Dan_Millsip
Paddler
Yeah, I can't argue that (and I'm not).rider said:
That's a good analogy and a good point. But I think Ken's post is more about a "what if" situation. Just something for consideration.
*****
-
We apologize for the somewhat convoluted sign-up process. Due to ever-more sophisticated attacks by chatbots, we had to increase our filtering in order to weed out AI while letting humans through. It's a nuisance, but a necessary one in order to keep the level of discourse on the forums authentic and useful. From the actual humans using WCP, thanks for your understanding!
Does a Tanker Moratorium have implications for kayaks
- Thread starter ken_vandeburgt
- Start date
*****
Dan_Millsip
Paddler
I think this statement by Ken is worth some consideration.ken_vandeburgt said:
We all know that as soon as this sort of legislation is introduced, there are many who would like to use that legislation to accomodate their own agendas. And Ken is right, there are people who would like to keep kayaks out of certain waters -- not everyone sees kayaks and kayakers as we do.
*****
Rider wrote: Do you honestly, for a second think you're comparing apples to apples here? Exactly!
ADave wrote:
He is not getting much in the way of reasoned discourse from folks who respond. I admire his patience and restraint. I do not admire ad hominem sniping and factless responses.
True my post may have been a little harsh, but I did write it with some restraint. I just say it as it is and I am in no way trying to beat Ken up here. I am just shocked that someone would say what he said.
ADave wrote: A ban on kayaking in Johnstone Strait would really put a crimp in things, wouldn't it? I'd think that might be an important concern.
If there was a good reason to ban kayaking in Johnstone Strait, I am sure it would be for a good reason ( say saving the whales) then so be it.
ADave wrote:
He is not getting much in the way of reasoned discourse from folks who respond. I admire his patience and restraint. I do not admire ad hominem sniping and factless responses.
True my post may have been a little harsh, but I did write it with some restraint. I just say it as it is and I am in no way trying to beat Ken up here. I am just shocked that someone would say what he said.
ADave wrote: A ban on kayaking in Johnstone Strait would really put a crimp in things, wouldn't it? I'd think that might be an important concern.
If there was a good reason to ban kayaking in Johnstone Strait, I am sure it would be for a good reason ( say saving the whales) then so be it.
Dan_Millsip
Paddler
Who gets to decide what is "good"?waverider said:
That's the rub.
*****
Here is a copy of Bill-C571
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (prohibition against oil tankers in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound)
WHEREAS the transportation of oil in oil tankers in certain areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada poses a risk to the marine environment;
Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la marine marchande du Canada (l'entrée Dixon, le détroit d'Hécate et le bassin Reine-Charlotte interdits aux pétroliers)
Attendu que le transport d’hydrocarbures par pétrolier dans certaines régions de la mer adjacentes à la côte canadienne pose un risque pour le milieu marin,
2001, c. 26
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Sa Majesté, sur l’avis et avec le consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, édicte :
2001, ch. 26
1. Section 185 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
1. L’article 185 de la Loi de 2001 sur la marine marchande du Canada est modifié par adjonction, selon l’ordre alphabétique, de ce qui suit :
“in bulk”
« en vrac »
“in bulk” means in a hold or tank that is part of the structure of the ship, without any intermediate form of containment.
“oil”
« hydrocarbures »
“oil” means petroleum in any form, including crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and refined products.
“oil tanker”
« pétrolier »
“oil tanker” means a ship that is constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil in bulk in its cargo spaces.
« en vrac » Dans une cale ou une citerne faisant partie de la structure du navire, sans contenant intermédiaire.
« en vrac »
“in bulk”
« hydrocarbures » Le pétrole sous toutes ses formes, notamment le pétrole brut, le fioul, les boues, les résidus d’hydrocarbures et les produits raffinés.
« hydrocar- bures »
“oil”
« pétrolier » Navire construit ou adapté principalement en vue de transporter des hydrocarbures en vrac dans ses espaces à cargaison.
« pétrolier »
“oil tanker”
2. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 189:
2. La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après l’article 189, de ce qui suit :
Prohibition
Interdiction
Prohibition
189.1 (1) No person shall transport oil in an oil tanker in the areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada known as Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait or Queen Charlotte Sound.
189.1 (1) Il est interdit de transporter des hydrocarbures par pétrolier dans les régions de la mer adjacentes à la côte canadienne connues sous les noms d’entrée Dixon, de détroit d’Hécate et de bassin Reine-Charlotte.
