🚀 go-pugleaf

"President's Choice" brand, I find, is adequate.  Good enough to 'make
believe':o)

Phil

"Lloyd Sumpter" <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish
to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me
sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

Please attend at the reprogramming centre to have all elements of Canadian
behaviour purged from your system. : )


Lloyd Sumpter <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish
to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me
sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

:   Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
:suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?

I've tried a couple, believe it or not the least foul is good old
american o'douls.

When the day comes I can't anchor safely and then go to sleep in the
sun with a beer, no one will be boating any more.  No victim - no
crime.

Do Americans understand liberty?

Terry K

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
> 
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
> 
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

"Lloyd Sumpter" <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish
to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me
sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?

Haake Beck (German brand, most likely brewed locally) tastes like Heineken
if that's your style.

a.

Well, first, it's Canada I'm talking about. 

   And second, I'm talking about going fishing, THEN BOATING HOME. I, too, love
a beer or two (or wine, or...) after I'm anchored sucessfully (although I once
got wet getting into my dinghy after having "toasted the anchor" a few
times...). But getting drunk and sleepy in the sun, then boating home is NOT a
good idea.

Lloyd Sumpter
Campion 18

Terry K wrote:
> 
> When the day comes I can't anchor safely and then go to sleep in the
> sun with a beer, no one will be boating any more.  No victim - no
> crime.
> 
> Do Americans understand liberty?
> 
> Terry K
> 
> Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
> >
> > Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish to
> > bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me sleepy.
> >    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> > suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
> >
> > Lloyd Sumpter
> > Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

Lloyd Sumpter <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish
to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me
sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?

LLoyd,

My favorite beverage when out on the water, when it's hot, is Safeway's
store brand Grapefruit Soda. When this stuff is ice cold it goes down easy
and quenches your thirst very well.

Bert

>Do Americans understand liberty?

No we do not.  It's been beaten out of us ever since the sixties.  If you
are WASP / WASC - you have no liberties, it says so in the constitution.

Karl Denniger wrote a spirited reply about anchoring and getting drunk, or
at least consuming alcohol etc. and that "they" (police presumably) not
caring and so on, as someone who conveniently specializes in impaired
driving law from the defence perspective, I should point out a few things:

Care and control of a vessel, motor vehicle (including snowmobiles, atvs,
golf carts), airplanes and locomotives (!) is a crimial offence, operation
is not the only way to get charged. Same as sleeping in your car while
hammered. You will be charged. You may well win at trial on any number of
issues, but you will still get nailed by most police. Anchoring the vessel
is step one, but it works only if you are at a dock and properly secured. If
you are out on the lake, you can get away with it as long as someone else is
sober and prepared to take control of the vessel should anything unforseen
happen.

We have dealt with a fair number of impaired boating cases over the years.
There is also a fairly active RIDE program on most large waterways. They can
board you, give you a screening device and if you fail that, it's off to the
station for intoxilyzer tests.

This is far more grief than anyone wants. Wait till you get back to shore.

There is legeslation afoot to have these offences apply to canoes. More on
that later....

No, I'm not on any kind of high horse, (drunken camel perhaps) but should
you get popped for this, your beers will end up costing about $300.00 a
piece.

FYI

Wrong.  A couple of weeks ago, the (I think state) supreme court upheld the
confiscation of a guys new truck.  First day he has it, and is in his
driveway, drinking a beer, listening to the tunes on the sound system,
engine is running as he is running the tunes loud.  They get him for drunk
driving as the truck is running, and in his state (Minnesota) they keep the
car.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a854667570b.htm
Bill

