What a sad end for what was once someone's pride and joy. As a boat builder by trade and a lover of boats and the water I find this pretty confronting. One Folkboat already smashed to pieces and another waiting in line. The contractor is only doing their job.
I support the clean up of moorings and potential hazards to navigation and the environment but there are a lot worse examples out there than some of these.
Any thoughts?
Note: These are my personal views.
I thought an auction for them would be reasonable but only the ones that are decent.
Good to see the dead ones go though. Plenty here that should be done the same way especially with the growth on their bums and lack of care given to them.
While these yachts once were the pride and joy of someone, the responsibility lies with the current owners who neglect those yachts, not those that decide to remove derelicts.
I'm for it.
For sure obviously agree that owners should be accountable and responsible as above. In Sydney Maritime used to auction off the "useable, able to be saved" ones of these at their base under the Anzac Bridge - guess that strategy has been superseded. I'm for it but can see both sides........the sailable area of the harbour west of the bridge has been encroached on in some locations so much it is virtually just a channel left - Woodford Bay for example, numerous others.
When the boats are destroyed are any of the useful fittings such as winches removed as for those of use who own older boats it can be difficult to find stuff sometimes that is no longer available new or where a new one might be expensive compared to the value of the boat
Just because the boats might be neglected there is probably some good useable stuff on them
Regards Don
It is such a shame when the level of neglect means the amount of work needed to restore one to sailable condition, let alone restored to the level of say Lydia's Defiance, becomes ridiculous. I hate seeing boats broken up, but the fault lies with the owners, absolutely.
Yeah, I've definitely seen worse examples than those on mooring on Pittwater.
I'm all for cleaning up the deadwood but who makes the decision as to what is derelict? I was once warned that my boat was un-seaworthy, so I motored to the (then) MSB base to ask them what they had issues with. It seems there was a complaint from a house owner that I guess wanted my mooring. The MSB guys said if I could motor there and manouvre the boat then I was good to go. That was a while ago though...
Tragic to see those boats neglected like that. It does seem like a terrible waste but what can they be used for when the boating establishment has stuffed up sailing so badly? Around Sydney, most yards are only interested in big shiny boats, and there are so many huge powerboats throwing around vast wakes that boats of 26 feet or so are becoming quite uncomfortable at times.
The Maritime requirements for moored boats are bizarre in some ways. Boats "must be of a style considered by Roads and Maritime to be consistent with the general style of vessels moored in the bay". If R & M are going to be logical, that would mean that the supermaxi Comanche should not be moored in a bay where neat clinker putt-putt classic half cabins and classic Halvorsens predominate. They also have special rules for fibreglass boats, so an alloy, carbon, steel or wooden boat apparently falls into a different category even if you couldn't tell what they were made of from a metre away. 
The rules say that bright colours need written approval - that probably rules out Marine Rescue boats. And the Maritime and Police boats, with their big signwriting, moored in my port clearly aren't consistent with the "general style" of big white Rivieras in the same bay, so they should be moved to somewhere else where the general style of boats are police, rescue and Maritime craft.
The rules also say that "Timber vessels may be varnished (or similar) provided that the varnished timbers are kept in good condition. An exception is made for teak, which should be appropriately maintained (e.g. oiled)." So if you spend hundreds of thousands on a classic NZ Logan yacht with scrubbed Kauri decks, you've got to throw non-skid paint on them.
Mmmm, maybe those yachts had been abandon to the RMS which also comes back to bad ownership.
Up in QLD they allocated $75mil to doing this.
I can say that all the wrecks up to Mooloolaba have been removed and there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of vacant moorings up through the Gold Coast area.
While it's sad for some of the older stylish vessel it maybe a saviour of the survivors, not long ago scrap Steel prices sky rocketed a lot of 70s cars got squashed and now they are in demand, being restored and taken to shows ! A bigger question is will the mooring be reallocated or not ?
I think an annual Seaworthiness Certificate is a good idea. Just like cars, trailers, caravans etc.
Be careful what you wish for, Cisco.
In Japan we have a 6/3 year inspection cycle.
Every 3 years an on the water inspection of safety gear, (flares are rated at 3 years)
Ever other 3 years an on the hard inspection of hull, prop, etc.
The question that boaties are asking here is when did this become a revenue gathering operation? (like speeding cameras in Oz)
You pay $300 each three years. $150 for the inspection and $150 for the flares.
If there is anything that doesn't pass the test, you are up for another $150 for the second test.
Every boat from 4 metres up in Japan is tested .
Every ratty fishing boats passes first go (because of the strength of the fishers unions).
50% of leasure boats get a second test.
I fitted nice new US Coast Guard/ Loyd's approved nav/stern/running lights to replace the 40 year old faded yellow things that were on her.