Régions interdites
Clarification
(2) The areas of the sea referred to in subsection (1) are those areas included within Zone 3 as described in the Fishing Zones of Canada (Zones 1, 2 and 3) Order made under the Oceans Act.
(2) Les régions de la mer visées au paragraphe (1) sont celles décrites dans la zone 3 du Décret sur les zones de pêche du Canada (zones 1, 2 et 3) pris en vertu de la Loi sur les océans.
Précision
3. Subsection 191(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):
3. Le paragraphe 191(1) de la même loi est modifié par adjonction, après l'alinéa c), de ce qui suit :
(c.1) section 189.1 (prohibition against operation of oil tanker in specified area); and
c.1) à l’article 189.1 (interdiction d’exploiter un pétrolier dans une région interdite);
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (prohibition against oil tankers in Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound)
WHEREAS the transportation of oil in oil tankers in certain areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada poses a risk to the marine environment;
Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la marine marchande du Canada (l'entrée Dixon, le détroit d'Hécate et le bassin Reine-Charlotte interdits aux pétroliers)
Attendu que le transport d’hydrocarbures par pétrolier dans certaines régions de la mer adjacentes à la côte canadienne pose un risque pour le milieu marin,
2001, c. 26
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Sa Majesté, sur l’avis et avec le consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, édicte :
2001, ch. 26
1. Section 185 of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
1. L’article 185 de la Loi de 2001 sur la marine marchande du Canada est modifié par adjonction, selon l’ordre alphabétique, de ce qui suit :
“in bulk”
« en vrac »
“in bulk” means in a hold or tank that is part of the structure of the ship, without any intermediate form of containment.
“oil”
« hydrocarbures »
“oil” means petroleum in any form, including crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and refined products.
“oil tanker”
« pétrolier »
“oil tanker” means a ship that is constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil in bulk in its cargo spaces.
« en vrac » Dans une cale ou une citerne faisant partie de la structure du navire, sans contenant intermédiaire.
« en vrac »
“in bulk”
« hydrocarbures » Le pétrole sous toutes ses formes, notamment le pétrole brut, le fioul, les boues, les résidus d’hydrocarbures et les produits raffinés.
« hydrocar- bures »
“oil”
« pétrolier » Navire construit ou adapté principalement en vue de transporter des hydrocarbures en vrac dans ses espaces à cargaison.
« pétrolier »
“oil tanker”
2. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 189:
2. La même loi est modifiée par adjonction, après l’article 189, de ce qui suit :
Prohibition
Interdiction
Prohibition
189.1 (1) No person shall transport oil in an oil tanker in the areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada known as Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait or Queen Charlotte Sound.
189.1 (1) Il est interdit de transporter des hydrocarbures par pétrolier dans les régions de la mer adjacentes à la côte canadienne connues sous les noms d’entrée Dixon, de détroit d’Hécate et de bassin Reine-Charlotte.
Régions interdites
Clarification
(2) The areas of the sea referred to in subsection (1) are those areas included within Zone 3 as described in the Fishing Zones of Canada (Zones 1, 2 and 3) Order made under the Oceans Act.
(2) Les régions de la mer visées au paragraphe (1) sont celles décrites dans la zone 3 du Décret sur les zones de pêche du Canada (zones 1, 2 et 3) pris en vertu de la Loi sur les océans.
Précision
3. Subsection 191(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):
3. Le paragraphe 191(1) de la même loi est modifié par adjonction, après l'alinéa c), de ce qui suit :
(c.1) section 189.1 (prohibition against operation of oil tanker in specified area); and
c.1) à l’article 189.1 (interdiction d’exploiter un pétrolier dans une région interdite);
rider
Paddler
ken_vandeburgt said:
It's a chance i am more than willing to take. Potentially losing a small portion of our paddling areas is insignificant compared to death and disease that marine life would experience for decades after a tanker disaster.
Ken B
Paddler
Yes...the proposed legislation is specific about Oil transportation.
I think what Ken V. has been angling to is...could this be a slippery slope?
If implemented, what would be next?
Would eliminating all coastal commercial shipping be next?
How about restricting pleasure craft in some areas?
Never under estimate the power of well-funded specific interest groups...like commercial adventure companies wanting exclusive access to certain areas, or rich well-connected yachting 'Clubs' wanting to restrict kayakers in specific areas.
OK...that is what I think Ken V. is getting at.
I think what Ken V. has been angling to is...could this be a slippery slope?
If implemented, what would be next?