"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9atgh8$8gc$0@dosa.alt.net...
> Cite please.  Show me a statute where I can look it up in an online forum
> (most states have such.)
>
> "Care and control"?  Nonsense.  I can drink to high hell with my car in my
> driveway (even IN my car parked in my driveway) and its perfectly legal.
>
> You're construing a meaning in a set of words that is not there under the
> plain language of the statutes.
>
> To be "boating under the influence" a boat must be legally underway, as
> otherwise it is not being OPERATED.  Nor is it in someone's "control"
> from a legal standpoint.
>
> If it is anchored or made fast to shore (a moor or dock) (or, for that
> matter, aground) its not legally under way.
>
> From Florida Statutes:
>
> 327.35  Boating under the influence; penalties; "designated drivers".--
>
> (1)  A person is guilty of the offense of boating under the influence and
is
> subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is
> operating a vessel within this state and:
>
> (a)  The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any
chemical
> substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under
chapter
> 893, when affected to the extent that the person's normal faculties are
> impaired;
>
> (b)  The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol
> per 100 milliliters of blood; or
>
> (c)  The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of
alcohol
> per 210 liters of breath.
>
> (it then goes on to specify penalties, which are quite severe, along with
> the intent of the legislature for people to have "designated drivers")
>
> Cite:
>
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Searc
h_String=&URL=Ch0327/SEC35.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0327->Section%2035
>
> Note that the key phrase there is OPERATING A VESSEL.
>
> You are not OPERATING a vessel if it is moored, made fast to shore or
> properly (and legally) anchored.  In fact, nobody is legally "in control"
> of such a vessel, as all three such circumstances have identical force
> under the law.
>
> If circumstances change and you decide (for whatever reason) to pull that
> anchor, however, you had better be sober when you do!
>
> If you are charged with "BUI" when in fact you were not "OPERATING" the
> vessel, IMHO you have a case for a suit at law for false arrest, as there
> was no statute that was being violated at the time.
>
> (There is also section 327.34, which covers you KNOWINGLY allowing someone
> to operate the vessel while THEY are intoxicated.  But the key word is
> still there - the vessel must be OPERATED for the violation to occur.
>
> Note that there is a SPECIFIC penalty for waterskiing (!) while under the
> influence, so they OBVIOUSLY thought of the specific instance where
someone
> would be in the boat, drinking, but not OPERATING it (and yet they still
> wanted to penalize them.)  Section 327.38.
>
> Note further that while there is no CRIMINAL issue here, you CAN get
nailed
> civilly under the "dangerous instrumentality" law if you're drunk, in
charge
> but not "operating" the vessel, and someone gets hurt *as a consequence of
> your actions.*  In other words, if you're wasted and as a direct
consequence
> someone was to fall off and drown, you might well get tagged. But that is
> civil liability (and is exactly identical to the situation where you're
> drunk in your home under the same circumstances.)
>
> The definitions try to weasel this one a bit, but they fail.  Specifically
> mentioned is "in command of" and "in physical control of", which fits
> precisely with the defintions in the COLREGs and Inland Rules.  You cannot
> be "in physical control of" something if you are not in a position to
affect
> it.
>
> Yes, I realize that this means that if you get soused while anchored and
> then a storm blows up requiring you to start up and move, you're asking to
> get nailed for BUI as soon as you turn the key.  Yep.  Sure does.  I
accept
> that as not only appropriate but PROPER, since you are *in control of*
> the vessel as soon as you begin the procedure to weigh anchor.  Likewise,
> if your anchor rode breaks, you're legally "underway" at that point - and
> you had better be sober.  (The irony is that if you are pushed into a bar
> and aground, you're legally not in control or command any longer.  Of
course
> you then are likely to have bigger problems :-))
>
> To fit your definition of this, Mr. Lothar (who is enough of a wimp that
he
> won't sign his name), you'd have to be able to arrest someone DOCKED,
> because under your definition of "in physical control of" would be met
> by someone who was standing on their DOCKED boat, with the engines
> off and the vessel secured.  Why?  Because LEGALLY a vessel is either
> UNDERWAY or NOT.  There is no legal middle ground on this in either the
> inland rules or COLREGS; there is no "well, he's in control and command
> but not underway" dodge available to the lawman.
>
> Yet that is OBVIOUSLY not what is intended, because (1) it simply doesn't
> happen and there wouldn't be a yacht club in existence if it did, and (2)
> the COLREGs and Inland Rules STRICTLY define what "underway" means.
>
> Specifically, Rule 3(h) of the inland rules (which would apply in Florida
> Waters if the Colregs do not) states:
>
> (h) The word ''underway'' means that a vessel is not at anchor,
> or made fast to the shore, or aground;
>
> And finally, 327.33 (which covers reckless and careless operation)
> SPECIFICALLY states that the ascertainment of fault in vessel *operations*
> shall be made under the navigation rules.
>
> A vessel at anchor, made fast to the shore, or aground is not required
> to have a master in "control" or "command" of her.  In fact, from a legal
> perspective there is nobody "in control" or "in command" of a vessel so
> positioned.
>
> This is why you can disembark if you are the master of such a vessel when
> she is anchored or made fast to the shore without liability - so long
> as your anchor is indeed securely set and the proper shapes or lights (and
> sounds, if visability is impaired) are being produced or the vessel is
> securely made fast to the dock!  You are in fact relieved of command and
> control of said vessel; the entire body of the Inland rules (and COLREGS)
> pertaining to your responsibility for the vessel (including standing
watch,
> etc) is void when you are aground, made fast to the shore or properly
> anchored.
>
> Note that under both the Inland Rules and COLREGs you must be in a
position
> to immediately maneuver when underway, even if you are not moving.  That
is,
> someone must be in command and/or control of the vessel.  If you're
sitting
> in a boat with the engine shut off and you're NOT anchored, you're legally
> underway.
>
> Get drunk in THAT situation and you're legally boating under the
influence.
>
> A watercop who tries to arrest someone for being drunk while legally
> *at anchor* is asking to have their jurisdiction sued out of existence
> for false arrest, including costs incurred and punitive damages.
>
> There is ZERO legal difference between the legal status of a docked boat
> and a properly anchored boat.  Neither requires the availability of
command
> inputs or that engines be at the ready, that a lookout be maintained, or
> even that a master be on board.  If someone who would be the vessel master
> IS on board, for purposes of determining fault he is not in command or
> control of the vessel should it be struck while at dock or at anchor.
>
> To suppose that there is *special* interpretation of these two states
> only for the purpose of consumption of alcohol when none is present in
> the statutes would not survive a first-grade legal challenge.
>
> A legally and properly anchored vessel may be left COMPLETELY unattended,
> even in a hurricane!
>
> You ARE correct that if I am drunk and suddenly MUST pull my anchor I'm
> going to get caught for BUI.  But in the pedestrian circumstance where
> I'm laying at anchor in weather appropriate to my ground tackle, secured
> and at rest?  No way.
>
> Having been "questioned" a number of times in the Chicago area on EXACTLY
> this point in each instance the watercop gave up, being unwilling to
> attempt to press his case and face the consequences.  I can only presume
> that they are able to read at least as well as I can.
>
> Show me a court case that has survived appeal (and is thus published) in
> which the clear language of the statue does not hold, or a state set of
laws
> that permit the kind of Nazi behavior you are claiming is proper and
> appropriate.
>
> If you're really such a "professional" as you claim it should be TRIVIAL
for
> you to do so.
>
> (You CAN be busted for public intoxication, assuming you're behaving in a
> loud, obnoxious and obviously drunk fashion where you can be seen.  So if
> you want to do some roaring drinking, go below the weather deck first!)
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
> http://www.denninger.net/boaterforum.com An HONEST forum for boaters
>
> In article <EdqA6.66323$XV.16669663@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> Lothar of the Hilll People <turner8595@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >Karl Denniger wrote a spirited reply about anchoring and getting drunk,
or
> >at least consuming alcohol etc. and that "they" (police presumably) not
> >caring and so on, as someone who conveniently specializes in impaired
> >driving law from the defence perspective, I should point out a few
things:
> >
> >Care and control of a vessel, motor vehicle (including snowmobiles, atvs,
> >golf carts), airplanes and locomotives (!) is a crimial offence,
operation
> >is not the only way to get charged. Same as sleeping in your car while
> >hammered. You will be charged. You may well win at trial on any number of
> >issues, but you will still get nailed by most police. Anchoring the
vessel
> >is step one, but it works only if you are at a dock and properly secured.
If
> >you are out on the lake, you can get away with it as long as someone else
is
> >sober and prepared to take control of the vessel should anything
unforseen
> >happen.
> >
> >We have dealt with a fair number of impaired boating cases over the
years.
> >There is also a fairly active RIDE program on most large waterways. They
can
> >board you, give you a screening device and if you fail that, it's off to
the
> >station for intoxilyzer tests.
> >
> >This is far more grief than anyone wants. Wait till you get back to
shore.
> >
> >There is legeslation afoot to have these offences apply to canoes. More
on
> >that later....
> >
> >No, I'm not on any kind of high horse, (drunken camel perhaps) but should
> >you get popped for this, your beers will end up costing about $300.00 a
> >piece.
> >
> >FYI
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Lloyd

Try the Molson Excel.  Not too bad for a "near beer"

-Ron
http://RochesterBoating.com

"Lloyd Sumpter" <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish
to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me
sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

"Lloyd Sumpter" <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?


Lloyd, try the "Presidents Choice"  Its not too bad!   I prefer the US.
Brand.  "O'Douls"
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

>
>That was, in fact, exactly my point - if the vehicle is in a position for
>immediate maneuvering and you're at the controls then you're cooked.  If
>you're *anchored* in a boat its not and in fact you are relieved of
>responsibility to be in command and control of the vessel under the
>rules of the water.

While a boat at anchor is technically not underway, I'm not so sure that
distinction in and of itself is enough for complete indemnification in the
context of intoxication.  Being at anchor is quite a bit different than
being secured to a dock or in a slip.  As you've aluded to, many things can
happen while at anchor that could require the skipper to weigh anchor and
get underway again, even if just to reset the anchor.  Wind, current, and
other traffic as examples.  We've all been down that road.  I'd be willing
to give you the nod while on a mooring bouy in a dedicated and marked
anchorage, but not so sure I'd make a blanket statement of immunity while
swinging on the hook in a cove somewhere.  Not saying that I wouldn't open
the bar in such a situation, just saying that I wouldn't declare it
impossible to be justifiably fitted for a set of bracelets for doing so.
You're hanging an awful lot on the COLREGS definition of underway, and I'm
not convinced that the BUI laws give that much of a rip about the COLREGS
distinction.  I understand your argument, I just think it is merely
technical, not prudent, and doubt that it universally shared by on-the-water
law enforcement.

Russ

On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:07:23 GMT, Lloyd Sumpter <lsumpter@home.com>
wrote:

>Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish to
>bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me sleepy.
>   Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
>suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
>
>Lloyd Sumpter
>Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?


I found a NA beer called Kaliber imported by the makers of Bass.  It
is kind of heavy like a Sam Adams.  Best I have found. 


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

What the hell do florida drinking laws have to do with can.rec. fishing.
Quit crossposting to this site if you are going to talk about laws in
Florida and California.  In fact, quit crossposting altogether.


