Motor into any marina, listen to the talk on any dock, and it seems like everyone has an opinion about whether recreational boaters should be licensed. While you might say "drivers need licenses, why not boaters," there are passionate supporters on both sides of the issue. For the most part, it's a debate that pits general safety against the creation of a law that, in my opinion, would hinder more than help by placing a heavy burden on many boaters.
I think there's a better way.
LAW AND ORDER
Rather than creating a licensing law, I believe it is time to create a minimum standard qualification for boat operation, which could be obtained after completing a U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Boating Skills and Seamanship Course. Without this qualification, would-be boat owners would be prohibited from getting bank loans to purchase or insurance to cover their vessels.
In addition, insurance policies would only cover accidents that occur when a boat is operated by a certified owner, or another adult who has the proper credentials from a boating class. It would also be illegal for anyone under the age of 16 to operate a power boat, or for anyone under the age of 12 to operate a non-motorized sailboat or rowboat.
After all, most of us received extensive training before we got our driver's licenses, so why not require at least as much to promote boating safety? Currently, Insurance companies give a discount on insurance premiums to those who have graduated from boating safety courses. Why not just require basic education for everybody up front?
MOVE OR BE MOVEDÂ
That training certainly would have come in handy during a near-collision I recently witnessed on the San Joaquin River.
It was there that I passed a bass boat that was unwittingly anchored dead-center in the river's main commercial shipping channel. It seemed the boat's captain was unaware that under US law it is illegal to anchor and fish in a navigable channel.
That's because the main channel on navigable waterways is reserved for commercial vessels only. The Narrow Channel Rule is very specific when it says "A vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway." It goes on to say "Every vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid anchoring in a narrow channel."
Therefore, sport fishing in a 16-foot skiff is not sufficient reason to anchor in the channel.
Of course, these anglers likely never took the U.S. Coast Guard-Auxiliary Boating Skills and Seamanship Class, so they didn't know that the Navigation Rules exist.
At about the same time we encountered the fishing boat, we noticed a large cargo ship approaching up river at 16 knots, accompanied by two tugs. Knowing the cargo ship would close the distance between us in less than four minutes, we diverted our course into the shallow waters just outside the main channel, in accordance with the navigation rules. By doing so we allowed the larger commercial ship, which is constrained by her draft, to maneuver in the narrow channel.
Yet, the bass fishermen just remained anchored in the channel. The fishermen saw the cargo ship coming but did nothing. Perhaps they once heard someone say "fishermen have the right of way," and figured "let him go around us." But the narrow channel prevented the ship from going anywhere but straight through.
Also, out of ignorance, the anglers had failed to hoist a black ball, which is a required signal under the Navigation Rules, which indicates to other vessels that a boat is anchored, not underway. They also failed to display markers to indicate that they are fishing. Those markers are required to be displayed on commercial fishing vessels in order to claim the Fisherman's Right of Way.
Because of all the miscues, the cargo ship's captain likely deduced that the fishing boat would move to the side of the channel, as is required of all vessels under 65 feet.
Still the angler just sat there, much like a drunk driver parked on a railroad crossing.
About three minutes from impact, the cargo ship sounded five short whistle blasts, an internationally recognized danger signal. Nevertheless, the fishermen clearly didn't know what the signal meant and continue to sit, unaware that the cargo ship is not going to slow down.
With less than sixty seconds on the clock before a collision occurred, the cargo ship whistled an additional five blasts and the fisherman finally realized that their lives were in imminent danger. With the lines still hanging over the side of their boat, they scrambled to get in their anchor and managing to surf away on the ship's bow wave.
It was way too close.
As the ship disappeared up river and we headed for the marina, we watched in disbelief as the fishermen reset their anchor in mid-channel.
Their actions were just crying out for a course on boating safety.
With all due respect, I think Alan is off the mark, so to speak. <grin> Usually that is a good thing, sadly not here.
Alan says he is opposed to boater licensing, but goes on to say:
> Rather than creating a licensing law, I believe it is time to create a minimum standard
> qualification for boat operation, which could be obtained after completing a U.S. Coast Guard
> Auxiliary Boating Skills and Seamanship Course.
