Recreational Boating Association of Washington (RBAW)

[hardee]

I realize that not every CBRAT boats in Washington State, AND that there is some connection between boating and politics, and though I’m not pro-politics in some ways, I am also realistic enough to know that we cannot separate our love for the water and recreation there with some financial ties to the pockets in Olympia.

Not wanting to get too political, I also know that there are some things that we cannot avoid in this life and one of those is the grip that politics, in one way or another, has on our daily lives. So, I support the Recreational Boating Association of Washington (RBAW) at www.rbaw.org

http://www.rbaw.org/index.html

I think they do have some good influence on our boating community. Take a look and see what you think.

“RBAW actively represents some 30,000 boaters in the State of Washington through both individual memberships and the membership of over 50 supporting boating clubs in the State and is the only organization representing recreational boaters in the State. RBAW is run by boaters just like you. Our officers, board and committees are all staffed by boating volunteers, nominated and elected by members.”

I had a long talk with the gentleman at the desk when I was there. I big concern is the advancing definitely perverse projections of increasing ethanol content in our fuels. So one of the things he was saying is it’s not really a state issue, but more federal. Well, that may be, but there is no reason that our owns state cannot regulate what is sold in our own (Washington State) water accessed marina fuel stations. Get real, they can regulate what you put over the side of you boat in state water. 15% and higher ethanol will have every bit as much of an adverse effect on our stated marine industry.

So, who do we go to, how do we stop higher level ethanol in our marine gas?

What support can we be to RBAW and what (beside the discounts available, noted on their web page), can we benefit from in their presence and our support.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[Larry H]

Easy answer to 15% ethanol. DON'T BUY IT! If no one buys it, they will stop selling it.

Right now, many marine fuel docks sell non-ethanol gasoline. Buy from them.

My outboard's owners manuals say quite clearly, DON'T USE gasoline with over 10% ethanol.

Same for our cars. Just don't buy the 15% ethanol.

 

[hardee]

Larry, That would be nice, BUT in the Ethanol big picture, it is a federal mandate, coming from the “Renewable Fuel Law “ of 2005 from Congress, so not really just our choice. See this article from BoatUS Dec issue:

http://www.boatus.com/magazine/2015/dec ... porate.asp

I had an email reply this morning concerning my conversation with the RBAW rep at the boat show saying they were in agreement that E-15 should be a concern. Here it is:

Hello Mr. Hochstetter,

Welcome to RBAW. Thank you for your input on E fuels. This has been a priority for us. We are opposed to E-15 and I am sure we will work to eliminate E fuels from marine fueling stations, if in fact it has reached them. Do you have evidence that fuel docks are dispensing E-10 (the current blend you see at all automotive fueling stations).

Again, Welcome to RBAW.
Paul Thorpe
President
Recreational Boating Association of Washington

And my reply:

From Your Message: " Do you have evidence that fuel docks are dispensing E-10 (the current blend you see at all automotive fueling stations)."

I just spent about 20 minutes, called 7 marina's. Yes, 4 of the seven are selling E-10 with no E-0 option at their facility.

Port Angeles
Friday Harbor
Roche Harbor
Edmonds

Non-ethanol at John Wayne, Everette and Port Townsend.

That's just a tiny sample. And the ones that are selling ethanol are selling E-10, which we know is damaging to marine engines already. If E-15 or higher were to come into play we are talking about SERIOUS DAMAGE to our Washington State marine industry, locally and marine, and recreational and utility gas motors nationally. (Please see the article "Could Ethanol-Free Gas Evaporate?" in the Dec 2015 BoatUS magazine.)

http://www.boatus.com/magazine/2015/dec ... porate.asp

Yes, there is evidence and Yes it is here (E-10) and Yes, it will get worse UNLESS our state politicians get on board with protecting our state marine (travel, recreation, service and fishing) gas supply.

Thank you for your response. Please keep active on this subject and please keep me informed.

Thank you,

Harvey Hochstetter


I also sent this message to all of my state government representatives via the RBAW site:

Following is a copy of a message sent to the State Representatives:

With the advacation (that's advance and invasion) of ethanol in our fuel systems we need to be absolutely sure that there is no higher, and preferably NO ethanol in our marine fuel. Increase above e10 will unequivocally and irreparably damage marine gas engines, to the point of bringing all gas outboard engines to a halt, with no warranty replacements or reliable lasting repairs. This will cause irreparable harm to the Washington State marine industry and only benefit the repair services until the realization that there is no fix other that returning to all non-ethanol fuel.

We need to demand that ONLY NON-ETHANOL fuels are dispensed at Washington State Marina fuel stations. This action needs to happen VERY SOON, so that you are supporting not only the recreational but also the service boating industries in Washington State.

Thank you.

I think RBAW is a good place to go to let our state government know what “we the people” boaters are really interested in.

Mean time, I am just very careful where I fill my boat tank at.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[hardee]

For those of us who are BoatUS members, we may have already been on their BoatUS Government Affairs page. this is where you can go to find and send messages to your government representatives.

The side bar on this article has 3 issues that are in the legislative process. These are all issues that, if passed, would benefit recreational boaters. Easy to copy and paste from the side bar to a quick note to your congress officials.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[hardee]

Bringing This Back to Circulate

For those in Washington State who have or want to join BoatUS, if you get the RBAW membership first you get a 50% discount on your basic BoatUS fee.

Member Benefits/Discounts
To qualify you must show your current RBAW Individual Membership card. If you are not yet an RBAW Individual Member please join us and receive your new membership card. Not only will the annual $20.00 RBAW dues save you more than what you spend on dues, you will be helping support recreational boating in Washington.