"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9ato6e$6li$0@pita.alt.net...
> Note also that he pled guilty to the DUI charge.
>
> While most of the elements of a DUI were in fact in place (vehicle
running,
> driver in the driver's seat) he was on HIS OWN LAND (in his driveway.)
>
> That alone should be sufficient to have acquitted him had he gone to
trial,
> as it is NOT illegal to operate a vehicle while drunk ON YOUR OWN LAND.
>
> You need the following elements to be convicted of a DUI:
>
> 1. You must be in a public place (on the public street or in a public
> parking lot); the element of risk to the public must exist.
>
> 2. You must be either (1) operating the vehicle, or (2) in a position
> to immediately do so (show intent to do so)  The engine being
> running or the keys in the ignition GENERALLY satisfy the second
> requirement.
>
> 3. You must be intoxicated.
>
> Miss any of these three and a conviction won't stand up.  Of course once
> you ADMIT to DUI then you've lost the ability to have a trial on the
> merits..... (and this guy apparently did!)
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
> http://www.denninger.net/boaterforum.com An HONEST forum for boaters
>
> In article <9ath2e$dh$1@tilde.csc.ti.com>,
> Calif Bill <bmckee@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Wrong.  A couple of weeks ago, the (I think state) supreme court upheld
the
> >confiscation of a guys new truck.  First day he has it, and is in his
> >driveway, drinking a beer, listening to the tunes on the sound system,
> >engine is running as he is running the tunes loud.  They get him for
drunk
> >driving as the truck is running, and in his state (Minnesota) they keep
the
> >car.
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a854667570b.htm
> >Bill
> >
> >"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
> >news:9atgh8$8gc$0@dosa.alt.net...
> >> Cite please.  Show me a statute where I can look it up in an online
forum
> >> (most states have such.)
> >>
> >> "Care and control"?  Nonsense.  I can drink to high hell with my car in
my
> >> driveway (even IN my car parked in my driveway) and its perfectly
legal.
> >>
> >> You're construing a meaning in a set of words that is not there under
the
> >> plain language of the statutes.
> >>
> >> To be "boating under the influence" a boat must be legally underway, as
> >> otherwise it is not being OPERATED.  Nor is it in someone's "control"
> >> from a legal standpoint.
> >>
> >> If it is anchored or made fast to shore (a moor or dock) (or, for that
> >> matter, aground) its not legally under way.
> >>
> >> From Florida Statutes:
> >>
> >> 327.35  Boating under the influence; penalties; "designated drivers".--
> >>
> >> (1)  A person is guilty of the offense of boating under the influence
and
> >is
> >> subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is
> >> operating a vessel within this state and:
> >>
> >> (a)  The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any
> >chemical
> >> substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under
> >chapter
> >> 893, when affected to the extent that the person's normal faculties are
> >> impaired;
> >>
> >> (b)  The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of
alcohol
> >> per 100 milliliters of blood; or
> >>
> >> (c)  The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of
> >alcohol
> >> per 210 liters of breath.
> >>
> >> (it then goes on to specify penalties, which are quite severe, along
with
> >> the intent of the legislature for people to have "designated drivers")
> >>
> >> Cite:
> >>
>
>http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Sear
c
> >h_String=&URL=Ch0327/SEC35.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0327->Section%2035
> >>
> >> Note that the key phrase there is OPERATING A VESSEL.
> >>
> >> You are not OPERATING a vessel if it is moored, made fast to shore or
> >> properly (and legally) anchored.  In fact, nobody is legally "in
control"
> >> of such a vessel, as all three such circumstances have identical force
> >> under the law.
> >>
> >> If circumstances change and you decide (for whatever reason) to pull
that
> >> anchor, however, you had better be sober when you do!
> >>
> >> If you are charged with "BUI" when in fact you were not "OPERATING" the
> >> vessel, IMHO you have a case for a suit at law for false arrest, as
there
> >> was no statute that was being violated at the time.
> >>
> >> (There is also section 327.34, which covers you KNOWINGLY allowing
someone
> >> to operate the vessel while THEY are intoxicated.  But the key word is
> >> still there - the vessel must be OPERATED for the violation to occur.
> >>
> >> Note that there is a SPECIFIC penalty for waterskiing (!) while under
the
> >> influence, so they OBVIOUSLY thought of the specific instance where
> >someone
> >> would be in the boat, drinking, but not OPERATING it (and yet they
still
> >> wanted to penalize them.)  Section 327.38.
> >>
> >> Note further that while there is no CRIMINAL issue here, you CAN get
> >nailed
> >> civilly under the "dangerous instrumentality" law if you're drunk, in
> >charge
> >> but not "operating" the vessel, and someone gets hurt *as a consequence
of
> >> your actions.*  In other words, if you're wasted and as a direct
> >consequence
> >> someone was to fall off and drown, you might well get tagged. But that
is
> >> civil liability (and is exactly identical to the situation where you're
> >> drunk in your home under the same circumstances.)
> >>
> >> The definitions try to weasel this one a bit, but they fail.
Specifically
> >> mentioned is "in command of" and "in physical control of", which fits
> >> precisely with the defintions in the COLREGs and Inland Rules.  You
cannot
> >> be "in physical control of" something if you are not in a position to
> >affect
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Yes, I realize that this means that if you get soused while anchored
and
> >> then a storm blows up requiring you to start up and move, you're asking
to
> >> get nailed for BUI as soon as you turn the key.  Yep.  Sure does.  I
> >accept
> >> that as not only appropriate but PROPER, since you are *in control of*
> >> the vessel as soon as you begin the procedure to weigh anchor.
Likewise,
> >> if your anchor rode breaks, you're legally "underway" at that point -
and
> >> you had better be sober.  (The irony is that if you are pushed into a
bar
> >> and aground, you're legally not in control or command any longer.  Of
> >course
> >> you then are likely to have bigger problems :-))
> >>
> >> To fit your definition of this, Mr. Lothar (who is enough of a wimp
that
> >he
> >> won't sign his name), you'd have to be able to arrest someone DOCKED,
> >> because under your definition of "in physical control of" would be met
> >> by someone who was standing on their DOCKED boat, with the engines
> >> off and the vessel secured.  Why?  Because LEGALLY a vessel is either
> >> UNDERWAY or NOT.  There is no legal middle ground on this in either the
> >> inland rules or COLREGS; there is no "well, he's in control and command
> >> but not underway" dodge available to the lawman.
> >>
> >> Yet that is OBVIOUSLY not what is intended, because (1) it simply
doesn't
> >> happen and there wouldn't be a yacht club in existence if it did, and
(2)
> >> the COLREGs and Inland Rules STRICTLY define what "underway" means.
> >>
> >> Specifically, Rule 3(h) of the inland rules (which would apply in
Florida
> >> Waters if the Colregs do not) states:
> >>
> >> (h) The word ''underway'' means that a vessel is not at anchor,
> >> or made fast to the shore, or aground;
> >>
> >> And finally, 327.33 (which covers reckless and careless operation)
> >> SPECIFICALLY states that the ascertainment of fault in vessel
*operations*
> >> shall be made under the navigation rules.
> >>
> >> A vessel at anchor, made fast to the shore, or aground is not required
> >> to have a master in "control" or "command" of her.  In fact, from a
legal
> >> perspective there is nobody "in control" or "in command" of a vessel so
> >> positioned.
> >>
> >> This is why you can disembark if you are the master of such a vessel
when
> >> she is anchored or made fast to the shore without liability - so long
> >> as your anchor is indeed securely set and the proper shapes or lights
(and
> >> sounds, if visability is impaired) are being produced or the vessel is
> >> securely made fast to the dock!  You are in fact relieved of command
and
> >> control of said vessel; the entire body of the Inland rules (and
COLREGS)
> >> pertaining to your responsibility for the vessel (including standing
> >watch,
> >> etc) is void when you are aground, made fast to the shore or properly
> >> anchored.
> >>
> >> Note that under both the Inland Rules and COLREGs you must be in a
> >position
> >> to immediately maneuver when underway, even if you are not moving.
That
> >is,
> >> someone must be in command and/or control of the vessel.  If you're
> >sitting
> >> in a boat with the engine shut off and you're NOT anchored, you're
legally
> >> underway.
> >>
> >> Get drunk in THAT situation and you're legally boating under the
> >influence.
> >>
> >> A watercop who tries to arrest someone for being drunk while legally
> >> *at anchor* is asking to have their jurisdiction sued out of existence
> >> for false arrest, including costs incurred and punitive damages.
> >>
> >> There is ZERO legal difference between the legal status of a docked
boat
> >> and a properly anchored boat.  Neither requires the availability of
> >command
> >> inputs or that engines be at the ready, that a lookout be maintained,
or
> >> even that a master be on board.  If someone who would be the vessel
master
> >> IS on board, for purposes of determining fault he is not in command or
> >> control of the vessel should it be struck while at dock or at anchor.
> >>
> >> To suppose that there is *special* interpretation of these two states
> >> only for the purpose of consumption of alcohol when none is present in
> >> the statutes would not survive a first-grade legal challenge.
> >>
> >> A legally and properly anchored vessel may be left COMPLETELY
unattended,
> >> even in a hurricane!
> >>
> >> You ARE correct that if I am drunk and suddenly MUST pull my anchor I'm
> >> going to get caught for BUI.  But in the pedestrian circumstance where
> >> I'm laying at anchor in weather appropriate to my ground tackle,
secured
> >> and at rest?  No way.
> >>
> >> Having been "questioned" a number of times in the Chicago area on
EXACTLY
> >> this point in each instance the watercop gave up, being unwilling to
> >> attempt to press his case and face the consequences.  I can only
presume
> >> that they are able to read at least as well as I can.
> >>
> >> Show me a court case that has survived appeal (and is thus published)
in
> >> which the clear language of the statue does not hold, or a state set of
> >laws
> >> that permit the kind of Nazi behavior you are claiming is proper and
> >> appropriate.
> >>
> >> If you're really such a "professional" as you claim it should be
TRIVIAL
> >for
> >> you to do so.
> >>
> >> (You CAN be busted for public intoxication, assuming you're behaving in
a
> >> loud, obnoxious and obviously drunk fashion where you can be seen.  So
if
> >> you want to do some roaring drinking, go below the weather deck first!)
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
> >Activist
> >> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> >> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
> >> http://www.denninger.net/boaterforum.com An HONEST forum for boaters
> >>
> >> In article <EdqA6.66323$XV.16669663@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> >> Lothar of the Hilll People <turner8595@home.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Karl Denniger wrote a spirited reply about anchoring and getting
drunk,
> >or
> >> >at least consuming alcohol etc. and that "they" (police presumably)
not
> >> >caring and so on, as someone who conveniently specializes in impaired
> >> >driving law from the defence perspective, I should point out a few
> >things:
> >> >
> >> >Care and control of a vessel, motor vehicle (including snowmobiles,
atvs,
> >> >golf carts), airplanes and locomotives (!) is a crimial offence,
> >operation
> >> >is not the only way to get charged. Same as sleeping in your car while
> >> >hammered. You will be charged. You may well win at trial on any number
of
> >> >issues, but you will still get nailed by most police. Anchoring the
> >vessel
> >> >is step one, but it works only if you are at a dock and properly
secured.
> >If
> >> >you are out on the lake, you can get away with it as long as someone
else
> >is
> >> >sober and prepared to take control of the vessel should anything
> >unforseen
> >> >happen.
> >> >
> >> >We have dealt with a fair number of impaired boating cases over the
> >years.
> >> >There is also a fairly active RIDE program on most large waterways.
They
> >can
> >> >board you, give you a screening device and if you fail that, it's off
to
> >the
> >> >station for intoxilyzer tests.
> >> >
> >> >This is far more grief than anyone wants. Wait till you get back to
> >shore.
> >> >
> >> >There is legeslation afoot to have these offences apply to canoes.
More
> >on
> >> >that later....
> >> >
> >> >No, I'm not on any kind of high horse, (drunken camel perhaps) but
should
> >> >you get popped for this, your beers will end up costing about $300.00
a
> >> >piece.
> >> >
> >> >FYI
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