Licenses are the classic way that governments certify completion of a qualification. Why bear the public costs of setting up an independent system? Many states already provide means for delegating license additions such as motorcycle and truck certifications to driver's licenses. That might be a means to apply the USCG Aux and USPS course certifications to an existing system that the states already have. The mechanism in Alabama cited in the original article to accept USCG merchant marine licenses is also a good model.Â
> In addition, insurance policies would only cover accidents that occur when a boat is operated
> by a certified owner, or another adult who has the proper credentials from a boating class.
That would be bad. If an uncertified person is driving a boat and hits someone else, is the innocent person to suffer financially because the striking boat's insurance underwriter has an out to cover the loss?
> <snip story about bass fisherman anchored in a channel>
The story is a good one. Unfortunately it is not practical to legislate against stupidity. People will do dumb things. That has been proven time and again.
It is also worth noting that the category of "fishing boat" in the navigation rules does NOT apply to casual recreational fisherman (including head boats), regardless of the number of lines being dragged through the water. It only applies to boats towing nets and other large apparatus that truly restrict the ability to manuever.
> The Narrow Channel Rule is very specific when it says “A vessel engaged in fishing shall
> not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.â€
Based on the story as told, the bass fisherman does not qualify as "a vessel engaged in fishing."
In my opinion the time has come for something to be done. I don't know what the best course may be, but I do believe that state licensing is one option that should be carefully considered.Â
Sounds like you're splitting hairs, Alan. Call it what you will, but like the guy above me said (in less words) you make it very clear something needs to be done, whatever we call it.
I have been involved with boats for over 45 years, both commercially and pleasure and have seen the competency of the average boater operator diminish drastically over the years. This may sound trite, but back before GPS, Sea Tow,  computer control, bow thrusters, air conditioned flybridges, cell phones and all the technological breakthroughs, the average operator was more in tune with the operation of the vessel.
I am now a marina manager and am amazed almost daily that boats will call on a cell phone rather than the VHF for docking instructions,  most ask for an easy dock because they have trouble backing in or a number of other silly reasons that make you a better ship handler.Â
Some of the worst are the so called captains of some very large and expensive boats who seem unaware of how to use tide tables, spring lines to get off a dock, but boy can they make drinks and grovel to owners and guests.  The quality of the captains of today, sure some are great , makes me believe that a liscence will not cure the problems of boating. I find very few so called professionals  that I would let drive my boat.Â
It always amazes me that a boater in for service will gladly turn over the helm to someone who they do not know rather than run there own boat because thet have an engine out or they need to move to an area that they are not familiar with. Those are the very challenges we got into boating for.
I am not sure what the answer is, I think that tecnology is alot of the problem. When I think of the hours spent over paper charts and pencil and paper figuring courses, times and actually learning what you will encounter along the way, todays navigators are cheated out of alot of the enjoyment of boating. Now a few waypoints are punched in, the dockmaster is asked about the weather, sea tow is called for the proper route out the inlet and all is full speed ahead until they bang up there third set of props of the trip because the GPS said they were right in the middle of the channel. What they failed to realize is that the west wind has the water down two feet, the channel has shifted since the 1929 survey , a small boat sunk there a week which was mentioned on the notice to mariners but few people hear, and 23 knots is way too fast if you are not damned sure where you are.
One quick note about commercial traffic. As a former Great Lakes Pilot, I would much rather travel with a dozen commercial vessels than a group from a yacht club on a yearly cruise anyday. By listening to a couple VHF channels you will know what ships are there, where they are going, when they will be there and in nearly every case they will do exactly what they said they would do.
I know I sound jaded but it has actually become so bad in Florida anyway, that it is not fun anymore.  I find that very sad. Â
BOAT OPERATOR SKILLS: I agree with LANDFALL who said that the level of boater's operating skills has fallen off in the last few years. For many years I thought "everybody should be licensed". But, upon closer examination I found that requiring boat operator's licenses would adversely affect the boating industry, so I looked for a middle way.
