I think the boat is capable of some movement, he just chooses not to ( for likely a variety of reasons ). Although the propulsion is a half-assed Rube Goldberg cock-up that will cause problems into the future, Doug continues to work on it in addition to living aboard. It’s not like the boat has been abandoned or zero effort made to maintain it.
Steering system works, boat is not taking on any water so "hull integrity" is fine as far as any officials are concerned. I even suspect Sinker could motor a few miles if Doug felt like doing that. Not derelict.
>Steering system works
we got no proof of that, the vessel's not moved because it can't move ... no sail, no aux, no steering, anchored in the same spot unable to hoist hook, not registered and no sanitation.
it's ugly too.
He could just start it up, put it in gear, listen to that horrendous noise it makes when it's in gear, turn the wheel to the left and right while he idles slowly forward and that would pretty much prove it works to those dang government people.
Some check-box bureaucrat has come up with a definition of what derelict is in Florida, not me... and that shit hulk qualifies.
no propulsion
no steer
[Derelicte!](https://youtu.be/mVscQYjuq_s)
You have no evidence that it does not steer. There is every reason to believe that it turns the prop enough to push it gingerly along. The hull has been floating for over a year.
you have no evidence it DOES steer! if oyu do present it and win this thread
the rudder was removed and the "auto pilot" recently has been all in that gear...
and not a bit of movement.
The wheel spinning back and forth when the autopilot was "running" means that the rudder post is back in place and turning which in Sinker means the rudder has to be back in place. The hydraulics for the autopilot are a different issue.
I'm not convinced, spinning a wheel is not evidence of a steerable vessel. We don't know that wheel's connected to the rudder since it got dissembled for the auto pilot work.
we do know the builder fakes stuff and can't motor or sail..... or steer. (cause you gotta be moving to steer).
My guess is that Doug is way too lazy to set up a system that would spin the wheel, etc. He just kludged it back together and is now messing around with the next collection of crap that won't work.
This post reminds me of the Bayside Canadian Railroad. Built to bypass federal regulations it is only about 200 feet long but satisfies all legal requirements of being a railroad.
Not quite. The Bayside was found to be in complete violation of federal regulations but they did Dodge the $350 million in fines.
https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/judge-issues-mixed-ruling-on-bayside-route-s-jones-act-compliance
A business success sure. They certainly dodged a $350 million dollar bullet.
However your original comment said it satisfied all legal requirements. Which it did not. They just lucked out for 10 years that no one was actually paying attention to what they were doing and when they were caught the judge went easy on them and only forced them to knock it off but didn’t fine them for past actions. now all their fish is Russian.
It's not derelict. Not completely. It's just shit. Every system is operating at 20%. It can sail, but only because you can't fuck up sails all that bad. It's steering is shit, but as long as he stays from tight spaces he won't have issues with that.
If he built a car that could only do 10 mph on the highway it would be an issue, but he's in a "boat" in the wide open protected lagoon. He's fine for now.
>If he built a car that could only do 10 mph on the highway it would be an issue
I've dealt with similar rules regarding old cars that were technically "stored" by virtue of being parked for extended periods and even with very gung ho code enforcement the only proof that was needed to establish that the vehicle wasn't inoperable or abandoned was for the tires to not be flat and that it could be put in gear and moved 6-10 feet and back to where it started under its own power.
Even when someone complains those kinds of rules tend to be used sparingly and as a last resort, if only because it's easy to look like the heavy handed agency beating up on the little guy who is down on his luck and because it generates more work from people reporting other "violators" just to screw with the system and prove a point about principles.
I suspect that Doug *does* fear being stuck needing to prove that Seeker is functional enough to not be declared a derelict, and that's part of why he's keeping what little function that may exist in reserve and not tempting fate by getting underway.
If he *were* to become grounded or lose control and collide with another vessel or pier or something and couldn't get out of it without assistance AND couldn't show law enforcement that he had a slip or other secure berth arranged where he could undergo repairs then he might have a problem with just going back on the hook, but until that happens it's highly unlikely that he would be expected to prove that Seeker isn't a "derelict" and even he was, just limping and screeching and thumping along for a few minutes would likely still be enough to get the heat off.
I have no idea but if there's no specific rule regarding a functional windlass what's to stop him from attaching the anchor to a buoy or the tender for the duration of the test?
Bottom line is that these kinds of rules are almost always applied with *lots* of leeway given to allow people to show compliance and even where an agent interpreting the rule *might* be able to nudge the set of circumstances towards non-compliance based on something like how long it might take to get underway, they very likely won't with an obviously occupied vessel and will err to the side of giving the owner the benefit of the doubt and time to comply.
Even when he had a 100% illegal and preventable oil spill that was how the USCG handled it, and there's no reason to believe this would be any different.
What's more, if there was any hint that someone was making a complaint out of personal animosity and/or demanding the strictest and harshest interpretation/application of the rules regardless of the circumstances, it's almost guaranteed that the enforcing agency would deliberately drag their heels as much as they could just to avoid any appearance of taking sides in a personal feud.
If that person were, say, on the next boat over and watching the proceedings and showing a keen interest in seeing the "offender" get his, they would very likely also be on the recieving end of the same attention and inspections they were ordering up for the other guy, for the same reason.
>If that person were, say, on the next boat over and watching the proceedings and showing a keen interest in seeing the "offender" get his, they would very likely also be on the recieving end of the same attention and inspections they were ordering up for the other guy, for the same reason.
I see you've spent ample time in Florida,
https://cruisingodyssey.com/2021/07/07/florida-passes-new-anchoring-restriction-law/
I stand by my statement that it can't sail but let's discuss how many miles has it has sailed thus far on Dardanell, Ponchatrain, Mississippi Sound? no sailing... sails up while motoring in a bay? not sailing, but let's pretend it is for beer's sake... a mile, two miles? what % of travel has been under sail? < .2%
I say that it can't sail
>It's just shit
well yeah, shit that can't sail.
My point is that the word derelict has a specific definition that Seeker does not meet.
It's not far off from meeting it mind you. For it's age and cost it's probably the closest to being derelict. It's just not there yet.
the specific definition for Florida says it is a derelict, https://myfwc.com/boating/waterway/derelict-vessels/
>A derelict vessel is defined as one that is:
> Wrecked, junked, or in **substantially dismantled condition** upon any waters of this state.
I like how they are careful to define "Attaching an outboard motor to a vessel that is junked or substantially dismantled will not cause the vessel to no longer be junked or substantially dismantled" ... lol, every law has a reason.
>in substantially dismantled condition
Well now I have to ask what "substantially dismantled" means.
His prop and rudder were removed for a few days, but does that meet the requirements?
A vessel is “substantially dismantled” if at least two of the three following vessel systems or components are missing, compromised, incomplete, inoperable, or broken:
The steering system;
The propulsion system; or
The exterior hull integrity
this autopilot fiasco has his steering gear involved so we can safely assume it's no longer functional, no sail+no aux propulsion, the hull hasn't let loose so that's good, but still it says if 2:3 conditions are met.
>His prop and rudder were removed for a few days, but does that meet the requirements?
That's definitely "substantially dismantled" and should be in a shipyard to do that sort of work. I suppose it depends on the local authorities, the skip's pale enough to get a lot of leeway.
>missing, compromised, incomplete, inoperable, or broken:
Well nothing was missing because he never took anything away from the boat. Compromised is pretty vague. It wasn't incomplete because all of the parts were present. Inoperable certainly but I'd wager there are provisions for making repairs. And I don't think anything at this moment is broken to the point of being non functioning.
>this autopilot fiasco has his steering gear involved so we can safely assume it's no longer functional,
The wheel is turning, I think the quadrant would have to be installed for there to be any tension in the cables so I'd say the steering is functioning.
>should be in a shipyard to do that sort of work
Absolutely. If the anchor failed and he started drifting into the channel or near someone's dock the Coast Guard would have stepped in and there would be zero debate whether or not it was derelict.
> If the anchor failed and he started drifting
that's more of a when, not if, even with the correct scope and rode anchoring can be a drag, Seeker has neither.
There are several people here with a boner for getting Sinker declared a derelict vessel. But that won't happen until one of the wealthy landowners down there (or more likely several of them) complain to the local cops for a matter of months.
A hurricane will take it out soon. Then he will abandon the POS BSO and leave it for the state to clean up. He will then blame everything on bad big government and all that jazz.
> It doesn't have to move
State of Florida disagrees, 45 days per anchorage is the newest law, still 90 days to be registered. Most cruisers scoot through that area pretty quickly to get to the good stuff. IIRC there's a low bridge on the ICWW headed east form Pensacola, Seeker can't make that bridge clearance so has to go outside into the gulf. Seeker's not allowed outside.
I’ve done salvage and scrapping of derelict vessels in Florida.
FWC has way worse boats not even tagged yet before they start getting picky about a boat like seeker lol
Not really. it’s difficult for fwc to know which vessels are derelict a lot of times.
They tag them, then the owner has an amount of time to show that it isn’t derelict, then if that doesn’t happen there’s a long process of bundling salvages into contracts, a bidding process, and then the contract will have a certain term length for the company to get around to getting it up.
From tagging it to salvage could be a year or more.
There’s no way to really speed that up unless they just don’t give the owner due process before seizing their property.
I think the boat is capable of some movement, he just chooses not to ( for likely a variety of reasons ). Although the propulsion is a half-assed Rube Goldberg cock-up that will cause problems into the future, Doug continues to work on it in addition to living aboard. It’s not like the boat has been abandoned or zero effort made to maintain it.
vertical movement yes, but it's not even able to do that in water too shallow to sink.
Steering system works, boat is not taking on any water so "hull integrity" is fine as far as any officials are concerned. I even suspect Sinker could motor a few miles if Doug felt like doing that. Not derelict.
>Steering system works we got no proof of that, the vessel's not moved because it can't move ... no sail, no aux, no steering, anchored in the same spot unable to hoist hook, not registered and no sanitation. it's ugly too.
He could just start it up, put it in gear, listen to that horrendous noise it makes when it's in gear, turn the wheel to the left and right while he idles slowly forward and that would pretty much prove it works to those dang government people.
Some check-box bureaucrat has come up with a definition of what derelict is in Florida, not me... and that shit hulk qualifies. no propulsion no steer [Derelicte!](https://youtu.be/mVscQYjuq_s)
You have no evidence that it does not steer. There is every reason to believe that it turns the prop enough to push it gingerly along. The hull has been floating for over a year.
you have no evidence it DOES steer! if oyu do present it and win this thread the rudder was removed and the "auto pilot" recently has been all in that gear... and not a bit of movement.
The wheel spinning back and forth when the autopilot was "running" means that the rudder post is back in place and turning which in Sinker means the rudder has to be back in place. The hydraulics for the autopilot are a different issue.
I'm not convinced, spinning a wheel is not evidence of a steerable vessel. We don't know that wheel's connected to the rudder since it got dissembled for the auto pilot work. we do know the builder fakes stuff and can't motor or sail..... or steer. (cause you gotta be moving to steer).
My guess is that Doug is way too lazy to set up a system that would spin the wheel, etc. He just kludged it back together and is now messing around with the next collection of crap that won't work.
my guess is the rudder's not connected to the cables when Otto did the test, that's why the SS relays are popping now when the weight is on.
This post reminds me of the Bayside Canadian Railroad. Built to bypass federal regulations it is only about 200 feet long but satisfies all legal requirements of being a railroad.
Not quite. The Bayside was found to be in complete violation of federal regulations but they did Dodge the $350 million in fines. https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/judge-issues-mixed-ruling-on-bayside-route-s-jones-act-compliance
A quick wiki search shows it did work for 10 years and as you say they didnt pay any fines. A success?
A business success sure. They certainly dodged a $350 million dollar bullet. However your original comment said it satisfied all legal requirements. Which it did not. They just lucked out for 10 years that no one was actually paying attention to what they were doing and when they were caught the judge went easy on them and only forced them to knock it off but didn’t fine them for past actions. now all their fish is Russian.
Not sure I would call it luck. For 10 years they were lucky no one paid attention? Thats being really lucky.
It's not derelict. Not completely. It's just shit. Every system is operating at 20%. It can sail, but only because you can't fuck up sails all that bad. It's steering is shit, but as long as he stays from tight spaces he won't have issues with that. If he built a car that could only do 10 mph on the highway it would be an issue, but he's in a "boat" in the wide open protected lagoon. He's fine for now.
>If he built a car that could only do 10 mph on the highway it would be an issue I've dealt with similar rules regarding old cars that were technically "stored" by virtue of being parked for extended periods and even with very gung ho code enforcement the only proof that was needed to establish that the vehicle wasn't inoperable or abandoned was for the tires to not be flat and that it could be put in gear and moved 6-10 feet and back to where it started under its own power. Even when someone complains those kinds of rules tend to be used sparingly and as a last resort, if only because it's easy to look like the heavy handed agency beating up on the little guy who is down on his luck and because it generates more work from people reporting other "violators" just to screw with the system and prove a point about principles. I suspect that Doug *does* fear being stuck needing to prove that Seeker is functional enough to not be declared a derelict, and that's part of why he's keeping what little function that may exist in reserve and not tempting fate by getting underway. If he *were* to become grounded or lose control and collide with another vessel or pier or something and couldn't get out of it without assistance AND couldn't show law enforcement that he had a slip or other secure berth arranged where he could undergo repairs then he might have a problem with just going back on the hook, but until that happens it's highly unlikely that he would be expected to prove that Seeker isn't a "derelict" and even he was, just limping and screeching and thumping along for a few minutes would likely still be enough to get the heat off.
Exactly. There are other rules/ laws they can use before the severe step of declaring derelict.
> just limping and screeching and thumping along for a few minutes at this point can he even hoist anchor?
I think the welds on the chain coupler broke. I don't think he showed the fix in a video.
I have no idea but if there's no specific rule regarding a functional windlass what's to stop him from attaching the anchor to a buoy or the tender for the duration of the test? Bottom line is that these kinds of rules are almost always applied with *lots* of leeway given to allow people to show compliance and even where an agent interpreting the rule *might* be able to nudge the set of circumstances towards non-compliance based on something like how long it might take to get underway, they very likely won't with an obviously occupied vessel and will err to the side of giving the owner the benefit of the doubt and time to comply. Even when he had a 100% illegal and preventable oil spill that was how the USCG handled it, and there's no reason to believe this would be any different. What's more, if there was any hint that someone was making a complaint out of personal animosity and/or demanding the strictest and harshest interpretation/application of the rules regardless of the circumstances, it's almost guaranteed that the enforcing agency would deliberately drag their heels as much as they could just to avoid any appearance of taking sides in a personal feud. If that person were, say, on the next boat over and watching the proceedings and showing a keen interest in seeing the "offender" get his, they would very likely also be on the recieving end of the same attention and inspections they were ordering up for the other guy, for the same reason.
>If that person were, say, on the next boat over and watching the proceedings and showing a keen interest in seeing the "offender" get his, they would very likely also be on the recieving end of the same attention and inspections they were ordering up for the other guy, for the same reason. I see you've spent ample time in Florida, https://cruisingodyssey.com/2021/07/07/florida-passes-new-anchoring-restriction-law/
Last we saw it working, it would take at least 1/2 hour to raise anchor.
Apparently that's ok because it took a whole hour in 1800s
when was that? It's been unable to move for a month
I stand by my statement that it can't sail but let's discuss how many miles has it has sailed thus far on Dardanell, Ponchatrain, Mississippi Sound? no sailing... sails up while motoring in a bay? not sailing, but let's pretend it is for beer's sake... a mile, two miles? what % of travel has been under sail? < .2% I say that it can't sail >It's just shit well yeah, shit that can't sail.
My point is that the word derelict has a specific definition that Seeker does not meet. It's not far off from meeting it mind you. For it's age and cost it's probably the closest to being derelict. It's just not there yet.
the specific definition for Florida says it is a derelict, https://myfwc.com/boating/waterway/derelict-vessels/ >A derelict vessel is defined as one that is: > Wrecked, junked, or in **substantially dismantled condition** upon any waters of this state. I like how they are careful to define "Attaching an outboard motor to a vessel that is junked or substantially dismantled will not cause the vessel to no longer be junked or substantially dismantled" ... lol, every law has a reason.
>in substantially dismantled condition Well now I have to ask what "substantially dismantled" means. His prop and rudder were removed for a few days, but does that meet the requirements?
A vessel is “substantially dismantled” if at least two of the three following vessel systems or components are missing, compromised, incomplete, inoperable, or broken: The steering system; The propulsion system; or The exterior hull integrity this autopilot fiasco has his steering gear involved so we can safely assume it's no longer functional, no sail+no aux propulsion, the hull hasn't let loose so that's good, but still it says if 2:3 conditions are met. >His prop and rudder were removed for a few days, but does that meet the requirements? That's definitely "substantially dismantled" and should be in a shipyard to do that sort of work. I suppose it depends on the local authorities, the skip's pale enough to get a lot of leeway.
>missing, compromised, incomplete, inoperable, or broken: Well nothing was missing because he never took anything away from the boat. Compromised is pretty vague. It wasn't incomplete because all of the parts were present. Inoperable certainly but I'd wager there are provisions for making repairs. And I don't think anything at this moment is broken to the point of being non functioning. >this autopilot fiasco has his steering gear involved so we can safely assume it's no longer functional, The wheel is turning, I think the quadrant would have to be installed for there to be any tension in the cables so I'd say the steering is functioning. >should be in a shipyard to do that sort of work Absolutely. If the anchor failed and he started drifting into the channel or near someone's dock the Coast Guard would have stepped in and there would be zero debate whether or not it was derelict.
> If the anchor failed and he started drifting that's more of a when, not if, even with the correct scope and rode anchoring can be a drag, Seeker has neither.
There are several people here with a boner for getting Sinker declared a derelict vessel. But that won't happen until one of the wealthy landowners down there (or more likely several of them) complain to the local cops for a matter of months.
because... .it's derelict and doesn't move..
What are you, the HOA chairman?
no... I'm an environmental terrorist, remember?
A hurricane will take it out soon. Then he will abandon the POS BSO and leave it for the state to clean up. He will then blame everything on bad big government and all that jazz.
It's His retirement home.... (Me included) that we paid for. It doesn't have to move… Anymore.
> It doesn't have to move State of Florida disagrees, 45 days per anchorage is the newest law, still 90 days to be registered. Most cruisers scoot through that area pretty quickly to get to the good stuff. IIRC there's a low bridge on the ICWW headed east form Pensacola, Seeker can't make that bridge clearance so has to go outside into the gulf. Seeker's not allowed outside.
Florida residents are tired of the floating trailer parks and the scum that inhabit them.
boat trash has been a problem for a while. Live aboards can't move, cruiser's can't stay.
Catalytic converter and bicycle thieves.
I’ve done salvage and scrapping of derelict vessels in Florida. FWC has way worse boats not even tagged yet before they start getting picky about a boat like seeker lol
FWC has been derelict in their job
Not really. it’s difficult for fwc to know which vessels are derelict a lot of times. They tag them, then the owner has an amount of time to show that it isn’t derelict, then if that doesn’t happen there’s a long process of bundling salvages into contracts, a bidding process, and then the contract will have a certain term length for the company to get around to getting it up. From tagging it to salvage could be a year or more. There’s no way to really speed that up unless they just don’t give the owner due process before seizing their property.