Conference vicki::boats

    
      The last I read about the Federal "Boat User Fee" was that it
    had died (again). It seems that this Federal fee has been proposed
    every year for the last 10! Maybe someday it will pass, but I hope
    not.
    
    re licenses: I'm not opposed to boat licenses in 'principle', but
    I shudder to think how screwed up the IMPLEMENTATION and Administration
    of boat licenses will be. One needs only look at the incredible
    level(s) of bureaucracy in a place like the Mass. Registry of Motor
    Vehicles.
        I can see it now, The Mass. Registry of Marine Vehicles.
    Complete with it's own offices, irate and rude personnell, it's
    own police force, inspectors, and patrol boats. GAWD! they'll have
    to raise rates just to pay for all that extra stuff!!! :^(:^(

    
    	Kenny_who_would_like_to_get_the_idiots_off_the_water_but_can't_
    think_of_a_way_that_the_state_WON'T_screw_up!

Mark,
I agree that these so called "user fees" are nothing more than just
unarmed robbery, since the money is not targeted to be spent on
boating programs.  But don't confuse that with any efforts to title
boats.

Boats are one of the easiest "big ticket" items to steal, since they
often sit on trailers in the owner's driveway.  No key is needed, just
a trailer hitch.  A little observation of your work schedule by a thief
will let him know when it's safe to back into your driveway, hitch up,
and be out of your state by the time you get home from work to see that
the boat's gone.  Once the boat is out of the state, you can just about
kiss goodbye any chance of ever seeing your boat again.  Very few stolen
boats are ever recovered.

This is because in most states you can register a boat with absolutely
no proof of ownership, serial numbers are never verified, etc...  I know,
because I registered a brand new in NH last year by just giving them the
serial number.  Titling obviously will not eliminate all chance of the 
loss of your boat and will not guarantee that you'll get it back.  It 
certainly hasn't done so for automobiles.  But as bad as auto thefts are,
think what the situation would be if re-registering a stolen car were as 
easy as just making up a serial number.  This is the situation as it
presently exists for boats.  Without titling there's no way of tracking 
an undocumented boat, no efficient way for states or police to exchange 
information (even with titling we all know that's wishful thinking at
best!).

I live in New Hampshire and have my boat registered there, so anything
the sorry state of Mass. does won't effect me.  But if NH ever considers 
this I'd gladly pay the $15 to title my boat if it increases my chances 
of getting it back if it's ever stolen.  This is a completely different
issue from federal "user fees".  Don't even talk to me about paying a 
user fee to the feds so they can plant trees while cutting the Coast
Guard's budget and services!

Rick W.
    

re .0	I think the Mass registry ALREADY shares records with the 
insurance companies - or it may be the (de)merit rating board.  
Anyway, Mightpay asked for the auto drivers' licence number of each and 
every person that will operate my boat - so I figure.......

	R	{lets ski today ?}

    
    Reg - I wonder what would have happened if you said that none of
    	the poeple driving your boat have a driver's license?
    
    
       I had a VERY interesting call from METPAY last night - they wanted
    to know the make a serial number of the *trailer* I'm using for
    my boat!!??  (They're insuring the boat)
    
           Why should it make ANY difference *what* (or whose) trailer
    I use for my boat?
    
    					Kenny

re            <<< Note 650.4 by CSMET2::CHACE "is it getting warmer?" >>>
>                       -< It gets stranger............ >-

>    Reg - I wonder what would have happened if you said that none of
>    	the poeple driving your boat have a driver's license?

	Right, like we're all under suspension for DWI ?  (-:, (-:
		I still have a Swiss licence (no, it doesn't have lots 
		of holes in it) that is a lifetime licence, I thought
		about giving 'em THAT number. 
    
>       I had a VERY interesting call from METPAY last night - they wanted
>    to know the make a serial number of the *trailer* I'm using for
>    my boat!!??  (They're insuring the boat)
    
>           Why should it make ANY difference *what* (or whose) trailer
>    I use for my boat?

	I didn't have any problem with that - I figure that one of the 
biggest risks with a new boat is tow-away theft of the whole damned
rig (see other notes) and insurance companies being "insurance
companies" the last thing I wanted was something along the line of:- 

	"The trailer and its contents were not insured.  We regard the
trailer as the vehicle.  We regard the boat as the contents of the
vehicle - therefore the boat was not insured against theft while it was
on the trailer....

	Oh, I'd  *_KILL 'EM_*  of course !

