Sinking/sunk boat St Lawrence bay River Blackwater

[Jon4468]

One to avoid if you happen to be going through the moorings at St Lawrence. The old Black fishing boat which recently broke its moorings has now sunk.
I think there’s about 10-15’ of water there so once the last air pockets disappear it will end up submerged just below the surface.
Howard the Harbour master is aware of it but I’m guessing it will take some time for it to be moved to its next resting place.

 

[Plum]

One to avoid if you happen to be going through the moorings at St Lawrence. The old Black fishing boat which recently broke its moorings has now sunk.
I think there’s about 10-15’ of water there so once the last air pockets disappear it will end up submerged just below the surface.
Howard the Harbour master is aware of it but I’m guessing it will take some time for it to be moved to its next resting place.

Thanks. Hopefully the HM has notified the Coastguard of the navigational hazard and the potential fuel/oil contamination.

 

[Daydream believer]

What annoys me about that is the RNLI
The boat broke adrift a short while ago & was recovered by the RNLI. They then decided - without the consent of the mooring owner- to dump it on a private mooring. The owner of the boat can be considered a little unreliable as it had already gone walkabout before this due to poor anchoring technique.

What gives the RNLI the right to lumber a private mooring owner with this responsibility.

What has now happened is that not only has the boat sunk but the mooring has gone with it. When the boat is recovered, will the mooring be re laid & will the RNLI pay for it. Or will the owner have the hassle of recovering from the owner, who from discussions is possibly uninsured. Or will the recovery vessel- Arranged by Maldon if not sorted by the owner- deal with the relaying withing the charges?

The RNLI have done this to us before, with vessels that have not come from our moorings & i think it is wrong. Boats that go adrift are more likely the ones that are owned by the less careful & less likely to pay any bills. If they can be found in the first place. So dumping them on others is not how the RNLI should act.
If they want to go & rescue boats they should take them to a mooring under their control & undertake investigations from there. they can afford it & have the administrative wherewithall to do so.

 

[DanTribe]

What annoys me about that is the RNLI
The boat broke adrift a short while ago & was recovered by the RNLI. They then decided - without the consent of the mooring owner- to dump it on a private mooring. The owner of the boat can be considered a little unreliable as it had already gone walkabout before this due to poor anchoring technique.

What gives the RNLI the right to lumber a private mooring owner with this responsibility.

What has now happened is that not only has the boat sunk but the mooring has gone with it. When the boat is recovered, will the mooring be re laid & will the RNLI pay for it. Or will the owner have the hassle of recovering from the owner, who from discussions is possibly uninsured. Or will the recovery vessel- Arranged by Maldon if not sorted by the owner- deal with the relaying withing the charges?

The RNLI have done this to us before, with vessels that have not come from our moorings & i think it is wrong. Boats that go adrift are more likely the ones that are owned by the less careful & less likely to pay any bills. If they can be found in the first place. So dumping them on others is not how the RNLI should act.
If they want to go & rescue boats they should take them to a mooring under their control & undertake investigations from there. they can afford it & have the administrative wherewithall to do so.

I take your point but the RNLI's mission is to save lives at sea. In this case they were carrying out a free salvage operation.
I don't suppose there were any lawyers on board who could evaluate any future implications of their actions. Putting the boat on an empty mooring probably seemed like a sensible short term solution.

 

[Snowgoose-1]

Was the lifeboat tasked by the Coastguard .

 

[Daydream believer]

actions. Putting the boat on an empty mooring probably seemed like a sensible short term solution.

You mean lumbering someone with no thing to do with it, with a long term problem is a good idea.
How would you like it if it was your mooring that was seized & then lost?

 

[Daydream believer]

Was the lifeboat tasked by the Coastguard .

Lifeboats do not normally attend a shout without a call from the CG.
However, one doubts that the CG says, go & salvage a dodgy drifting boat & stick it on someone's mooring, then b..ger off home

 

[dunedin]

What annoys me about that is the RNLI
The boat broke adrift a short while ago & was recovered by the RNLI. They then decided - without the consent of the mooring owner- to dump it on a private mooring. The owner of the boat can be considered a little unreliable as it had already gone walkabout before this due to poor anchoring technique.

What gives the RNLI the right to lumber a private mooring owner with this responsibility.

What has now happened is that not only has the boat sunk but the mooring has gone with it. When the boat is recovered, will the mooring be re laid & will the RNLI pay for it. Or will the owner have the hassle of recovering from the owner, who from discussions is possibly uninsured. Or will the recovery vessel- Arranged by Maldon if not sorted by the owner- deal with the relaying withing the charges?

The RNLI have done this to us before, with vessels that have not come from our moorings & i think it is wrong. Boats that go adrift are more likely the ones that are owned by the less careful & less likely to pay any bills. If they can be found in the first place. So dumping them on others is not how the RNLI should act.
If they want to go & rescue boats they should take them to a mooring under their control & undertake investigations from there. they can afford it & have the administrative wherewithall to do so.

What was the RNLI’s response when you raised it with them?
(No point in venting your spleen on a forum where we have no connections with your local RNLI coxswain.)

 

[Daydream believer]

I am no longer the Clerk to the St lawrence Fairway Committee & HM, having done the job for 10 years. Cira 2003-2013 Hence it it it is not for me to deal with it.
However, as I am the one that lays nearly all the moorings for the owners, I do have sympathies with them if they incur problems due to others using their moorings.