delbert, not unlike the sound of one hand clapping,  wrote in message ...

>What the hell do florida drinking laws have to do with can.rec. fishing.
>Quit crossposting to this site if you are going to talk about laws in
>Florida and California.  In fact, quit crossposting altogether.
>


Suggest you take the issue up with the guy who originated the thread (he's
one of yours) as a cross-post.  He likes to do that for some reason.  The
rest of us are simply hitting the reply button.

Russ

Sorry, Lloyd, I did not mean for this to turn into a legal forum,  I don't
know about any decent "non-beers" - bias on my part, no doubt.  - more power
to ya, obviously the smart route, on your part.

I will address, for the last time,  those that disagree with my views (not
mine, in fact, after all, this is a Canadian NG.)  - - - -    Care and
control is subsumed under Canadian law, under section 253 of the Criminal
Code, look it up, I know you do not know me, but I am not leading you astray
for my own amusement. I was just trying to save you some trouble.

Karl:

By all means, test it out. I'm sure the local police will be glad to hear
you emerge from your houseboat, and say "Hey, me and the missus were just
havin' fun, fuck you, "country mountie" as I believe you said in your first
post, That is the law in Canada and no wonder.

>You need the following elements to be convicted of a DUI:
>
>1.	You must be in a public place (on the public street or in a public
>	parking lot); the element of risk to the public must exist.
>
>2.	You must be either (1) operating the vehicle, or (2) in a position
>	to immediately do so (show intent to do so)  The engine being
>	running or the keys in the ignition GENERALLY satisfy the second
>	requirement.
>
>3.	You must be intoxicated.
>
>Miss any of these three and a conviction won't stand up.  Of course once 
>you ADMIT to DUI then you've lost the ability to have a trial on the
>merits..... (and this guy apparently did!)
>

-DEAD WRONG!

Although I cannot speak for every state, in my state the law says
"whoever, IN ANY PLACE (Emphasis is mine) operates etc. etc.
Driveways, farm fields, back yards, snowmobile trails and waterways
have all been involved in successful prosecutions.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Go away Karl, quit posting to this forum if your only interest is slagging
Canadians. You've obviously not properly read the instructions on your home
lobotomy kit, although I marvel at your skill in typing with a
straight-jacket on. You represent the worst of the American sterotypes that
most polite Canadians (aside from Rick Mercer) try to avoid falling prey to.
Do yourself and your countymen a favour by exercising your right to remain
silent rather than your right to spray spittle all over your monitor as you
rant, furiously hammering away on the keyboard in your trailer.

Lots of people will get to work today, read this thread, and want to
contribute, but this ends it for me until something comes up regarding
fishing.

Ciao (that means "goodbye", Karl)

Lothar of the Hilll People wrote:
> 
> Go away Karl, quit posting to this forum if your only interest is slagging
> Canadians. You've obviously not properly read the instructions on your home
> lobotomy kit, although I marvel at your skill in typing with a
> straight-jacket on. You represent the worst of the American sterotypes that
> most polite Canadians (aside from Rick Mercer) try to avoid falling prey to.
> Do yourself and your countymen a favour by exercising your right to remain
> silent rather than your right to spray spittle all over your monitor as you
> rant, furiously hammering away on the keyboard in your trailer.
> 
> Lots of people will get to work today, read this thread, and want to
> contribute, but this ends it for me until something comes up regarding
> fishing.
> 
> Ciao (that means "goodbye", Karl)


Karl's almost okay when he's off the sauce. 


-- 
Harry Krause
------------

I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am. I do know I'm
ready
for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes. -GW Bush

I've found that Old Milwaukee NA has a smooth taste.
Don't know if you can get it where you're at, but it's
worth a try if you can.

Just  a Guy

"Lloyd Sumpter" <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm
waiting for the fish to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat,
a few beers make me sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try
non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't
taste TOO bad?
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9au40d$vsf$0@pita.alt.net...