	Hey, just pay 'em and forget it  -  go enjoy Yer TOY !

	Reg

RE: ...a few back...
        
    > I can see it now, The Mass. Registry of Marine Vehicles.
    > Complete with it's own offices, irate and rude personnell, it's
    > own police force, inspectors, and patrol boats. GAWD! they'll have
    > to raise rates just to pay for all that extra stuff!!! :^(:^(

    Kenny, This organization, supported by Mass. Tax Dollars, is in
    place today. The group is called the Mass. Environmental Police.
    They are divided into two segments; Commericial and Recreational
    Boating Law Enforcement. They're the folks who issue the MS #'s.
    I believe they have 4 offices in MA.. They have a number of patrol boats
    originating out of Boston. Haven't you ever seen or heard of the
    'Jesse'.? 
            
RE: ...a couple back
    
> I think the Mass registry ALREADY shares records with the 
> insurance companies - or it may be the (de)merit rating board.  

    My boat insurer (Prudential) required ME to send for the driving records
    of my wife and I ($3.00/ea. from MA. Registry). They based a portion
    of the premium on the driving report....mad man/woman in car...mad
    man/woman on water. If your BOAT INSURER doesn't sell auto ins.
    in the state you live, then the registry won't cooperate. Mass.
    in this case.   
    
    /MArk

    We could actually win with the title law.  If the banks/finiance co
    accept the title inplace of documenting the boat and if the title fee
    is less than doc fee.
    
    Ken C
    

RE: .7 
    The law affects people in MA. who register boats greater than 14 feet. 
    excluding documented vessels.

    

	I just went thru the Mass Registry "hoops" last year after buying a
new boat.  While I live in Mass, the boat was purchased, registered, and
operated in NH, so that keeps a few $$ away from the Duke.  Unfortunatly,
the trailer was a different story.

	We have 2 vehicles, a car registered to my wife, and a truck registered
to our business.  When I tried to register MY trailer, my insurance company
could not stamp it as I did not have a vehicle registration in MY name.  I had
to "sell" the trailer to my wife in order to register it (of course it was a
USED trailer at that point so I had to "sell it" at used trailer prices!!!)
The insurance company offered to sell me a seperate policy for my trailer for
a price, as opposed to a free endorcement on and existing policy, but that
went over like lead.

	Anyway, it was not something I had thought of before.  Given the way
Mass, NH, Maine, and Vt have (not) handled reciprocity of boat registrations,
I can just imagine what will happen with boat licences.  I never thought I 
would see the day when I would support licencing, but after last few years its
either licences or buy a SteelCraft (yea that the ticket!) as far as I am
concerned.

	Spring has sprung, the flowers are rising,
	OMC has a recall, my cables need re-sizing;
	The snow has melted, my boat is accessable,
	Last on the Service line, I'm not even visable;
	Atlast at the counter, I ask "when should I call",
	The service mgr. smiles, "how about sometime this fall...";

Cheers,

Garry 

              <<< VICKI::SIE$DATA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BOATS.NOTE;1 >>>
                               -<    Hit it!    >-
================================================================================
Note 786.0                     More fees in Mass.                        1 reply
AKOCOA::OSTIGUY "Secure it or SHARE it"               8 lines  25-JAN-1991 14:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New fees. The MASS. commonwealth has started to title
    motorboats 14 feet or over at $ 15.00 which is paid
    along with the $ 35.00 registration fee.
    
    For those of you with small than 14' boats dont send
    in the $ 15.00 just the $ 35.00.
    
    Lloyd

     Moved by moderator... 
    
================================================================================
Note 830.0          Mass Title and the DLE Boating & Rec Div           3 replies
ISLNDS::TANG "Is there really death after life????"  22 lines  30-APR-1991 17:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Does anyonelse have the same problem that I have with the State
    of Massachusetts?
    
    The Commonwealth pass a new law during 1990, one that requires
    that all boats greater in length than 14 feet be titled. In
    December, the state notified me and sent out a form which I filled
    out and return enclosed with a check for $15 during January.
    
    Having waited for several months, nothing was recieved back from
    the state, so the logical thing to do was call them. 
    
    I have been informed that it will take up to 6 months to process
    the title papers and I'll just have to wait.
    
    Meanwhile, the law states that if you're in possession of a boat
    without proper title documents, a fine will be levied. $100 for
    the first offense, and $250 to $500 for subsequent offenses.....
    