Whilst I was the clerk, no RNLI boat dumped a boat on one of our Fairway member's moorings, thus lumbering them with a problem. I did have a couple of others, but managed to deal with fairly robustly.
I have had a man threatening my wife at my house when, I was out & I found her in tears on my return. Plus one who frightened her so much that she would not answer the door to him several times. People get very irate when told to move from a mooring which is not theirs. Even after several weeks- months even.

The current HM works hard for the mooring holders & really does not need any extra hassle.

 

[Jon4468]

To give this some context and to help understand @Daydream believer ’s frustration over the matter the boat has been at anchor just past the sailing club near the well managed fairway’s moorings for about 3 years. It occasionally has a couple of people fishing off of it but never moves ( intentionally)
Last year it sunk when it’s chain twisted and shortened, but it was only in shallow water so it was easily sorted. It then dragged its anchor and ended up in front of the sailing club which was a bit of a pain but no big deal. It broke its moorings about a month ago and was drifting up and down the river, fortunately not causing any damage to other boats.
The fairways moorings are probably the most economical moorings in the river and organised totally on a non profit basis so issues like this are a nuisance.

 

[Daydream believer]

For clarification- The owner does not pay the Fairway committee for his mooring site, but claims to pay Maldon council. Therefore, the minimum requirements of the mooring tackle, for which I was responsible for introducing, back in 2004, do not apply to his one.

 

[Pye_End]

River Baliff?

 

[Jon4468]

River Baliff?

Locked in his shed at Maldon Quay?
There’s a sad neglected Arvor 230 sitting in Bradwell marina with that title on it that I’ve never seen move.

 

[Daydream believer]

River Baliff?

In my term as Fairways Clerk, I was never really sure what the River baliff did. That being said Maldon did frighten the owner of a sunken yacht to the west of our site into having his boat recovered himself. They gave him a notice of recovery, inc admin & legal costs of cira £8k. The owner quickly paid Rick Cardy £1500 to deal with it. The wrecked yacht was dumped on the foreshore for a couple of years & the parrish council had issues with getting it moved

 

[Juan Twothree]

Lifeboats do not normally attend a shout without a call from the CG.
However, one doubts that the CG says, go & salvage a dodgy drifting boat & stick it on someone's mooring, then b..ger off home

The CG will sometimes task a lifeboat to deal with a drifting vessel which is, or could become, a hazard to navigation or to other vessels. Ideally they'd try to get another local boat to do it, but that isn't always possible.

It's a bit disingenuous to blame the RNLI for what subsequently happened in this case, and also to expect them to maintain a large number of empty moorings just on the off chance that they get tasked to a drifting vessel. That's not a sensible use of donations. Why can't the harbour authority keep a spare mooring for such a purpose?

I know it's fashionable to criticise the RNLI at every opportunity, but their options were very limited in this case.

 

[Jon4468]

The CG will sometimes task a lifeboat to deal with a drifting vessel which is, or could become, a hazard to navigation or to other vessels. Ideally they'd try to get another local boat to do it, but that isn't always possible.

It's a bit disingenuous to blame the RNLI for what subsequently happened in this case, and also to expect them to maintain a large number of empty moorings just on the off chance that they get tasked to a drifting vessel. That's not a sensible use of donations. Why can't the harbour authority keep a spare mooring for such a purpose?

I know it's fashionable to criticise the RNLI at every opportunity, but their options were very limited in this case.

Keep a spare mooring in case you need to accommodate a boat that has been anchored nearby for 3 years that doesn’t want to pay for a mooring?

 

[dunedin]

Keep a spare mooring in case you need to accommodate a boat that has been anchored nearby for 3 years that doesn’t want to pay for a mooring?

Inevitably we are heading for compulsory registration and compulsory third party and salvage insurance, due to the acts - or more often inaction - of an irresponsible minority of boat owners.

 

[Daydream believer]

Keep a spare mooring in case you need to accommodate a boat that has been anchored nearby for 3 years that doesn’t want to pay for a mooring?

So who pays the£ 500 for the gear & the £125 rental, plus the maintenance, laying, recovery etc? Then who insures the tackle. the committee provide sites for mooring holders to rent. It does not provide moorings. That is not in its constitution. The committee does not carry insurance for such either.
Why should the committee be responsible for boats left by their responsible outside their areas.
If we did do that we would have to make it known & every man & his dog with a sob story would want to use it
Provide a mooring-- I think not

 

[Juan Twothree]

So who pays the£ 500 for the gear & the £125 rental, plus the maintenance, laying, recovery etc? Then who insures the tackle. the committee provide sites for mooring holders to rent. It does not provide moorings. That is not in its constitution. The committee does not carry insurance for such either.
Why should the committee be responsible for boats left by their responsible outside their areas.
If we did do that we would have to make it known & every man & his dog with a sob story would want to use it
Provide a mooring-- I think not

So why do you expect the RNLI to do so?

 

[Daydream believer]

Inevitably we are heading for compulsory registration and compulsory third party and salvage insurance, due to the acts - or more often inaction - of an irresponsible minority of boat owners.

It will not stop the original owner of this boat ( I think it changed hands) doing what he has done without policing. There comes the rub. The sensible who already have what is needed pay more. The inconsiderate get away with it & pay zilch.
Is that not the story with many things?