Not reporting to customs in caribbean: report from lazybones

T

tcm

...
Joined
11 Jan 2002
Messages
23,958
Location
Caribbean at the moment
Visit site
St lucia: checked in and out. Then went to martinique. Didn't check in or out on return but only anchored in the bay. Oh, actually i only checked myself in, i remember now, cos it's cheaper to say you are singlehanded. Flew courtesy flag.

Martinique: checked in, but not out. Forgot, or too lazy, or can't remember. Flew courtesy flag.

Domenica. Anchored in the bay for three nights, only went ashore twice, didn't check in or out

Guadeloupe. Checked in, but er, not out.

Antigua: anchored off for four nights, went ashore every day a bit, didn't check in or out, flew courtesy flag nicely.

Barbuda: three nights anchored off, not checked in or out. All fine.

St barth's: the marina does the customs stuff for you. I didn't check out though. Or maybe they did that as well? Met a german couple who told us they spent half a day clearing into barbuda and almost a whole day clearing out cos everything in different places.

St maarten (dutch side) anchored off and customs boat came round asking if we had checked in, possibly cos i was flippin wearing french courtesy flag dammit. So went to check in, 40 dollars a week or part thereof, just to anchor in the bay. Two days later found berth on french side, and no nasty tax. Went to check out, and got nice bit of paper saying free to depart from the first booth. Started queing for summink else at another booth, queue of five with us at the back and nobody serving, so pretended to go look for passports, back on the boat, and ran away.
 
Very amusing but....
You are returning to Europe leaving behind a swathe of broken rules, so what you will no doubt retort. Well what will, and is happening, is that each country gets pissed off with the rule breaking and slowly and VERY surely implements a new and onerous system for the cruisers still here.
One example being Panama. It was possible to get a 90 day visa on arrival, renewable for another 90 days. Not anymore. The authorities have got so fed up with cruisers not checking in on arrival that they have shortened the visas to 30 days, with two more thirty days renewable periods and then you must leave.
So great TCM , you got one over on the authorities, saved a bob or two , thanks for the legacy you have left behind...

www.gerryantics.blogspot.com
 
I entirely agree, it isn't funny and leaves negative equity for others.

A number of islands and Venezuela do random checks, the ABC's are particlarly hot - the penalties can be serious so it's not worth messing about anyway.
 
workers of the world - cave in!

um, well okay, i was a bit tongue in cheek on some of those.

But I don't accept the direct causality you clearly do - that if everyone obeys all the rules then that leads to rules being relaxed, or held in place. It doesn't.

For example, sint maarten had loads of boats turned up and started imposing taxes, which funded more enforcers, so they've raised the taxes til they are now 40 dollars a week on any boat 10 -15metres and rising from there. Everybody pays up, and they help fund the patrol boats to fine people for breaking the 54mph speed limit (250dollars) or not having life jackets (250 dolars) and so on.

Whereas if a few more people stomped about in the tax grubbing office, moaned loudly about the 40 dollars just for anchoring and explained very carefully why they were leaving early AND to the dutch marinas why exactly they wouldn't be staying and chose the french side instead, things are more likely to change?

So it is more arguable that if people obey the rules, that's actually *more* likely to trigger more onerous rules, perhaps?

So, tax rates always go up - until the government gets a bit blown up or until there's a decent uprising, which there obviously won't be from the sound of it, ahem.

But a protest (frinstance the passive popular support for uk fuel strike in 2000) is likely to trigger a climbdown by the rules makers and rule enforcers. Maybe.

Oh alright i will do a bit more paper work in future.
 
Re: Caribbean complaining or co-operating?

"um, well okay, i was a bit tongue in cheek on some of those".

How about re-writing the previous report and explaining which are true and which are a bit tongue in cheek?

As Gerry and Kelly's Eye have mentioned above, the Authorities in all of the islands will quite happily throw the book at people who obviously and blatantly break the rules, if they do a random check and find these people.
Generally, the Authorities want to have an easy life - I am thinking in particular of the laidback (but efficient) Customs and Immigration in Marin, Martinique - checking in was very straightforward and painless the last time I was there.
All of the English speaking islands are generally more bureaucratic (especially Antigua! Grit your teeth here), with more forms to fill out, but that is perhaps just a legacy of their colonial heritage...... but remember that the rules are not necessarily written by the folk handling the mundane paperwork.

St Maarten - its a classic case of supply and demand. The Authorities probably think that yachties are a pain in the butt really, especially in comparison to the number of cruise ship pax who arrive everyday and spend lots of dosh in the duty free shops.
OK, us yachties know that said yachties do make a significant contribution to the economy, but if Authority does not want to believe this, they wont, preferring instead to bow to the wishes and desires of the cruise ship operators and passengers, while regarding yachties as unnecessary hassle.
They know that the VERY BIG yachts will still visit, and as they are effectively small cruise ships, they will be made welcome.

So in St Maarten they will quite happily raise taxes and charges, hoping to get rid of some of the more impoverished yotties, and if they chase away some of the more affluent ones as well, no worries, there are still lots more out there who will still come, as well as the cruise ship pax.