    Also, what do you do if you sell the craft, how do you transfer
    title without the title documents????
    
    Does anyone have any ideas?

    Moved by moderator...
    
================================================================================
Note 830.1          Mass Title and the DLE Boating & Rec Div              1 of 3
ZENDIA::CUMMINGS "Paul T. Cummings LTN2"              4 lines  30-APR-1991 22:05
                   -< i got mine back - is it my title now? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I too filled outthe proper paperwork.  About a month later I got back
    the same paper I sent in.  It has a stamp and date, apparently put on
    after I sent in the paperwork.  No other papers came with it.  No
    explanation.  Does anyone know if this is now my title?

    Moved by moderator...
    
================================================================================
Note 830.2          Mass Title and the DLE Boating & Rec Div              2 of 3
SPCTRM::BRENNAN                                      44 lines   1-MAY-1991 09:05
                     -< Revenue Enhancement is Wonderful! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    .01 Paul, that is now your title.
           
    At a recent boating Safety Class (Coast Guard Aux). we had a visit
    from a local Marine Law Enforcement Official. He said he was getting
    hammered with questions/complaints about the new title law.
    
    He said (to the best of my recollection) that it was a new process
    and will probably take more than six months for some folks to get
    the titles back. He inferred but did not guarantee, that boaters
    without titles this year would not be fined. He said you can't blame
    the individual if the state can't deliver. He said the law would
    be strictly enforced next summer.
    
    Not having a title would certainly make it difficult to sell the
    vessel. This question was not addressed at the class. I suggest
    you contact the Worcester Regional Registration Office and see
    what they suggest: 75A Grove St. 508-753-0603.
    
    Please let us know what they say, I'm sure a lot of folks are in
    the same bind.
    
    Title Related Incident: 
    
    I recently purchased a boat from a gentleman in NH. We could not
    locate the serial number of the vessel (1970 - pre capacity plate)
    When I called the Registration Office and asked if I could register/
    title a boat with no serial number they said no!
    
    I would have to tow the boat to the office in Lancaster. An Officer
    would inspect the boat and if he could not find the number he would
    assign one to me.
    
    Fortunately I found the number and was able to register/title without
    heading to Lancaster.
    
    However I feel I must jump up on my soap box to bemoan the situation.
    Creating new requirements, for the perverted purpose of increasing
    revenue to maintain the bureaucracy, not to improve anything, is
    crazy. They are making it difficult for the average Joe to comply with
    the laws. And these are not safety requirements!!
    
    TJB
                    

    Moved by moderator...
    
================================================================================
Note 830.3          Mass Title and the DLE Boating & Rec Div              3 of 3
MSCSSE::BERENS "Alan Berens"                          8 lines   1-MAY-1991 09:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .2:    

>>>    Not having a title would certainly make it difficult to sell the
>>>    vessel. 

Exactly why the title law. According to Boat/US, you are paying 
significantly higher insurance rates to cover theft losses. Without 
titles stolen boats are easily resold. 

    Re; ..Fines to boaters without proper title documents.
        This only applies to boats registered in MASS, right?
    
    Lets say I was using my N.H. registered boat (state of principle use)
    once or twice in Mass, and got stopped by the Mass Marine Police, is he
    gonna say, "Got your title on board?"
    
    (I got the title, it's just locked away in a steel box, which is where
     I'd like to keep it!)
    
    Doug

    
    	I agree,Mass.is a pain with there rules and regulations.As stated
    it only took a month for them to process my hand written application.
    But 2 weeks later,they sent a typed up version of the application
    asking for it to be signed and another $15.00, which I quickly disposed
    of in the circular file. As for having the title on board,I only plan
    to carry a photocopy of the title.The real one will be at home in a
    steel box with my other important documents.
    
    
    
    	Frenchy

    I to got mine back in a couple of weeks.  I expected a new official
    piece of paper, but I got back the hand scribbled (all the corrections
    to the states errors) original.  I really don't think this will lower
    insurance rates, it's just another tax.  Buy an official looking stamp,
    design some forms and another $14.50 into the state's coffers
    
    Gordon
         

    Are you guys sure that the paper isn't just temporary, until they
    process it and fill out an actual title form ? Last year I registered
    and applied for title, and several months later I was mailed my title,
    which looks similar to any other vehicle title I've ever had (very
    official, lots of scrolly designs).
    