Would eliminating all coastal commercial shipping be next?
How about restricting pleasure craft in some areas?
Never under estimate the power of well-funded specific interest groups...like commercial adventure companies wanting exclusive access to certain areas, or rich well-connected yachting 'Clubs' wanting to restrict kayakers in specific areas.
OK...that is what I think Ken V. is getting at.
I smell a red herring
Gosh I rather like the idea. Kudos to Catherine Bell for coming up with such a sensible idea.
Ken in your experience don't you think it is better for oil tankers to be further offshore rather than closer ? You know things like ships breaking down and pilot error all happen from time to time so the further away from land allows a chance of recovering from such circumstances.
Would you be so kind as to tell us if you stand to gain career wise and financially if the oil and gas moratorium was lifted in BC waters ?
ken_vandeburgt said:
Gosh I rather like the idea. Kudos to Catherine Bell for coming up with such a sensible idea.
Ken in your experience don't you think it is better for oil tankers to be further offshore rather than closer ? You know things like ships breaking down and pilot error all happen from time to time so the further away from land allows a chance of recovering from such circumstances.
Would you be so kind as to tell us if you stand to gain career wise and financially if the oil and gas moratorium was lifted in BC waters ?
Ken B
Paddler
In my opinion, that question is off base redcedar!
:?:
rider
Paddler
Not really, it's all about what's at stake for us as people, us as kayakers, and marine life.Ken B said:
RedCedar : wrote : Would you be so kind as to tell us if you stand to gain career wise and financially if the oil and gas moratorium was lifted in BC waters ?
thats the first question that my second half asked me when I told her about all this.
thats the first question that my second half asked me when I told her about all this.
Astoriadave
Paddler
Back to the main issue: aren't there bodies of water off-limits to civilian vessels? Aren't there bodies of water off-limits to military vessels?
I believe most (all?) of these are enclosed bays, however, not over "open" waters or straits, except for military ranges such as the one north of Nanaimo where torpedo testing is done. That one is off-limits only during tests, which are announced on the VHF. During wartime, closures are enforced by military fiat.
I'm not so sure this is such a black and white issue.
Ken, are you aware of similar closures anywhere on the globe?
I believe most (all?) of these are enclosed bays, however, not over "open" waters or straits, except for military ranges such as the one north of Nanaimo where torpedo testing is done. That one is off-limits only during tests, which are announced on the VHF. During wartime, closures are enforced by military fiat.
I'm not so sure this is such a black and white issue.
Ken, are you aware of similar closures anywhere on the globe?
Astoriadave
Paddler
Oh, I forgot: my disclosure: I have no vested interest in offshore drilling or exploration, except that I consume petroleum, and depend on a reliable flow of it to maintain the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed.
Oh, wait, there is another one: my community lies on a navigable body of water across which liquefied natural gas-carrying tankers may soon sail, to terminals on land near me. I am opposed to the siting of the LNG terminals (for reasons of protecting human health and safety nearby); if it became possible to restrict their transits, I would benefit. [Note: while these vessels are disgorging their cargo, the waterway adjacent (the Columbia River and its shipping channel) will be closed to recreational and commercial traffic. I think this is one of the gray areas in this aspect of maritime law.]
Oh, wait, there is another one: my community lies on a navigable body of water across which liquefied natural gas-carrying tankers may soon sail, to terminals on land near me. I am opposed to the siting of the LNG terminals (for reasons of protecting human health and safety nearby); if it became possible to restrict their transits, I would benefit. [Note: while these vessels are disgorging their cargo, the waterway adjacent (the Columbia River and its shipping channel) will be closed to recreational and commercial traffic. I think this is one of the gray areas in this aspect of maritime law.]
Ken B
Paddler
Ken B said:
Isn't this a slippery slope?
Listen...deal with a person's view's straight up...you agree, you disagree, and why!
If someone wants to offer personal info up, that is their business...but to ask personal questions is WAY off-base in my book.
What's next?
- asking if someone has (or had) a substance abuse problem?
- what one's sexual orientation is?
- is one being treated for any psychiatric issues?
:roll:
Dan_Millsip
Paddler
Hmmm... I don't see where it's such a personal question.
Just my 2 cents.
*****
Just my 2 cents.
*****
Ken B
Paddler
Asking a person what he does for a living and/or for his financial investment info in a public forum is not personal?Dan_Millsip said:
I disagree.
Dan_Millsip
Paddler
Neither of those two things were asked.