Inspection time I was told that only the lights that were on the boat when it was first registered were acceptable.
So off with the new and on with old.
Reinspected. passed.
A system that sound good on paper , but........
P.S. the fishers just lend each other gear to pass. LOL.
gary
Yes I understand what you are saying gary but I think it is a strong possibility in the not too distant future due to what we see in the first post above and the irresponsibility of many boat owners.
There are or have been far too many "dunger boats" on our waterways. If a person wants the pleasure of boat ownership, I believe it comes with responsibilities of keeping it seaworthy and in reasonably presentable condition.
The waterfront richies will continue to complain about "grotty yachties" you can be sure.
So in Japan if your vessel was first registered with kero nav lights, that is what you have to have.
The condition of the white FB on the left below the waterline is not bad. I see vessels everyday occupying moorings that are growing kelp and mussel farms. There is no consistency. I'm all for getting rid of the rusty steely's that no one has been near for years and the ferro boats.
I have seen the gradual encroachment of moorings into the channels of Port Jackson over 50 years so I'm all for getting rid of moorings that aren't required or freeing them up. I know there are circumstances that lead to this sort of thing but surely there is a better end for some of these old girls.
Select to expand quotewoko said..
Perhaps these vessels where offered for sale and there was simply no interest ?
As I understand this is not the case. Apparently the thinking is to remove these vessels from the "cycle". In the past these vessels were auctioned and before long appeared somewhere else in the same condition.
Select to expand quotetroubadour said..woko said..
Perhaps these vessels where offered for sale and there was simply no interest ?
As I understand this is not the case. Apparently the thinking is to remove these vessels from the "cycle". In the past these vessels were auctioned and before long appeared somewhere else in the same condition.
.....& once the areas freed up with spare spots do we see privatisation of the state mooring management & associated cost increases...
I know it's well before 11.00 am but rumours must start somewhere..........
Select to expand quotecisco said..
I think an annual Seaworthiness Certificate is a good idea. Just like cars, trailers, caravans etc.
Agree. But in VIC we don't even have that for cars, it would be a long way off seeing this implemented for boats. Some of the cars you see here on the road are shocking - third world country like.
Select to expand quotewaikikin said..troubadour said..woko said..
Perhaps these vessels where offered for sale and there was simply no interest ?
As I understand this is not the case. Apparently the thinking is to remove these vessels from the "cycle". In the past these vessels were auctioned and before long appeared somewhere else in the same condition.
.....& once the areas freed up with spare spots do we see privatisation of the state mooring management & associated cost increases...
I know it's well before 11.00 am but rumours must start somewhere.......... Have a look at a lot of the moorings encroaching on the main channels. A lot are Red commercial moorings. Gladesville Bridge, Drummoyne between the foreshore and Spectacle/Snapper islands.
I think the worst moorings are just upstream of the Spit. It's one of the deepest parts of the harbour, and so about 8 big boats, some of them looking a bit scruffy, are on moorings with huge scope and taking up most of the harbour. There used to be two sailing clubs that had a top mark on the water now used by moorings - a clear case where a small number of people have excluded a larger bunch of people from the use of public water.
I won't comment on Drummoyne because my boat's currently on a commercial mooring there.
Just till she goes back to Port Stephens. But it's not as much in a channel as those Spit moorings are.
Yep its all over the place. At least places like Woodford Bay are largely confined to the bay but the ones that you are talking about upstream from the spit, Drummoyne etc all taking up usable channels. I sailed Sabots at Drummoyne a long time ago and you could tack up that channel in a Southerly, Now......
Good inputs by all obviously............so is it an idea for the authorities and companies wrecking these vessels to advertise the impending wrecking as regards location and time, and that interested parties can be present and salvage gear and components which could be serviceable.............as long as we don't get to this............
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/dec/02/chittagong-shipbreaking-yards-legal-fight
Sorry, a tad of an exaggeration..............but it is not an exaggeration to post the plight of the Chittagong ship breaking yards workers........
Select to expand quotegarymalmgren said..
Be careful what you wish for, Cisco.
In Japan we have a 6/3 year inspection cycle.
Every 3 years an on the water inspection of safety gear, (flares are rated at 3 years)
Ever other 3 years an on the hard inspection of hull, prop, etc.
The question that boaties are asking here is when did this become a revenue gathering operation? (like speeding cameras in Oz)
You pay $300 each three years. $150 for the inspection and $150 for the flares.
If there is anything that doesn't pass the test, you are up for another $150 for the second test.
Every boat from 4 metres up in Japan is tested .
Every ratty fishing boats passes first go (because of the strength of the fishers unions).
50% of leasure boats get a second test.
I fitted nice new US Coast Guard/ Loyd's approved nav/stern/running lights to replace the 40 year old faded yellow things that were on her.
Inspection time I was told that only the lights that were on the boat when it was first registered were acceptable.
So off with the new and on with old.
Reinspected. passed.
A system that sound good on paper , but........
P.S. the fishers just lend each other gear to pass. LOL.
gary
The pro fisherman use to pass a dinghy around at a fishing port near me on the Mid North Coast of NSW until one year when the first inspection was on a Friday afternoon. The MSB inspector signed the dinghy with a permanent marker pen! Nothing else was said!
There was a scramble over the weekend to get more dinghy's up from Sydney so they could pass the inspections.!
Select to expand quotenswsailor said..garymalmgren said..
Be careful what you wish for, Cisco.
In Japan we have a 6/3 year inspection cycle.
Every 3 years an on the water inspection of safety gear, (flares are rated at 3 years)
Ever other 3 years an on the hard inspection of hull, prop, etc.
The question that boaties are asking here is when did this become a revenue gathering operation? (like speeding cameras in Oz)
You pay $300 each three years. $150 for the inspection and $150 for the flares.
If there is anything that doesn't pass the test, you are up for another $150 for the second test.
Every boat from 4 metres up in Japan is tested .
Every ratty fishing boats passes first go (because of the strength of the fishers unions).
50% of leasure boats get a second test.
I fitted nice new US Coast Guard/ Loyd's approved nav/stern/running lights to replace the 40 year old faded yellow things that were on her.
Inspection time I was told that only the lights that were on the boat when it was first registered were acceptable.
So off with the new and on with old.
Reinspected. passed.
A system that sound good on paper , but........
P.S. the fishers just lend each other gear to pass. LOL.
gary
The pro fisherman use to pass a dinghy around at a fishing port near me on the Mid North Coast of NSW until one year when the first inspection was on a Friday afternoon. The MSB inspector signed the dinghy with a permanent marker pen! Nothing else was said!
There was a scramble over the weekend to get more dinghy's up from Sydney so they could pass the inspections.!
This is also the reason I believe that PFD's have to have the vessel name permanently marked on them. Back in the day the fishing fleet would pass the safety gear from one boat to the next just a step ahead of the MSB surveyor.
I had a look yesterday and the winches etc are still attached to the chunks of the smashed up Folkboats
We have lost several vessels from Greenwell Point with this clean up. It has nothing to do with the state of the vessel. It's when the yacht or powerboat is either abandoned or the fees have not been paid for the boat rego or the mooring. The Boating Officer will spend a lot of time chasing up the owners and warning them. If they don't respond the BO and the police arrive and tow away the vessel and lift it out on to the hard. It usually sits there for 3 months and the maritime services try to sell them off. If the owner does not front up with the fees or it does not sell then the contractor breaks up the vessel. The contractor sells off all the good stuff to his mates [not me]. A lot of the stuff goes to the scrap metal dealers. Brand new furlers have been cut up and scrapped! The NSW government has a fund set aside to cover these costs so they don't care whether the boats sell or not. The only winner here is the contractor.
Obviously this mooring minder situation would be fixed by using the system I saw in operation during my 7 years in Toronto Canada. You just freeze the water for 4 months of the year and the pure pain in the arse of hauling out and re-launching each year ensures that only the keen owners have boats in the water!
Select to expand quoteJethrow said..
Obviously this mooring minder situation would be fixed by using the system I saw in operation during my 7 years in Toronto Canada. You just freeze the water for 4 months of the year and the pure pain in the arse of hauling out and re-launching each year ensures that only the keen owners have boats in the water!
That would do it!
I like the idea of getting rid of neglected boats. Here in Lake Mac our bay has about one quarter of the moored boats which are basically abandoned. The owners don't care and never show up. If these were older wooden boats they all would have rotten and sunk by now and be biodegrading on the bottom.
Sadly they are glass and so we need to do the removal ourselves. Not paying mooring and rego fees is one way of removing the dead head boats. I don't like to see our waterways clogged up with non used boats. Better to grind them up and open up the space. It would be great if they could be well recycled - I would like to buy a new furler for chips.
There were almost no 50 year old boats on moorings when I was a kid - now we have huge numbers of Tophats, Hood 23s, Folkies and the like that are not worth much. A friend even got given a nice Etchell for free so old boats are not worth much. We have a new problem due to the non sinking nature of abandoned boats that needs new solutions.
cheers
Phil
The problem is running costs, even for a small 23ft boat, work out around $3k to $4k/a in Sydney. Going up in size maybe $4 to $5k. So you might as well go to a 28 or 30ft boat with headroom. Hence nobody wants these fine old boats.