You said "Whereas if a few more people stomped about in the tax grubbing office, moaned loudly about the 40 dollars just for anchoring and explained very carefully why they were leaving early AND to the dutch marinas why exactly they wouldn't be staying and chose the french side instead, things are more likely to change?"

Have you tried this tactic? Did the Authorities immediately back track and start to grovel, apologising for upsetting you, and trying to get you to stay? I dont think so.... their probable reaction would be to politely suggest that the Complainer should Foxtrot with Oscar. They dont need the business of the Complainer.
And then if folk do start to blatantly break rules, then the Authorities feel they have to step up the tempo a bit, impose fines etc, cos rules are rules, and this action hacks off the law abiding cruisers even more.

So PLEASE - everybody, just grit your teeth and co-operate with the Officials, no matter how bureaucratic they appear to be and how senseless their rules are - they are only trying to do their job, and mutual co-operation can only make life easier for the Crats, who will then generally be nicer to the yachties.

And if you dont like it, well, there is always another port downwind within easy reach - the Crats are not going to be too bothered to see your transom disappearing over the horizon.

In fact, there is a very nice place a bit off the beaten track - although it is about 100 miles to windward of the Windwards, everybody who visits this island invariably falls in love with the place, and stays much longer than originally intended. This wee island would love to have more visitors. No public marina yet, but anchoring is free, fees charged are reasonable, and the folk who live there have a reputation for being friendly.
 
another good man doing nothing?

well, they were a bit flummoxed as i loudly ouched and whinged about the 40 dollars in the queue, which was amusing enuf for those also paying 40 (or a lot more) and for those behind the desk too. You don't have to be outright nasty.

Though yes, most people do as you suggest and meekly pay taxes, often for no good reason other than they got guns and taxpayers don't, and if you don't you can foxtrot oscar, as you say. And hence they put the initially small taxes up, the world over, so that the congestion charge in london uk used to be 5quid and less that a decade later it's 25quid for some, becos not many protested or said a word, but er "grind their teeth", which ain't protesting at all, really? How much would it6 have to be before you said anything? How about 400 dollars? Would that get you to say "ahem" quietly, or perhaps at least have a little cough when they told you how much?

The marinas also got the message that the tax on top made their marinas more expensive.

Go on then, re barbados "No public marina yet, but anchoring is free, fees charged are reasonable..." ...what charges are there?
 
Re: another good man doing nothing?

Sorry, didnt think I was being outright nasty, but apologies if I was.

US$40 is about 20 quid for a week (or 3 per night) - how much would it cost for you to drop your catamaran's hook for a week in any of the famous anchorages on the south coast of England where you have to pay to anchor? I am sure it would be considerably more than GBP 20.....

Re the congestion charge in London, wasn't the aim of this to reduce congestion (ie basically tell people to foxtrot oscar if they didnt want to cough up)?
So if they do reduce congestion, then that must be some sort of success?

If St Maarten were to charge $400 per week (or even per month) for anchoring, I would just decide that I would not worry to go there - there are lots of other (perhaps nicer - and cheaper!) places in the Caribbean to see as well.

Re Barbados, I think that the rates are still US$ 25 per boat for Customs clearance in and out, plus a small fee for light dues which is calculated on gross tonnage, hence is just a few dollars. So for a total of approx US$ 30 in fees to the Crats, your fine ship and her crew could anchor here for a month or so quite happily (plus pocket money of course for the odd Banks beer and roti ashore).
 
Re: another good man doing nothing?

Bahamas is the obvious example here, which now charges $300 for a cruising permit. When they hiked the charges three years ago, there was a brief protest movement but it didn't seem to last. Florida yachtsmen I've talked to recently have become accepting, and probably no less inclined to visit.

There was a broad hint at the time that the Bahamas was quite happy to deter what they saw as cheapskate boaters. Though the actual press release was of course dressed up in the PC language of environmental protection.

I wouldn't be surprised if all the Caribbean islands shortly go down the route of charging what they think the market will bear, rather than covering costs.
 
What a shame about St Maarten, one of my favourites. Been lots, but not for a couple of years. Has obviously changed a lot, used to be very relaxed and friendly. I suppose the cocentration on super yacht visits has prompted the attitude change, guess the wealthy customers dont like being so close to us oiks!!
Still, there is always the French side and the sights at Orient Bay.......
 
clarification, sorry

sorry, i meant that when protesting one did not need to be outright nasty. Not that you were being nasty.

Um, not many anchorages in uk are chargeable. I can only think of scillies and river dart on whole uk south coast. The french seem to have it as part of their constitution that the coastline is free to use and common to all, or something republicified i spose.

I agree marin martinique very neat and easy checkin, and so i did. The charges at st maarten dutch side though really do rise to sooper dooper levels for larger yachts, and for no real reason other than people seem to be okay about paying it, often (for larger boats) paid crews very happy to spend other people's money eg running aircon 24 hours a day.

So, i will not be gritting my teeth and bearing it quuite as readily as you ask. I will be blimmin asking exactly why it's twenty quid to use my anchor when their marginal costs of me being there in the bay are absolute zero.
 
Re: clarification, sorry

Must admit I was thinking about the River Dart in particular re anchoring charges on the south coast, and was thinking there must be other places as well, apart from the Scillies, but probably not.
Same as St Maarten, I guess they impose this anchorage fee because they know that they are a very popular place to be with yachties, and they know that the market will stand it.

Good on yer re not gritting your teeth re the charges in St Maarten - and good luck in your dialogue (thats another popular pc word nowadays) with the Maartians!
Although I am pessimistically thinking that nowt will come of it. Cos it seems like they really dont want perceived rabble like us. Which is very short-sighted - it only takes one slight hiccup somewhere to turn away the cruise ships, and then the Maartians will be clamouring for visitors......
 
Re: clarification, sorry

Well, TCM, I wish you had just obeyed the rules instead of being smart. It's possible (I think) to anchor off and fly a yellow duster if you don't go ashore. On a slightly different tack, from my previous stint in the Caribbean I really don't think that 'liveaboards' contribute much to the local economy compared to cruise ships and charterers who are there on holiday with their wallets. A chum of mine in the islands at the moment tells me it won't be like I remember it from 13 years ago....more crowded, more charter boats etc...us impoverished 'sea people' will get pushed to one side until the world economy goes a bit tits up, then we'll be welcome back. Until then, keep you're head down, don't annoy the local officialdom and remember IT'S THEIR COUNTRY.
 
Re: clarification, sorry

>I really don't think that 'liveaboards' contribute much to the local economy compared to cruise ships

Sorry but that's wrong. On a general tourist level St Lucia discovered (by research) that one cruising boat delivers to the local economy roughly the income delivered by two to three hotel rooms in any one week, without the building costs or environmental damage. They also discovered that cruise ships bring almost nothing to the local economy - a few taxis and tours mainly. Otherwise it's all shopping in the duty free area where some locals are employed but profits go generally to the overseas companies who own the shops.

It's why St Lucia is yacht friendly, they know where the money comes from.
 
Re: clarification, sorry

Well, somebody's cruising budget is bigger than mine /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
If the research is based on chartered boats I'd agree (having done it). On holiday, going home to a job to pay off the plastic 'one' tends to spend for[insert your home country]. No job and cruising, boy do I watch the pennies!
 
Re: clarification, sorry

>somebody's cruising budget is bigger than mine

For starters most boats in the Caribbean are American. Also we rarely see (1 in 100?) boats on a really tight budget and if they are they tend to be young. Most cruisers have had good jobs, sold their business, got a pension, rent out property etc etc. That's not to say you can't do it on a low budget and still have fun but it does help explain the St Lucia figures.

Also once you get out of the girly sailing areas (e.g. BVI) there are far more cruising boats than charter boats, probably by a factor of at least 20 to 1.
 
Not very clever tcm. They may be small countries, but you are the visitor and need to treat them and their officials with respect. Dress appropriate for a government office not the beach and you'll get served faster.

A polite comment and a smile goes a long way to ease one's arrival in a new country. If you can't hack the immigration and customs business sail in the EU.
 
Good job you don't show your boat name on the profile tcm, or I suspect some agle eyed official would be seeking you out when you next landed.

Interestingly, late last year when one St Vincent official was asked about robbery on visiting yachts and what the officials were doing about it, he said they actually took the trouble to make sure anchored visitors were added to the local police boat patrol list.

Of course if you've not checked in as you should, this would not be possible - and in the event of a crime, I've no doubt any lack of police presence would be blamed.

So whilst we know we've all done similar things at some stage, maybe best not to encourage others less travelled to do the same and take the risks of not checking in / out as required by law.

JOHN
 
St Vincent is quite interesting on yacht crime. I don't know if the situation is the same now but two years ago
The St Vincent and the Grenadines government were encouraging yachts to use their weapons.

For example an English couple we met, who own a catamaran and have run a charter business there for twelve years, were boarded one night but chased off the intruder. They informed the coastguard who gave them a hard time for not shooting him (the coastguard knows them well and knows they are armed).

The following night the English couple saw the same bloke board the vessel next to them, so they called the coastguard again. After fifteen minutes there was no sign of the coastguard so they decided to get in their dinghy and chase the thief off. He saw them coming and jumped in his own dinghy and headed towards the beach with them in hot pursuit. At this point the coastguard boat turned up and the next thing they heard was "everybody freeze" followed by the double-click of a machine gun being cocked. This was followed by bullets flying overhead as the Coastguard raked the bushes at the top of the beach, into which the thief had disappeared. The next morning they found a lot of blood but the thief got away and this time they got a real rollocking from the coastguard for not shooting him themselves.

They said to us that the St Vincent Prime Minister had been on television to advise the population that it would be foolish to try to rob cruisers, because they are generally armed, and if any local person is shot by a cruiser the government/police wouldn't want anything to do with it.

They weren't the sort of people to make up stories, indeed they said they would only use their weapons if their lives were being threatened - which they weren't. But it may have changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top