AUSPICIOUS' point that in Alabama the state boater licensing laws are administered by the state DMV as an already existing organization would appear to save effort. But my experience with DMV's in numerous states is they are one of the most ineffecient organizations out there. I would not want to spend anymore tax dollars at the DMV, nor do I want to create another tax on boaters just to provide jobs for a few more civil servants.Â
Instead, the U.S.Coast Guard Auxiliary already exists as an integral part of the U.S. Coast Guard, complete with boater training and testing in place. The Auxiliary is an all volunteer organization of 38,000 boaters. All I am suggesting is that the Insurance Companies become self regulating, in only issuing policies to boaters who have demonstrated that they are safe risks, and in cooperation with the USCG-AUX., they can solve this problem. If all marinas require insurance coverage and everyone has to take the USCG-AUX, or Power Squadron boating safety class to get such coverage. The the current problems on the watter will mostly disappear.
Presebtly, in California where there is no licensing law, when a personal water craft operator gets his first ticket for improper operation (Most often they are ticketed for driving the PWC through the swimmers at a swimming beach) the PWC perator is restricted from operating their craft again until after they have successfully completed a Boating Class. This requires no effort on the part of the DMV, but is administered by the law inforcement agencies. Such law enforcement / USCG-AUX. cooperation already exists and could be expanded, with the help of the insurance industry, to cover all boaters.Â
I am just voicing an idea here about not licensing, because stating an idea can often have a powerful effect. For example, some years ago we had a problem in California with Bum Boat live aboards. Those people you might call "subsistence boaters", most of whom weren't boaters but just wanted a cheap place to live. Many of these folks were little more than homelsee drunks living on boats. To cure the problem local city jurisdictions were busy passing laws against all live aboards. But these laws also hurt the legitimate live aboard boaters (i.e. people with classy boats and real jobs who just chose to live on their yachts). So solve this problem by motivating market forces that could solve the prpoblem without legislating any more restrictive laws I wrote a series of articles stating that the solution was to merely require all boats in a marina to have insurance. My premise was that since most of the "bum boats" could never pass a survey and were therefore uninsurable, this would solve the problem through market forces. I got a great deal of hate mail from the bum boaters, but, Five years later almost every marina in the state requires insurance and the bum boats are gone. The majority of the remaining live aboards are legitimate citizens and not societal drop outs, so there is no longer any need for the anti-liveaboard laws. Such is the power of an idea.
With this non-licensing idea I am trying to move the existing free market forces to create regulation without government bureaucracy.Â
EFFECT OF NO INSURANCE: Unfortunately AUSPICIOUS' remark that disallowing insurance coverage hurts the innocent party if the boat is operated by an uncertified individual, ignores how the law of personal injury and property damages operates with marine insurance policies. For instance, on my boat's insurance policy I am covered for a million dollars when an uninsured boater causes an accident in which I am the injured party. So, frankly it is of no consequence to me the injured party if he is uninsured. My insurance company will pay me a million in damages and then sue him in court to collect their costs. He is the only one who loses by his being uninsured.
The simple fact is that anytime there is an accident, and coverage for the perpatrator is denied for any technical reason, the other boater has all the normal rights he ever had to sue for redress. Insurance only exists to protect the buyer of the policy from such lawsuits. The injured party can still attach the "guilty" boat owner's wages and property and even force sale of his home and other property to redress his injuries. All that insurance does is protect the buyer from lawsuits up to the limits of the liability. The insurance is not there for the "other party" as AUSPICIOUS seems to believe, but instead exists only to protect the boat owner causing the accident so that they won't suffer the loss of their house or wages.Â
SIZE OF FISHING VESSELS: Regarding the definition of fishing vessels, it is abvious that AUSPICIOUS' has read the COLREGS carefully. Personally, I am tested on these rules every time I renew my commercial Captain's license (I've had a Master's Ticket for over 20 years) So, I have them memorized. However, in trying to keep the article down to 1200 words or less I can not quote all the Navigation Rules verbatim, and also write a blog that will interest readers. So, I say only what needs to be said and then let the nit-pickers pick away, like they always do.
ANARCHY: I concede that you are right I am splitting hairs, but if your handle of ANARCHY indicates your political bent, then you might like to have less bureaucracy and more anarchy and allow the natural forces of the market take charge.
Capt. ALAN HUGENOT, AMS®, NAVAL ARCHITECT - MARINE SURVEYOR, Chairman, SNAME Motor Yachts & Service Craft Committee, ASA Sailing Instructor, Alanhugenot@madmariner.com