    
    			Steve
    
    
    sounds like I'm lucky I went through it early, before it hit most people

    
    re .14
    
    >> Exactly why the title law. According to Boat/US, you are paying
    >> significantly higher insurance rates to cover theft losses. Without
    >> titles stolen boats are easily resold.
    
	Another win for the insurance company lobby then? While possible
    	and even probable, I doubt it. Just another revenue gimmick! Titles
    	have not affected the loss rate through theft of automobiles or
    	airplanes, why would one believe they will be any more effective
    	for boats? The proven deterent is identification and anti-theft
    	devices, like window etching, parts serialization, and alarms
    	(Lo-Jack your boat anyone?). Why else would a profit motivated
    	group give discounts if it didn't save real $$$.
    
    	Nope. Just another revenue gimmick. Now everytime a boat changes
    	hands the state has another avenue to collect revenue, including a
    	second check for taxes paid. Protection of your property? Doubt it.
    	If it worked, why don't we title everything - stereos, VCRs, TVs,
    	home computers (some of them cost more, lots more than some boats).
    	I think your local lawman would say, don't let it get stolen to
    	begin with, MARK it, Community Watch, good dogs, alarms, etc. I
        doubt he or she would say "why title it of course!".
    
    	(I fear some legislator will read this and get great ideas!)
    
    

RE: Note 650.19    -< Title It? Just Don't Let It Be Stolen!! >-

>> Titles have not affected the loss rate through theft of automobiles or
>> airplanes, why would one believe they will be any more effective
>> for boats?

Are you serious?  That's a great theory until it happens to be your boat
that's stolen.  Then when the boat crosses state lines and there's no way
trace it you'll change your tune.

This is the same arqument used by people who argue that licensing hasn't 
helped on the road, yet they ignore what the roads would be like if people
had no fear of losing their license.  I certainly drive much more sanely
because I need to keep my license.

I don't understand how you can say that titling doesn't help reduce the
theft rate for cars.  You're only looking at how bad it is now, not how bad
it would be if people could freely register stolen cars, as they can with 
boats today.  I know I'd be *MUCH* less inclined to buy, sell, or try to 
register a stolen boat if it had a title.

In typical Massachusetts fashion, they may be handling the process piss-
poorly, and doing it for all the wrong reasons (revenue enhancement), but
boat titling is long overdue.  I look forward to when we have them in NH.

Rick

    Actually its not the revenue enhancements that bother me the most - we
    al know boaters are rich and are going to pay :-) Its teh additional
    abbuse that goes along with it - towing your boat to get some govt
    official to officially tellyou you don't have a serial # and then
    officially assign you a #, obnoxious fcc forms that must now be kept on
    board, figuring out how to pay my Federal user fee, and then there will
    be boater licensing.
    
    Therefore I advocate "boater abuse tax" :-)  We just pay alot of money
    and get nothing and be clear and up fromt about it.  But at least we
    don't have to worry about alot of costly and sensless paperwork.  One
    time obnoxious fee - no muss no fuss :-)
    
    

	I dunno

	The way gummint bodies go about things it probably cost the 
taxpayer a coupla mill for a consultant's feasability study - another 
couple for the forms design - then the process design - then a few 
more people on board to actually handle the forms and such - then they 
probably  PAID  $20,000 for the first box of 1,000 copies of the forms, 
but there's a discount on follow-up orders (BFD).�

	This is to solve the state's financial problem - right ?

	R

    About two weeks ago,I called the Registry of Rec. Vehicles in
    Worcester.I had to renew my registration in July of last year.At
    that time I turned in the paperwork for my title.Since I still 
    hadn't received it,I made the call.The woman that answered the
    phone said that because of the cutbacks and such,she was the only
    person there that was entering the info into their computer,and
    she also had to handle window duties and other paper work.Being
    the first year of this,there was a backlog of titles.She informed
    me that at the time,she was currently entering the info from July
    of '90,but with the workload she only had time to enter 4 to 6
    titles per day.Apparently she was,because she didn't take my name
    on the phone,and I did receive my title last week.She also said
    that if a title was needed in a hurry due to a pending sale or 
    something,she would look through her stack and speed it up.Nine
    months to enter data in this high tech state sounds about right,huh?
    
    
    Keith
    

    
    	Not too bad.... My registration expires in April and I
    received my renewal form yesterday!
    