Drinking applies to boats, aircrafts  and land based  vehicles if you are
convicted, it is a criminal offence and as such it caries a record, and the
nice thing about criminal records, you will never have to worry about having
to travel outside of your country ever, you just wont be allowed entry
period.
Wade


>
> I ain't in Canada - and other than Beer your country has zero that
interests
> me anyway.  If you believe county mounties - or any other form of police -
> have the right to molest people who are (1) minding their own business,
> (2) not presenting any risk to other members of the public, and (3) doing
> so while enjoying perfectly legal substances it is you who is fucked in
> the head - along with any nation that has left you with that as a sense
> of "rights".
>
> If your "criminal code" in fact makes laying at anchor, with said anchor
> secure and the boat in conditions appropriate to the ground tackle in use
> (that is, not at risk of breaking free), and with the ignitions off and
> keys removed, while consuming alcohol illegal then your country is, pardon
> my french, completely fucked in the head and I'll have to re-evaluate the
> value of said Beer.
>
> And again, I've asked for a specific cite and reference that can be
verified
> online.  You want to make a claim, provide the cite.  I did for Florida
law.
>
> What, are you going to tell me that it simply doesn't exist or is
> "privileged" next?  Why the hell should I put up with THAT kind of crap,
> not knowing what is and is not legal, before committing a particular act?
>
> I have no argument with going after people actually operating a vessel (or
> any other vehicle) while intoxicated.  In fact, I'd like to see *more*
> enforcement of that nature, because those individuals are a public menace.
> Likewise, if you're sitting out there pissing downwind (quite literally)
> or otherwise making a public nuisance of yourself I've no issue with
"drunk
> and disorderly" charges being laid.  Quite appropriate, in fact.
>
> But if I choose, with appropriate ground tackle and in appropriate
> conditions, to lay at anchor and consume some alcohol, a legal substance,
> when there is no risk of me causing harm or injury to random persons in
the
> public, the entire argument that underlies BUI and DUI laws is gone - now
> we've gone from a law about protecting public safety (good) to one that
> is pretty much aligned with enforcement of a Nazi regime (unacceptable.)
>
> The COLREGs and Inland Rules clearly denote that you do not need a master
> in command or control of a vessel under those circumstances.  Indeed, said
> vessel when anchored must post lights and dayshapes (if large enough)
> specifically to warn other vessels that she is not under the control of
> anyone, but rather is fastened to *LAND*, and in fact in both cases said
> land is submerged under the water.  The only reason they don't make you
> do this at a pier is the *obvious* nature of the attachment to land when
> tied up in a slip.
>
> If prosecution is selective (and you've indicated that indeed it is) then
> that only makes it worse - now the Nazis only come after people they don't
> like.
>
> Oh THAT makes me want to spend money on things "Made in Canada."
>
> NOT!
>
> After all, voting with my wallet seems to be the only way I know of to
make
> a point in situations like this.  Good thing there ain't anything useful
> in that frozen wasteland that I want, so you Nazis can keep it all to
> yourself....
>
> Then again it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out something like this.
> You folk seem to have a few very odd ideas about personal freedom,
personal
> responsibility and other matters of a similar nature.  It shows up in some
> funny places too.
>
> I asked you for a case law cite as well; you didn't provide it, probably
> 'cause it doesn't exist.  Then again, perhaps you have Kangaroo Kourts up
> there too where publication isn't required nor are they considered public
> venues, in which case who knows what could come of it.
>
> Yet you claim to be "in the business" of helping people defend against
DUIs.
> No doubt its a tough (but profitable, right?) business when the
prosecution
> and standards are both subjective!
>
> We have enough trouble with overzealous police doing silly and outright
> illegal things down here but at least there is a check and balance on it -
> public opinion and the Constitution.  There are more than a few people who
> own new yachts and do a lot of laughing at the expense of various arms of
> government who have overstepped the boundaries of common sense and the
> underlayment of the legal code in this country.
>
> This much I do know - in both Illinois and Florida the law is quite clear
> about the definition of "operate", and when it comes to vessels and what's
> right and wrong great deference is given to the US Inland rules and
COLREGS,
> depending on which side of the demarcation line you happen to be.
>
> State laws define things as illegal (like BUI), but I've yet to see a
> state define "in control of" to emcompass a vessel that is intentionally
> not under command or control and considered not to be underway.  The cite
> to the guy in Minnesota is an outrage, but heh, he pled guilty!  What the
> hell are you going to do after someone *admits* to *DRIVING* while
> intoxicated?  (For all I know he might well have been when he drove
> home originally; this was, after all, his THIRD DUI....)
>
> If they tried to pull this crap around here every yacht club I've ever
> set foot on would be out of business in seconds and every second boatowner
> with a slip in these marinas would be in jail.  For there is no leap
> whatsoever, under the definition of when one is in "control" of a vessel,
> from anchored to made fast to shore.  In fact, under both Inland rules
> and COLREGS the distinction necessary to bring charges simply doesn't
> exist.
>
> In both cases you are connected to the LAND that rests under the vessel.
> Whether you do that with a piling or an anchor is simply a matter of how
> long the shaft is, at which angle it points and how far down it is sunk
> into the sand or mud.  As anyone who has ever used a mooring will tell
> you, they ain't nohow permanent no matter what is claimed - just wait
> until the next really strong storm and you might get to watch it drag,
> just like an anchor.....
>
> If indeed your inland rules are laid out the same way ours are then the
> issue comes down to selective enforcement.  That happens to be one of the
> worst sins that a government can commit; as far as I'm concerned this
makes
> Canada roughly equivalent with Red China on the governmental integrity
map,
> and I suspect you can guess what I think about them right about now.
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
> http://www.denninger.net/boaterforum.com An HONEST forum for boaters

"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9av96f$ep1$0@dosa.alt.net...

Many jurisdiction have very simple clauses like in control of said vessel,
vehicle or craft, meaning if you are inside and have a license or keys your
in control.
Wade

>
> In article <9av74m$8tf$0@dosa.alt.net>,
> Karl Denninger <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote:
> >
> >In article <3ad2efac.833315@news.midmaine.com>,  <cmdrdewey@aol.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>>You need the following elements to be convicted of a DUI:
> >>>
> >>>1. You must be in a public place (on the public street or in a public
> >>> parking lot); the element of risk to the public must exist.
> >>>
> >>>2. You must be either (1) operating the vehicle, or (2) in a position
> >>> to immediately do so (show intent to do so)  The engine being
> >>> running or the keys in the ignition GENERALLY satisfy the second
> >>> requirement.
> >>>
> >>>3. You must be intoxicated.
> >>>
> >>>Miss any of these three and a conviction won't stand up.  Of course
once
> >>>you ADMIT to DUI then you've lost the ability to have a trial on the
> >>>merits..... (and this guy apparently did!)
> >>>
> >>
> >>-DEAD WRONG!
> >>
> >>Although I cannot speak for every state, in my state the law says
> >>"whoever, IN ANY PLACE (Emphasis is mine) operates etc. etc.
> >>Driveways, farm fields, back yards, snowmobile trails and waterways
> >>have all been involved in successful prosecutions.
> >
> >Show me case law and your state code; is it available online?
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong, at least as pertains to watercraft.
>
> S 284 requires operation on public waterways (....the tidewaters of any
> municipality or upon any of the offshore waters within the jurisdiction of
> this State....)
>
> Boozed operation upon YOUR PRIVATE LAKE is not prohibited.
>
> Maine's statutes are amazingly vague on that point with regards to cars
and
> the like, however, they do require ACTUAL operation and define it clearly
> enough that sitting in your car (but not operating it; the engine is off)
> while boozed doesn't count.
>
> Your state statutes do NOT (unless you're not really in Maine) in fact say
> "whoever IN ANY PLACE".  Just looked them up bud.
>
> Again, show me case law that backs your position, including published
> appeals.
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
> http://www.denninger.net/boaterforum.com An HONEST forum for boaters

