subsequently exits your boat. Gentleman in the interview mentioned waves over the bow that drain back into body of water, guessing through scuppers or what have you.

    If they will give me free fuel for my boat I will pay the $800 a year. Till then I will become a Pirate/renegade.
    "Prepare to put one across their bow!"

    Huntinbull
     
  4. Erterbass

    Erterbass Ohio Angler

    714
    0
    721
    Yep, you're right Huntinbull. You get on some 5 footers on Erie and the waves breaking over the bow go into the bilge and then gets pumped out - that's discharge and is covered by this insane ruling.

    Bob
     
  5. once again.....a "government by the rich and FOR the rich"! this would surely push out the common man and make more room for the more "Affluent" folks! our system no longer works in our behalf.......
     
  6. Titanium Reel

    Titanium Reel Banned

    24
    0
    0
    Idiotic things like this sure make me glade I use a float tube.
     
  7. Agent47

    Agent47 Trying to pull it in!!!!

    375
    0
    721
    1976 , If your reading this here's your chance...PLUG THE HOLE IN THAT NEW BOAT BEFORE INSPECTION...LOL
    Forget I told you to put in a live well....
    Wow, interesting how all this goes now due to the internet, I am hearing about how the internet royalties board has a bill to increase rates on streaming radio for the internet and if we dont do something there then supposably im gonna loose my free yahoo launchcast and a few others. Think they all get together and do this instead of maybe going fishing ?
    I bet if they went fishing they wouldnt think of these ignorant laws.
     
  8. Thanks for letting us know. I sent my e-mail
     
  9. I don't understand this, this is nothing but pure stupidity. Why don't they do something useful like increase littering fines? What an outrageous amount they are asking for, it's hard enough for the average middle class person to go out and enjoy themselves anymore without the ridicilous gas prices draining the wallet, and now this?

    It's a shame this is what our system has evolved into. Greed has gotten the best of these people, and now hundreds of thousands and even millions of Americans must suffer not only financially, but deal with what seems to be a falling quality of life due to the ignorance of a select few.
     
  10. esox62

    esox62 BORN TOO LATE

    444
    1
    823
    unreal...sounds like peta pussies to me..im in, emails sent. this is not america.
     
  11. ezbite

    ezbite the Susan Lucci of OGF

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAOOOHAHAHAHAHAHAOOOOOWEEE!!from my cold dead fingers:D
     
  12. Lundy

    Lundy Staff Member

    9,910
    1,033
    2,398

    WHOA there fella!!!!

    I assure you this is coming from those that would like to evenly distribute the wealth. You know who I mean

    Please don't get confused on where this "stuff" originates. Wrong, wrong, wrong, you're pointing in the wrong direction across the isle
     
  13. I posted the stuff below on a discussion of this topic that was in the boat and motor board a few weeks ago. I think its worth repeating. ....


    See this link for a transcript of the 2006 decision http://www.lclark.edu/org/peac/objec...injunction.pdf

    ok, ok, I know its a long dry document, and not the most stimulating reading in the world, but I would rather read the facts than go off of some video of a guy ranting about them thar environmentalists. When I see videos like that, I have to wonder why he thinks he knows so much, and who the heck is paying his way?
    Anyhow, I've only looked at the attached document, and I do note some important issues. 1) The lawsuit was against the EPA, because the EPA was not enforcing clean water laws that were already on the books. 2) the lawsuit was brought by several environmental organizations IN COOPERATION with Great Lakes states including PA, NY, MI, WI, and MN (see any important states missing?). 3) The plaintiffs recognized that many different sources from normal operation of a vessel can be recognized as pollution, but they "made no secret" that the intent of this lawsuit was to force the EPA into regulating ballast water discharge.

    Unfortunately, this is the way that the law works. There is a law already on the books that outlaws ballast water discharge, but unfortunately it covers all types of discharge. Nobody in government is going to sponsor a new bill covering only ballast water, so the only choice is to try to enforce the existing one. I think we all know how ballast water discharge has affected the great lakes and other waterways in this country, and the shipping companies are not about to control their own problem. Do you have a better solution? I will contact my representatives, but I will not tell them to oppose this measure. I will tell them that they need to interpret it carefully.
     
  14. I am just confused as to how water discharge from recreational boats has anything to do with our waterways being polluted. It's quite obvious they didn't think this over very well.
     
  15. esox62

    esox62 BORN TOO LATE

    444
    1
    823
    some more info on the story at my post on muskiefirst.com, why was this moved here?!?!?!? should be on the main board...
     
  16. Erterbass

    Erterbass Ohio Angler

    714
    0
    721
    Fishmeister has it right. I read the entire ruling and the judge basically threw out the existing law and its associated regulations since he ruled that the EPA was not enforcing the ballast water discharge as necessary.

    Since the original law was put on the books in 1970 the recreational boating industry has grown tremendously and has come under greater scrutiny (CARB regulations on marine engines, for example.) The problem lies with the wording of the existing law that doesn't really differentiate between ballast water discharge from large commercial ships and the livewell discharge or bilge outflow from your basic fishing boat.

    There are a lot of attacks on fishing and hunting rights, boating and other recreational activities these days. This is just one more example... :(

    Bob
     
  17. Before everyone goes crazy and says the liberals are trying to take your boats away or that the republicans are trying to gather up more money from the working man why doesn't everyone take a look at the actual facts here.

    The original plaintiffs (the environmental groups who sued) wanted ballast water from large international ships to be regulated. Why would they care? Well I have one word for you...gobies.

    The judges, interpreting the existing law, found that ALL discharges from ALL boats should be regulated by EPA and that EPA had overstepped its authority in granting a CWA exemption for ballast water.

    Now, what does this court want to happen? It seems to me that they want EPA to require NPDES (national pollutant discharge elimination system) permits for all vessels (regardless of size). This is where the $800 fee would come from (I suppose). This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and there is NO WAY that this will ever happen.

    The court gave responsibility for regulation to EPA. EPA has to come up with an acceptable resolution unless congress passes a law with its intentions laid out in very obvious terms (i.e. regulate ballast water from ocen going vessels but not from inland recreational boaters).

    So who is responsible?

    The environmental groups never wanted to affect recreational boaters.
    The court interpreted the CWA VERY strictly.
    The US Congress hasn't addressed this issue in the CWA in 30+ years.

    What will happen? Congress will pass an amendment to the CWA exempting all vessels from the CWA and will strengthen existing laws regulating ballast water discharge.