    	Along with my MA registration renewal form and application 
    for the Title blood letting, I received this little gem:
    
    	Attention: Massachusetts Waterfront Property Owners
    
    	Chapter 91 Amnesty period ends October 4, 1993
    
    	Since 1866, the Commonwealth has required the owners of
    waterfront structures such as piers, wharves, docks, seawalls,
    or filled waterfront property to apply for licenses under Chapter
    91 of the General Laws, also known as the Public Waterfront Act.
    The aim of the licensing program is to ensure that when structures
    are built in great ponds and inland and coastal waterways, they
    are safe and do not significantly obstruct navigation or public
    access ($ure!).
    
    	Many waterfront structures are properly licensed, but owners
    of some have not come forward to seek state approval. If you own
    a waterfront structure and either know or suspect it is unlicensed
    you have a limited time to apply for authorization under Chapter 91.
    A Department of Environmental Protection amnesty program gives many
    owners of unlicensed structures until October 4, 1993 to apply for 
    the required state approval. Once this grace period expires, those who
    have not applied will be at risk of enforcement action, including
    possible fines and penalties.
    
    	For more information about Chapter 91 and the amnesty program
    write or call:
    
    			Department of Environmental Protection
    			Waterways Regulation Program
    			One Winter Street, 8th Floor
    			Boston, Ma 02108
    			(617) 292-5777
    
    
	Yep... regulate those *rich* boaters to death!

    re: .24
    
    Rick ---
    
    It isn't aimed at boaters. I have to obtain a Chapter 91 license for an
    artificial reef that will be placed in 100 feet of water on a
    featureless sandy bottom. The object is to do *some*thing to stem the
    relentless destruction of aquatic environments.
    
    John H-C

    re: John

    	How can you say (type) that Chapter 91 "isn't aimed at boaters"
    with a straight face?

    	How many boaters do you know that own waterfront property that
    *don't* have a dock? 

    An artificial reef is one thing but a dock is quite another. Who is
    going to police the safety/annoyance factor of the reef other than
    your group? I would assume, not many people. Who is going to police
    my dock when it extends so far out into a waterway as to impede
    navigation? I would assume, quite a few people starting with the guy
    in the 42 foot, triple screw boat that can't get by and rightfully
    hooks a rope to my dock and immediately shortens it.

    	Apples to apples, it sounds like more useless, unneeded regulation.

    Rick	Hey_MY_dock_is_still_under_150_feet_long! Barely :-)

    BTW: It didn't mention whether or not there is a fee connected with
    these inspections.

You know, a law requiring a permit for docks isn't a bad idea, provided
2 conditions are met:

- The permits are strictly to monitor any waterfront or in-water structures.
  Fees for permits should cover administrative costs, and not be used for 
  revenue generation.
- The rules and regulations are applied *equally* and *fairly* to all.

Now what do you think the odds are of either of these EVER occuring?  I'd
say I've got a better chance of hitting this weekend's Megabucks drawing.

What's aggravating, is to cruise around Lake Winnipesaukee, and see some
of the waterfront monstrosities that some of the wealthy property owners
have.  I can think of several that are attached to the mainland that will 
accomodate three or four 30' boats, and a few small ones besides.  Now 
compare that to the story of a guy my father knows, who owns an *island*
home on Winnie. He applied for a permit to replace your basic 25' or so 
*existing* dock.  The state turned him down!  He asked how he was supposed 
to get to his island home if he couldn't dock his boat, and they basically
told him "that's your problem".

He said "screw them", and built a concrete pad on shore.  Then he bolted a 
floating dock to the pad, and registered it as a boat, with "bow" numbers
and all.

If it comes down to it Rick, you could register your dock as the world's 
longest, narrowest boat.  Length: 150'  Beam: 2'   Don't forget the saftey 
equipment!
                                
8^)

Rick

It seems that somebody can always make a good sounding case for 
another regulation or law. But, we are being law'd and regulated 
to death, literally!

I don't know the number of different agencies presently involved 
in the approval cycle for a new dock, but there are many, too 
many. In salt water for example, there would be the town or city 
in which the dock is to reside. Then there is the environmental 
impact study followed by numerous state approval offices.
Finally, there is the Federal Government such as the Coast Guard. 
I remember reading some time ago that the number of agencies 
involved was in the "high teens." That translates to YEARS of 
efforts getting something approved.

I moved my boat to Fairhaven 6 years ago. At that time, I was 
told about the State planning to install 200-400 new slips and 
construction would start as soon as the final approval was 
granted. Construction started last year. I don't know when the 
approval cycle was first started but it was longer than 6 years 
ago. We presently have enough agencies involved without requiring 
any additional help via new laws or additional enforcement of 
old, forgotten laws.

Joe

RE: Note 650.28
>> But, we are being law'd and regulated to death, literally!

Truer words were never spoken!  The timing is kind of ironic, that 
while G. Bush and Co. focus on assisting the formerly communist
world with enjoying their newfound freedom, we are slowly having 
our's taken away. And for the most part, without a word of protest.

We are being regulated and taxed to the point that almost anything 
that was fun is no fun anymore, or taxed (yes, taxed, not user fee'd) 
to the point that we can't afford it anymore.

I'd challenge anyone to come up with one example of an activity
where we're either more free to do what we want, or are taxed a
smaller % for it than we were 20 years ago.

Must MHO, but something is going wrong here....

Rick

    Government Regulation has become FRIGHTENING.  Especially agencies
    which have powers over people WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.   The
    land owner who couldn't get to his own island property without
    a dock illustrates a perfect example of the types of problems we
    are like to have to deal with more and more.  Take a few arrogant
    agency heads/clerks and some of them wield their power like Lords.  We
    (the public) would be well advised to keep our eye on, and protest laws
    and agencies which are unreasonable or, have powers without due process
    being a part of the safeguards.  The IRS is a perfect example of a a
    Federal Service which has home taking powers over people without due
    process.
    
    Many of the agencies which are out-of-control and new laws which are
    not balanced by due process are instituted in the name of protecting
    the environment.  God help you if you protest a law which is presented
    'in the best interests of the environment'.  Don't get me wrong, we do
    need environmental laws... but WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES.  It seems to
    me that a sort of ECO-SOCIALISM is being ushered into the U.S.  That
    is, many new environmental laws without sufficient checks and balances
    against individual rights.
    
    

    I think docks have quite enough regulation already, thank you very 
    much.  I reviewed the permit process the builder followed for my
    place on the cape.  I would say about 20 different bodies needed
    to sign off before the dock was approved.  And after that was
    added the Cape Cod Commission.  Of course each group needs it own
    set of engineering diagrams, environmental impact statements, 
    etc.etc $$$.
    

re          <<< Note 650.31 by ZENDIA::CUMMINGS "Paul T. Cummings LTN2" >>>
>          -< what's one more reg?  what's one more straw to a camel >-

	Me; I'm one more Reg - and I count !
	I don't smoke;  camels or straws.

	Reg
    

Don't get me wromg here, I too think that we are regulated and taxed to death

BUT...

	What drew attention to docks and in-water structures to begin with?
What made anyone even consider there was a problem here that needed a law to
correct or control?

<FLAME-ON>
  I'll bet my money that the few JERKS out there who were bold enoungh to put 
up docks that extend out so far as to cause a navigation hazard generated
those complaints.  Those of us who enjoy cruising, water-skiing, tubing, etc.
complained about the CLOWN with more money and more GONADS than brains who is
inconsiderate enough to cause a problem.  It's an old story that gets repeated
ad-nauseum.  A few people take advantage of a good situation and then everyone
pays for it one way or another.  90% of the private land in Mass is now off
limits to hunters because (in large part) a few slobs shot up barns, left the
gates open, or tore down the fences.  I don't think it's government gone wild
so much as it's a few slobs taking unreasonable advantage a situation, spoiling
it for everyone.
<FLAME-OFF>

Al

    I agree 200%. Inconsiderate Wally Yahoo's take a good thing for granted
    and abuse the hell out of it. One must always ask this of himself in
    today's society "Am I drawing attention to myself in anyway,could I 
    bare inspection right now?" 
    
    Their eyes are on us boys,wanting a piece!

Coupla' points, from the perspective of a Chapter 91 beneficiary:

1)  Chapter 91 is a Mass law covering tidal ranges of oceanfront 
property, public and private.  It doesn't apply in any other state, 
though some may have similar laws (like Maine.)

2)  It's based on an early colonial law which allowed access to the shore 
by anyone having a legitimate business need for it.  It was designed to 
prevent the big guys pushing out the little ones.

3)  Times went on and changed, as did waterfront uses.  About 20+ years ago
it became apparent that developers were encroaching on waterfront that had
been legally in the public domain and usage.  Chapter 91, which has been
revised and strengthened a few times, is a complex bureacratic response to
the need to control certain development before all public access and
indigenous uses (fishing is what they mostly had in mind) are eliminated. 