IS there such a thing as Canadian beer that tastes bad....????
" George Jefferson " <gjeff@one.net> wrote in message
news:9asvpj$f2j$1@shell.one.net...
>
>
> :   Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> :suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
>
> I've tried a couple, believe it or not the least foul is good old
> american o'douls.
>

"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9avip1$chk$0@dosa.alt.net...
> >
> >Many jurisdiction have very simple clauses like in control of said
vessel,
> >vehicle or craft, meaning if you are inside and have a license or keys
your
> >in control.
> >Wade
>
> No you're not.
>
> That won't survive even a third-rate attorney's challenge.
>
> Now if you have the keys in the IGNITION, or if the vessel is RUNNING,
> that's a different matter entirely.  That typically WILL stand up.
>
> The issue here becomes the *prospective* commission of an offense.
>
> Note that under your rubric you can be arrested for rape since you have
> the means the ability to commit one at any time.
>
> If prospective criminal activity suddenly becomes ACTUAL criminal activity
> then there is no liberty left in that nation, state or locale.
>
Suit yourself Mr. third-rate attorney.
Wade

"Brad Taylor" <b_taylor@look.ca> wrote in message
news:y9JA6.236$bL5.1680@quark.idirect.com...
> IS there such a thing as Canadian beer that tastes bad....????

IMHO there is!  It's called Labatt's .5           I think it is foul tasting
bilgewater.

I really like the President's Choice or the American brewed O'Douls

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Karl Denninger wrote:
> 
> In article <7DHA6.239317$tP3.3704685@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> Wade <memotronic@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
> >news:9av96f$ep1$0@dosa.alt.net...
> >
> >Many jurisdiction have very simple clauses like in control of said vessel,
> >vehicle or craft, meaning if you are inside and have a license or keys your
> >in control.
> >Wade
> 
> No you're not.
> 
> That won't survive even a third-rate attorney's challenge.
> 
> Now if you have the keys in the IGNITION, or if the vessel is RUNNING,
> that's a different matter entirely.  That typically WILL stand up.
> 
> The issue here becomes the *prospective* commission of an offense.
> 
> Note that under your rubric you can be arrested for rape since you have
> the means the ability to commit one at any time.
> 
> If prospective criminal activity suddenly becomes ACTUAL criminal activity
> then there is no liberty left in that nation, state or locale.
> 
   My apologies for starting this thread.

   I posted to both boating and fishing newsgroups because I asked a question
about drinking beer while fishing on a boat (and can. because I wanted to know
about Canadian Beer). Unfortunately it's turned to a pissing contest about
American law.

   Sorry about that.

Lloyd Sumpter
Campion 18

"Lloyd Sumpter" <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD36D39.C7B421FD@home.com...

Well Lloyd we enjoyed the lesson in anthropology, after all how often do you
get to discover Neanderthal Man.
Wade

>    My apologies for starting this thread.
>
>    I posted to both boating and fishing newsgroups because I asked a
question
> about drinking beer while fishing on a boat (and can. because I wanted to
know
> about Canadian Beer). Unfortunately it's turned to a pissing contest about
> American law.
>
>    Sorry about that.
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18

Karl Denninger wrote:
> 
> Well, Canada, to this I say:
> 
> Fuck You.
> Fuck the horse you rode in on.
> And fuck your economy.
> 
> I will not purchase products made in your country.
> I will not do work for firms headquartered in your nation.
> I will not travel to your nation.
> I will not spend my money in such a way that it benefits you.
> 
> And I will not benefit your citizens, your government, or firms in your
> nation in any other way if I am able to avoid doing so.

Promise?

-- 
Brendan Keith
bkeith@sympatico.ca

In article <9b0avf$k06$0@dosa.alt.net>, karl@FS.Denninger.net (Karl 
Denninger) wrote:

> Well, Canada, to this I say:
> 
> Fuck You.
> Fuck the horse you rode in on.
> And fuck your economy.
> 
> I will not purchase products made in your country.
> I will not do work for firms headquartered in your nation.
> I will not travel to your nation.
> I will not spend my money in such a way that it benefits you.
> 
> And I will not benefit your citizens, your government, or firms in your
> nation in any other way if I am able to avoid doing so.

What is so funny about this, is that this is how most people in 
Quebec feel about Canada.

I find that Labatt .5 is OK if you are using it to chase some rye.
"Lloyd Sumpter" <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish
to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me
sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

I see you can't even interpret the simplest written laws. You do your
Country proud. :-)

--

"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9b0avf$k06$0@dosa.alt.net...
> There 'ya go.
>
> Time to boycott Canada.
>
> You don't even have to be ON your boat to be prosecuted under this claimed
> interpretation.  All you need to do is be the owner.
>
> If this interpretation is correct it is, in Canada, illegal to drink if
> you own a boat, car, or other conveyance, and the Mounties can fine you
> $600 for a first offense.
>
> It is neither necessary that you be in the vehicle or be operating the
> vehicle.  It only is necessary that you have care of it, which, if it is
> parked in your driveway, moored in your slip, or otherwise owned by you -
> you do.
>
> Ergo, if you own a vehicle, you may not drink in an amount that would
> produce intoxication, even if you have no intent to operate said vehicle
> after having done so, under pain of the government stealing your property
> or throwing you in prison.
>
> For the "offense" not of operating a vehicle under the influence, but
rather
> for the PROSPECTIVE crime of being *ABLE* to do so, even if you have no
> intention of doing so.
>
> This is precisely the kind of Orwellian bullshit that goes along with the
> concept that you can be imprisoned for speaking "The Holocaust Never
> Happened."
>
> And yes, they did indict, prosecute and CONVICT someone for doing exactly
> that in Canada not long ago.
>
> SPEAKING.
>
> And nothing more.
>
> This, by the way, is why such a law doesn't fly in the United States.  It
> fails because without the intention of operation - that is, the intent to
> commit the crime - you cannot be held liable for the alleged crime.  Its
> known as "mens rea", and it is a requirement for criminal prosecution in
> America.
>
> Apparently not in Canada; in Canada they have made prospective crimes
which
> you have no intention of committing (but for which you are equipped)
> equivalent to actual criminal acts.
>
> Well, Canada, to this I say:
>
> Fuck You.
> Fuck the horse you rode in on.
> And fuck your economy.
>
> I will not purchase products made in your country.
> I will not do work for firms headquartered in your nation.
> I will not travel to your nation.
> I will not spend my money in such a way that it benefits you.
>
> And I will not benefit your citizens, your government, or firms in your
> nation in any other way if I am able to avoid doing so.
>
> There 'ya go.
>

"jimh" <jimh@continuouswave.com> wrote in message
news:jimh-27BEDD.22263310042001@news.mw.mediaone.net...
> What is so funny about this, is that this is how most people in
> Quebec feel about Canada.

If he is the same Karl Denninger that's been out of work since August 1998,
I would say Quebec can have him he should fit in nicely.
Wade

"Wade" <memotronic@no1@home.com> wrote in message
news:Q6_A6.243491$tP3.3796610@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> If he is the same Karl Denninger that's been out of work since August
1998,
> I would say Quebec can have him he should fit in nicely.
> Wade
>
Yup!  Maybe they'll even recommend him for Premiere, since this Province's
standard for electing leaders is so minimal.  They love Americans here.
Wade would make an excellent 'hard-liner'.  Doubt, though, if he'll be
impressed with the Napoleonic Code.

Phil
Montreal, Quebec

Illegal to drink and boat or illegal to be drunk and boat?