Why not let Ken V decide whether or not he wants to reply to the questions?
*****
Why not let Ken V decide whether or not he wants to reply to the questions?
*****
ken_vandeburgt
Paddler
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,154
I do not stand to gain career wise or financially if the oil and gas exploration moratorium or the tanker moratorium were lifted in BC waters.
I have an investment portfolio that does include some shares in oil, gas, and coal bed methane companies. I'm pretty sure that their operations are not affected either way by the subject bill.
My overriding interest is continued unrestricted access to the sea as a sea kayaker.
Canada has recently changed the Shipping Act. The Boating Restriction Regulations were repealed in April 2008. They are replaced by Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations. There are many boating restrictions on lakes and rivers. There is only one closure to all boats that applies to kayaks on the salt chuck; that is at Porteau Cove.
Shipping Act 2001:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... 1/menu.htm
Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... 001-11.htm
There is a voluntary boating restriction in Robson Bight. I have heard stories that the BC Parks crew gets overzealous in chasing small craft and telling them there is a 'boating restriction' while leaving out the 'voluntary' part. BC has set aside the foreshore as an ecological reserve as Orca whale habitat. BC would dearly love to have the authority to restrict all vessel traffic here.
BC Parks page on Robson Bight ecological reserve:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/eco_re ... nb_er.html
I think restricting whale watching activities in Johnstone Strait would be a good idea. I don't think closing the area to kayaking is a good idea though. What if you are merely intending to circumnavigate Vancouver Island? As it is with Robson Bight; if you intend to comply with the voluntary restriction you must needs cross the windy and turbulent Johnstone Strait twice whilst dodging cruise ships and other vessels. This becomes a safety issue.
Therein lies the root of my problem with closures. I might agree with the idea of a non-voluntary closure at Robson Bight except that it affects other trips where Robson Bight is part of the route and not the destination.
The military closures at WG and WH are done for safety reasons. The Canadian Navy has implemented a 500 meter no go zone around its ships. This applies in Esquimalt Harbour due to fears of terrorist acts. It probably also applies to port visits or when tied to a buoy in places like Toquart Bay. Not sure what regulations, if any, apply in either case.
I'm not aware of any other restrictions on BC's coast and, in light of the references provided, am confident that there are no others. Let's keep it that way.
I'm not at all conversant with regulations pertaining to closure to navigation elsewhere in the world.
I have an investment portfolio that does include some shares in oil, gas, and coal bed methane companies. I'm pretty sure that their operations are not affected either way by the subject bill.
My overriding interest is continued unrestricted access to the sea as a sea kayaker.
Canada has recently changed the Shipping Act. The Boating Restriction Regulations were repealed in April 2008. They are replaced by Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations. There are many boating restrictions on lakes and rivers. There is only one closure to all boats that applies to kayaks on the salt chuck; that is at Porteau Cove.
Shipping Act 2001:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... 1/menu.htm
Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/GE ... 001-11.htm
There is a voluntary boating restriction in Robson Bight. I have heard stories that the BC Parks crew gets overzealous in chasing small craft and telling them there is a 'boating restriction' while leaving out the 'voluntary' part. BC has set aside the foreshore as an ecological reserve as Orca whale habitat. BC would dearly love to have the authority to restrict all vessel traffic here.
BC Parks page on Robson Bight ecological reserve:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/eco_re ... nb_er.html
I think restricting whale watching activities in Johnstone Strait would be a good idea. I don't think closing the area to kayaking is a good idea though. What if you are merely intending to circumnavigate Vancouver Island? As it is with Robson Bight; if you intend to comply with the voluntary restriction you must needs cross the windy and turbulent Johnstone Strait twice whilst dodging cruise ships and other vessels. This becomes a safety issue.
Therein lies the root of my problem with closures. I might agree with the idea of a non-voluntary closure at Robson Bight except that it affects other trips where Robson Bight is part of the route and not the destination.
The military closures at WG and WH are done for safety reasons. The Canadian Navy has implemented a 500 meter no go zone around its ships. This applies in Esquimalt Harbour due to fears of terrorist acts. It probably also applies to port visits or when tied to a buoy in places like Toquart Bay. Not sure what regulations, if any, apply in either case.
I'm not aware of any other restrictions on BC's coast and, in light of the references provided, am confident that there are no others. Let's keep it that way.
I'm not at all conversant with regulations pertaining to closure to navigation elsewhere in the world.
Ken B
Paddler
That's how I read it!Dan_Millsip said: