Scruffy boats to be disposed of....

[oldharry]

Accoding to an article in 'Sailing Today' (sorry Kim!) Dartmouth Town Council is 'looking towards bringing in snatch squads to haul away unsafe and tatty boats that are kept in the boat float and deemed to be a blight to the town centre'

The article details the charges to be levied for towing away and subsequent release - presumably modelled on the practice of removing illegally parked cars.

But what I want to know is a) what constitutes an 'unsafe' boat? How will they define that this or that boat is 'safe' or 'unsafe' ? Will a boat be deemed as 'unsafe' because she fails to carry the 'correct' safety gear? And if not, why not? For without flares, life jackets etc, her crew are clearly at serious risk if something goes wrong. Where will they draw the line?

And 'tatty' boats? We all know the result of extended sunlight causing fading particularly to dark blues and reds - they can look dreadful however carefully maintained. Will they be banned and towed away?

One can just imagine the scene: 'Ahoy Gipsy Moth (remember how battered she looked when she finally got back?) - you cant come alongside here sir, or you will be towed away and disposed of....'

Then, at whose risk? Towing is not always the easiest job - who pays if boats get damaged in the process, or are not properly secured and do 3rd party damage? I'll bet it wont be the Council!

Once again we have a rule imposed which operates entirely on the subjective opinion of those who are employed to enforce it... and I would guarantee that the pay offered will exclude anyone qualified to give a professional opinion on a boats condition.

"OK lads, the council has decided red does not fit the new harbour colour scheme, so we get shot of any red boats from now on...'

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Evadne]

Many of the so-called tatty boats in Dartmouth are simply covered in guano. Maybe the build-up of excreta is so bad in some cases that the boat becomes unstable, hence unsafe.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldharry]

So perhaps they ought to tow away (or shoot) the seagulls etc if they want a prettified town centre?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[summerwind]

Don't know if you've seen the pool in Dartmouth, but it really is full of cr*p and not all of it has come from the gulls!

I would NEVER agree that a man's boat be taken away from him, regardless of cosmetics, but there are quite a few boats that obviously haven't had any attention for years . I suspect that they only stay afloat because much of the accumulated water inside them drains out when the boat dries out, which it will during every tidal cycle. I also suspect that if the harbour authority did tow the "scruffy" boats away, many of them would not be reclaimed, whether there was a penalty involved or not.

On the opposite side of the river the creek has many similar boats - floating, sinking and sunk. Every now and again the authority dispose of the worst of them. Never heard of anyone complaining that their floaty thing has gone to the big yot haven in the sky.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[graham]

I can remember some years ago going up to Bristol for the harbour regatta.

It weas crowded as usual so we ended up right at the top of St Augustines Reach rafted up outside a permanently moored catamaran about 30 foot long.

Boat tidied up and going ashore clothes on in less than 5 minutes I stepped onto the cats deck and promptly stuck my foot through the totally rotten plywood.
Looking around the deck for a safeish route ashore I could see I wasnt the first to do it.

I should think the craft they are referring to at Dartmouth are abandoned ones that noone has paid any mooring fees on for years.
If not I had better get over the boat and whip all the ends of my fender lanyards and coil up the jib sheets nicely before I get wheel clamped or something.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[longjohnsilver]

Some of them are a real eye sore and have been like it for years. As the centre piece in the town they should serve them with some sort of notice and then remove.

The boat float should be an attraction, and it's anything but that at the moment.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ccscott49]

I totally agree with you, anybody who knows Dartmouth and the boatfloat well, would agree, mostly the peeps who have decent boats in there. I also agree it's about time they shot off some of the seagull population and stopped the bloody tourists from feeding the flying rats!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ccscott49]

They should also fit a lowering or fixed sill, so the boats would stay afloat, which would help matters, they could then get rid of the cloying mud in there.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[longjohnsilver]

such an obvious thing to do, why haven't they put on in? Wouldn't cost much.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[max_power]

Get rid of the Scruffy Sailors rather than the ...

boats say I .

There's just too many letting the side down these days. Perhaps we could even see footballers wearing slides in their hair some day ! God Forbid.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldharry]

Re: Get rid of the Scruffy Sailors rather than the ...

OK so Dartmouth has allowed itself to get in a mess. They already have the authority under the Docks and Piers Act 1844 to clear it up without the need for hit squads: or was this ST getting a bit of 'journalistic licence' and over dramatising the report - which did sound as though you would be penalised for scruffy topsides....

Over here in Chichester, any boat not showing a harbour dues plaque comes under suspicion, and will not last more than a few weeks before being towed away. I lost a perfectly good dinghy because the plaque had come off while I was abroad a few years back!

If Dartmouth has a problem with derelicts its down to the HM to tighten up on harbour dues and mooring fees, to sort it.

'He has the power'

<hr width=100% size=1>