As a many-year member of the Rockport (MA) Pigeon Cove Property Study 
Committee, I can say from first-hand knowledge that were it not for 
Chapter 91, the town would have lost Pigeon Cove Harbor to a high-priced 
condo development and totally-private marina years ago.  We prevented four 
development schemes from happening, any one of which would have displaced 
dozens of fishermen (ending most of their jobs), a fish wholesaler and
retailer, a couple dozen pleasure boats, public docks and public landings.
Having worked the issue from this side, I can say that law provides a lot
of good for many people, even if it is bureaucratic and a hassle to
understand (let alone know how to implement properly.)

John.

    Chapter 91 applies to all MA Great Ponds as well as tidal waters
    (including tidal rivers). It may also apply to all rivers to which the
    state can apply "commercial value," but I'm not sure on that last
    point.
    
    John H-C

    As I mentioned a few replies back, I have no problem at all
    with requirments for a permit to put a dock in the water.
    What the heck, I can't even build a simple shed in my back 
    yard without a permit.  I don't know why placing a dock into
    a public waterway should be any less restrictive.
    
    Where there *IS* a problemm however, is in the way permits
    are administered.  If this were a perfect world, everyone
    who has a legitimatate need and the space for a dock could 
    get one, and permits would be issued, quickly, inexpensively, 
    and without favoritism or prejudice.  Yeh, right!
    
    Rick

This is only from my knowledge of the ocean, since I don't hang around 
lakes or rivers very often:

Regardless of who may log permit filings or track usages (and many groups 
do), on ocean waters the key permit required to do almost anything is from
the Army Corps of Engineers.  They control the game:  dredging, berming,
breakwaters, wharves, docks, u-name-it.  Despite all the red tape and
profusion of "interested" parties, they are one central focus for all
uses, charged with balancing all conflicting uses (fishermen, recreational
boaters, dock owners, Conservation Commissions, etc, etc, etc).  The
downside is that they are as political as any body with power, and not
always focused on issues at the local level.  They sometimes make foolish
decisions based on general policy without due regard to small but
important details. 

John.

    Again I agree with John Spencer. The "Corps of Engineers" (as they call
    themselves) is the key wherever a Chapt. 91 license is required other
    than on Great Ponds.
    
    The Corps of Engineers just issues permission, though, and does not
    exact fees. (So far that's how it seems, anyway.) When I called the CZM
    to ask about MA permits that might be necessary for our artificial
    reefs, the first question I was asked was, "What did the Army Corps of
    Engineers say?" I had an answer only because I called the Corps of
    Engineers first. (I have to deal with them every time a question of
    disturbing the river bottom on a cleanup in a "new" river comes up, so
    I thought to call about the reefs.) When I said that I had a verbal OK
    from the Corps of Engineers, I was them referred to the DEP, where I
    encountered the Ch. 91 License and associated filing fees. 
    
    The form requires you to show where high and low tide are on the
    proposed structure. When I said, "but low tide will be 100 feet *above*
    the structure, the DEP person said, "So just put an up arrow and say
    100 feet for low tide."
    
    It may all sound silly, but to me it makes sense. I just wish they were
    more restrictive on some of the other stuff that goes on in our rivers
    and tidal zones.
    
    John H-C

    I'm looking at a 15' boat in N.H. and the owner tells me that a title
    is not required in N.H. for this boat (Whaler with a 60hp Johnson). Is
    this correct? It looks like a good deal, but I'm worried about the lack
    of a title.
    
    Chris

    There is no titling of boats in N.H. (yet). I know a woman from
    my town who works in Motor Vehicle Title Dept. She says it is coming
    some day but not yet. Sounds like something that the state acknowledges
    is needed, but in times of budget cutbacks, they don't want to fund it.
    
    Bill
    

          <<< Note 650.41 by UNIFIX::FRENCH "Bill French 381-1859" >>>
                       -< No boat titling in N.H. (yet) >-

>>    There is no titling of boats in N.H. (yet). I know a woman from
>>    my town who works in Motor Vehicle Title Dept. She says it is coming
>>    some day but not yet. Sounds like something that the state acknowledges
>>    is needed, but in times of budget cutbacks, they don't want to fund it.
    
>>    Bill


    Until they figure out that they can charge for it, so that it does not
 cost them, and becomes a source of revenue..... ;-)

    Mass has it down pat....... ;-(

    Norm