There is a difference.

Is it illegal to drink beer and boat in Canada? If so, I got away with it.
I'll be more careful if I ever go back.

Mike in Michigan


Lloyd Sumpter <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish
to
> bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me
sleepy.
>    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

Promises, promises, promises, is that all we get? Karl, live up to your word like
man(Liberal use), cease and desist.

Karl Denninger wrote:

> There 'ya go.
>
> Time to boycott Canada.
>
> You don't even have to be ON your boat to be prosecuted under this claimed
> interpretation.  All you need to do is be the owner.
>
> If this interpretation is correct it is, in Canada, illegal to drink if
> you own a boat, car, or other conveyance, and the Mounties can fine you
> $600 for a first offense.
>
> It is neither necessary that you be in the vehicle or be operating the
> vehicle.  It only is necessary that you have care of it, which, if it is
> parked in your driveway, moored in your slip, or otherwise owned by you -
> you do.
>
> Ergo, if you own a vehicle, you may not drink in an amount that would
> produce intoxication, even if you have no intent to operate said vehicle
> after having done so, under pain of the government stealing your property
> or throwing you in prison.
>
> For the "offense" not of operating a vehicle under the influence, but rather
> for the PROSPECTIVE crime of being *ABLE* to do so, even if you have no
> intention of doing so.
>
> This is precisely the kind of Orwellian bullshit that goes along with the
> concept that you can be imprisoned for speaking "The Holocaust Never
> Happened."
>
> And yes, they did indict, prosecute and CONVICT someone for doing exactly
> that in Canada not long ago.
>
> SPEAKING.
>
> And nothing more.
>
> This, by the way, is why such a law doesn't fly in the United States.  It
> fails because without the intention of operation - that is, the intent to
> commit the crime - you cannot be held liable for the alleged crime.  Its
> known as "mens rea", and it is a requirement for criminal prosecution in
> America.
>
> Apparently not in Canada; in Canada they have made prospective crimes which
> you have no intention of committing (but for which you are equipped)
> equivalent to actual criminal acts.
>
> Well, Canada, to this I say:
>
> Fuck You.
> Fuck the horse you rode in on.
> And fuck your economy.
>
> I will not purchase products made in your country.
> I will not do work for firms headquartered in your nation.
> I will not travel to your nation.
> I will not spend my money in such a way that it benefits you.
>
> And I will not benefit your citizens, your government, or firms in your
> nation in any other way if I am able to avoid doing so.
>
> There 'ya go.
>
> Oh well Statpower, guess you need a letter from me explaining why - not only
> do your products suck, but I can't buy them even if you fix the problems
> 'cause you operate out of a facist nation.......
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
> http://www.denninger.net                        Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org                    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY
> http://www.denninger.net/boaterforum.com        An HONEST forum for boaters
>
> In article <3ad32fb2.148561781@news.bluecrow.com>,
> Karl Pollak <the newsgroup> wrote:
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >karl@FS.Denninger.net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
> >
> >>When I lived in Chicago I used to drop the hook, remove the key from the
> >>ignition and lay on the sunpad with an array of dead soldiers growing around
> >>me.  Fuck the county mounties; there's nothing illegal about drinking on
> >>your own property *AS LONG AS* you're not operating the vessel.  If you're
> >>anchored or made fast to shore you're not legally underway and they can
> >>go pound sand.
> >
> >Here's the relevant section of the Canada Criminal Code:
> >
> >Operation while impaired
> >
> >253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or
> >operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment
> >or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway
> >equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
> >
> >(a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or
> >railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
> >
> >(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in
> >the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred
> >millilitres of blood.
> >
> >R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 253; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32
> >(4th
> >Supp.), s. 59.
> >=====================
> >
> >Punishment
> >
> >255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is
> >guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary
> >conviction and is liable,
> >
> >(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on
> >summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,
> >
> >(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars,
> >
> >(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days,
> >and
> >
> >(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than ninety
> >days;
> >
> >(b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a
> >term not exceeding five years; and
> >
> >(c) where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment
> >for a term not exceeding six months.
> >=========================
> >
> >It would seem your interpretation is incorrect. As long as you are the one
> >in charge of the boat, running or not, if you drink you are liable to
> >prosecution.
> >
> >--
> >Greetings from Lotusland

Wade <memotronic@no1@home.com> wrote in message
news:Q6_A6.243491$tP3.3796610@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
> "jimh" <jimh@continuouswave.com> wrote in message
> news:jimh-27BEDD.22263310042001@news.mw.mediaone.net...
> > What is so funny about this, is that this is how most people in
> > Quebec feel about Canada.
>
> If he is the same Karl Denninger that's been out of work since August
1998,
> I would say Quebec can have him he should fit in nicely.
> Wade

I believe that Karl is out of work due to excessively profitable work he
performed earlier in his life.

Bert

"Mike Kelly" <mkelly@avci.net> wrote in message
news:Pr2B6.313$4w4.4071@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Is it illegal to drink beer and boat in Canada? >
> Mike in Michigan

It is only illegal if you are drinking and boating.  If your boat has
sleeping accomodations, has cooking facilites and has a head,.it is leagal
to drink if you are anchored or tied up to shore.  You cannot be under way
and then drink alcohol.

This is the reason that Lloyd asked about the no alcohol beer!!!!!!

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

Yes it is illegal to drink on a boat unless you are mourned and the vessel has
a functional head. Also it is illegal to operate a vessel impaired.

Mike Kelly wrote:

> Illegal to drink and boat or illegal to be drunk and boat?
>
> There is a difference.
>
> Is it illegal to drink beer and boat in Canada? If so, I got away with it.
> I'll be more careful if I ever go back.
>
> Mike in Michigan
>
> Lloyd Sumpter <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3AD1EC3A.75F68B40@home.com...
> > Like many folks, I love having a Cool One while I'm waiting for the fish
> to
> > bite. But, not only is it illegal to drink and boat, a few beers make me
> sleepy.
> >    Although I hate the concept, I thought I'd try non-alcoholic beer. Any
> > suggestions for (Canadian) brands, etc. that don't taste TOO bad?
> >
> > Lloyd Sumpter
> > Campion 18 - getting out this weekend?

Joe wrote:
> 
> Yes it is illegal to drink on a boat unless you are mourned and the vessel has
> a functional head. 

No wonder Karl is nervous about this. 


-- 
Harry Krause
------------

This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot. I understand
the emotionality of death penalty cases. Dubya Dense

Lloyd,
I have tried a few of the Non-Alcoholic Beers and at the best they taste
like Budwiser  (ie Horse Piss), I recommend that you drink a good IPA and
drink a few waters between each IPA.  If you enjoy beer, you won't be happy
with any of the near beers.
Jim
"Lloyd Sumpter" <lsumpter@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AD36D39.C7B421FD@home.com...
> Karl Denninger wrote:
> >
> > In article <7DHA6.239317$tP3.3704685@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> > Wade <memotronic@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
> > >news:9av96f$ep1$0@dosa.alt.net...
> > >
> > >Many jurisdiction have very simple clauses like in control of said
vessel,
> > >vehicle or craft, meaning if you are inside and have a license or keys
your
> > >in control.
> > >Wade
> >
> > No you're not.
> >
> > That won't survive even a third-rate attorney's challenge.
> >
> > Now if you have the keys in the IGNITION, or if the vessel is RUNNING,
> > that's a different matter entirely.  That typically WILL stand up.
> >
> > The issue here becomes the *prospective* commission of an offense.
> >
> > Note that under your rubric you can be arrested for rape since you have
> > the means the ability to commit one at any time.
> >
> > If prospective criminal activity suddenly becomes ACTUAL criminal
activity
> > then there is no liberty left in that nation, state or locale.
> >
>    My apologies for starting this thread.
>
>    I posted to both boating and fishing newsgroups because I asked a
question
> about drinking beer while fishing on a boat (and can. because I wanted to
know
> about Canadian Beer). Unfortunately it's turned to a pissing contest about
> American law.
>
>    Sorry about that.
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> Campion 18

"Karl Pollak" <karl@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:3ad32fb2.148561781@news.bluecrow.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> karl@FS.Denninger.net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
> >When I lived in Chicago I used to drop the hook, remove the key from the
> >ignition and lay on the sunpad with an array of dead soldiers growing
around
> >me.  Fuck the county mounties; there's nothing illegal about drinking on
> >your own property *AS LONG AS* you're not operating the vessel.  If
you're
> >anchored or made fast to shore you're not legally underway and they can
> >go pound sand.
>
> Here's the relevant section of the Canada Criminal Code:
>
> Operation while impaired
>
> 253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel
or
> operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway
equipment
> or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway
> equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
>
> (a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or
> railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
>
> (b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in
> the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred
> millilitres of blood.
>
> R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 253; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32
> (4th
> Supp.), s. 59.
> =====================
>
> Punishment
>
> 255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is
> guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary
> conviction and is liable,
>
> (a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on
> summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,
>
> (i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars,
>
> (ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen
days,
> and
>
> (iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than
ninety
> days;
>
> (b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a
> term not exceeding five years; and
>
> (c) where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment
> for a term not exceeding six months.
> =========================
>
> It would seem your interpretation is incorrect. As long as you are the one
> in charge of the boat, running or not, if you drink you are liable to
> prosecution.
>
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland


In fact, in Canada it matters not whether the keys are in the ignition or
not.

Rick

"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9b0avf$k06$0@dosa.alt.net...
>
> Well, Canada, to this I say:
>
> Fuck You.
> Fuck the horse you rode in on.
> And fuck your economy.
>
> I will not purchase products made in your country.
> I will not do work for firms headquartered in your nation.
> I will not travel to your nation.
> I will not spend my money in such a way that it benefits you.
>
> And I will not benefit your citizens, your government, or firms in your
> nation in any other way if I am able to avoid doing so.
>


We can only hope that you do exactly what you promise. By the way you are
totally incorrect in your interpretation of Canadian law but I don't think
that comes as a surprise to anyone in any of the groups.

Rick

"Mike Kelly" <mkelly@avci.net> wrote in message
news:Pr2B6.313$4w4.4071@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Illegal to drink and boat or illegal to be drunk and boat?
>
> There is a difference.
>
> Is it illegal to drink beer and boat in Canada? If so, I got away with it.
> I'll be more careful if I ever go back.
>
> Mike in Michigan
>
>
Mike, it is illegal to drink and boat or be drunk while operating a boat in
Canada unless your boat has overnight accommodations and you are at
anchorage. Also Americans traveling to Canada to fish should be aware that
it is also illegal to transport open alcohol , ie" cooler full of beer,
partly sealed bottle , on an open boat.

Rick

"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9b2nn8$kf9$0@dosa.alt.net...
>
> > >
> >It is only illegal if you are drinking and boating.  If your boat has
> >sleeping accomodations, has cooking facilites and has a head,.it is
leagal
> >to drink if you are anchored or tied up to shore.
>
> Not according to the text of the law that was posted, if indeed it is
> accurate.
>
> If you drink and are anchored or tied to shore, but have "control" of a
boat
> (even if its not moving, even if the keys are in your pocket, or even if
> you're not ON the boat) under that plain language you have committed a
> crime.

Well Karl, you can drink all you want in your home without fear of
prosecution. A boat equipped with living accomodations and at anchorage or
tied to a dock is considered a residence and you can drink all you want. You
go off on a rant about Canadian law when you do not know what your talking
about or how to interpret them.


Rick

Take off eh!  Karl, look out, the woodpeckers are looking for a place to
nest, up here this time of year!!  Wear wooden shoes so that they stay off
of your head!!!!!!!
Go home and rant at your wife, knothead!  Leave us the hell alone!!!!!!!!
Already, even!!
--
                                    Steve

"Karl Denninger" <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote in message
news:9bigqj$9jl$0@dosa.alt.net...
>
> In article <gA0D6.34609$166.580523@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>,
> Wade <memotronic@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >"IgOr" <ignoramus@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:slrn9dc7lg.2c3.ignoramus@nospam.invalid...
> >
> >
> >Control means being in a public place in your vehicle, not in your own
> >garage as nitwit Karl attempts to allude to.
> >Wade
>
> "Care OR control" has absolutely nothing to say about LOCATION.
>
> Did you flunk English in school Wade?
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
> http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting
> http://childrens-justice.org SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION TODAY

Bass Masterson wrote:
> 
> Take off eh!  Karl, look out, the woodpeckers are looking for a place to
> nest, up here this time of year!!  Wear wooden shoes so that they stay off
> of your head!!!!!!!
> Go home and rant at your wife, knothead!  Leave us the hell alone!!!!!!!!
> Already, even!!
> --
> 
Karl doesn't have a wife. It's a long, sad story and a wooden head apparently
plays a role.



-- 
Harry Krause
------------

Actually, I -- this may sound a little west Texan to you, but I like it. When
I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking
about myself, all of us are talking about me. George �Say What?� Bush

Hey, Karl, are you still trolling?

This is a *Canadian* "Recreational* *Fishing* group, not a place for you
feed your overly inflated ego.

Take it somewhere else, *anywhere* else. Or take the consequences.
Your final warning.
-----------
Peter D

Karl Denninger opened his mouth and proved he was a fool!

 High five's all around on that one Harry!  LMAO Karl!!!
--
                            Steve

<hkrause@capuantispam.net> wrote in message
news:3ADCC9D8.99DCF58F@capu.net...
> Bass Masterson wrote:
> >
> > Take off eh!  Karl, look out, the woodpeckers are looking for a place to
> > nest, up here this time of year!!  Wear wooden shoes so that they stay
off
> > of your head!!!!!!!
> > Go home and rant at your wife, knothead!  Leave us the hell
alone!!!!!!!!
> > Already, even!!
> > --
> >
> Karl doesn't have a wife. It's a long, sad story and a wooden head
apparently
> plays a role.
>
>
>
> --
> Harry Krause
> ------------
>
> Actually, I -- this may sound a little west Texan to you, but I like it.
When
> I'm talking about -- when I'm talking about myself, and when he's talking
> about myself, all of us are talking about me. George "Say What?" Bush

Karl Denninger wrote:
> 
> In article <M34D6.4980$4I5.500867@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com>,
> PeterD <ple@se.ask> wrote:
> >Hey, Karl, are you still trolling?
> >
> >This is a *Canadian* "Recreational* *Fishing* group, not a place for you
> >feed your overly inflated ego.
> >
> >Take it somewhere else, *anywhere* else. Or take the consequences.
> >Your final warning.
> >-----------
> >Peter D
> 
> Oh my, threats and more threats.
> 
> Take your shit out of the group "rec.boats" and you won't see me any more.
> Why?  Because I don't READ your NAZI CANUCK GROUPS.
> 
> Post to rec.boats, face my comments.
> 
> Keep your crap to your own jingoistic groups, and you won't have me in
> there.
> 
> I don't give a good damn about your threats of "consequences".   In fact, to
> such threats I say in plain english:
> 
>         Bite me.
> 
> Have a nice day.
>
Karl, Karl, Karl...do you need the name of a good therapist in the Panhandle?
There's probably a couple...and surely up in Tallahassee...


-- 
Harry Krause
------------

Other Republican candidates may retort to personal attacks and negative ads.
-GW Bush