BoatUS http://www.boatus.com/
50% off annual membership

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[RobLL]

Another issue in Washington State is that none of the sales tax and annual boat taxes are earmarked for marine use. It all goes into the general fund. For a variety of reasons the state legislature does very little to support boating. The one exception is the great marine parks system and its low prices.

 

[ssobol]

Easy answer to 15% ethanol. DON'T BUY IT! If no one buys it, they will stop selling it.

Right now, many marine fuel docks sell non-ethanol gasoline. Buy from them.

My outboard's owners manuals say quite clearly, DON'T USE gasoline with over 10% ethanol.

Same for our cars. Just don't buy the 15% ethanol.

Problem is that the ethanol and agriculture lobbies are much bigger than the recreational boating lobby. They'll follow the government mandate to produce ethanol and the gas companies will be told to use it and eventually you'll have a hard time buying anything else for your car or your boat.

 

[potter water]

The scuttlebutt from my Senator is that Trump is going to put the evil eye on any federal mandate over 10% ethanol as part of his overall energy reforms. If so, good for him.

 

[hardee]

This is another area that the RBAW is working on. The Watercraft Excise Tax inequality.

RBAW and the Watercraft Excise Tax

The State of Washington has unfairly saddled recreational boaters with an excise tax that is not collected in a similar manner from any other “users group.” Annual vessel registration fees include a tax equal to ½ of 1% of the market value of any recreational boat. These taxes are simply absorbed into the general fund of Washington State, and are in no way earmarked for improvements to boating infrastructure.


Other owners of recreational conveyances are not asked to pay a tax based on market value. For example, private aircraft pay a very small flat fee based entirely upon the type of aircraft. Excise taxes for aircraft are generally under $200 per year, and any private helicopter (regardless of value) pays a flat $90 renewal charge. A private helicopter worth $3-million pays a $90 excise tax, while the owner of a $3-million yacht would pay $15,000 annually.

I know at least one general aviation pilot who pays less for his plane than I do for my boat, and he is tagging souped up 182.

Another Good area they are working on.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[hardee]

In a recent update for active issues RBAW is reporting on, this paragraph on boating safety came up.

"Boating Safety legislation – SB 5442/HB 1604; HB 1605; SSB 5552/SHB 1731: All of these RBAW-supported bills are on the move. 5442 passed the Senate unanimously on Feb. 23 and companion 1604 in House Rules. The bills repeal outdated language in the Boater Education Card statutes and flex up the use of the funds for State Parks. HB 1605, which is now on the House Floor Calendar, allows law enforcement – as a last resort – to impound vessels when operators are impaired. SSB 5552, which passed the Senate unanimously on Feb. 23, would exempt flare guns used by boaters from having to go through a “weapons” background check. The House companion, SHB 1731, is on the Floor Calendar."

Recently there was a notice about keeping infractions by water vessel operators separate from their motor vehicle driving record. (Things like Boating Under Influence, safety infractions, and accident reporting.) RBAW was supporting keeping these separate, which I highly disagree with. Seems to me these should be linked, as they are evidence of "bad choices and/or bad behavior" and put people and property at risk. I'm curious what others think about that linking?

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[ssobol]

I guess it depends on how it is used.

If you are a pilot you have to report DUIs to the FAA, but you don't have to report aviation violations to the DMV.

 

[Robert H. Wilkinson]

In Ontario I believe they are linked and I agree. If you are impaired you should not be operating any motor vehicle - on land, water or in the air. You are not only putting lives at risk but when that "accident" happens( and the odds say it will) then you are using SAR CG resources to save you from your own bad habits.

You are also risking losing your boat and possibly great debt. Insurance companies are not obligated to cover your losses if you were driving illegally.

Rob

 

[hardee]

I just received this response to my letter to the RBAW re the DUI/BUI linking:

Harvey:

Thanks for communicating with us via the RBAW web site. You have hit on a topic that certainly has differing viewpoints to consider. Your example arguments are valid but to avoid unintentional or future consequences, keeping boating activity separate from vehicle activity led us to RBAW’s policy of no ties to an individual’s driver license.

While boats can share a commonality with some of the same consequences, so can snowmobiles, ATVs and other off road vehicles. In most all areas of use, the off road world is separate from highway use. There is parallel registering, taxing, operator requirements, rules of the road, accident reporting, etc. but they are all separate. In fact, vehicle laws are based on “common law” and its attendant huge backdrop of case-law and prior findings, whereas marine affairs are based on a totally separate stream of “maritime law” precedents – there are myriad problems when these two branches of legalese are co-mingled (we have been told that’s one reason why Tim Eyman’s previous initiative to roll back vehicle excise tax to “the $35 tab” did not – and could not – also remove the dreaded 0.5% Vessel Excise Tax we pay each year with our boat registrations – the ONLY such recreational-toy excise tax remaining in WA).

We don’t want to see the Boater Education card become a license [requiring renewal, with an attendant funding stream], we don’t want boating infractions to affect automobile insurance rates or restrictions on operation [and vice versa], and we don’t want to see the entire vehicle regulatory world creeping into the boating world. We need to keep the camel’s nose out from under the tent flap. At this point boating is a right (protected by Federal maritime law and navigational priority) and driving is a privilege [that can be taken away] and we don’t want to see boaters lose their ability to boat based on unrelated behavior.

As an example of crossover creep (and how we position RBAW to avoid unintended consequences) , Legislation is underway right now (SHB 1605, working its way thru committees) to add the ability for law-enforcement to impound a vessel for a BUI offense. We do support the basic need to deal with a vessel if an operator is unquestionably under the influence and unable to continue operation, but we have worked hard thru our legislative and agency connections, negotiating significantly to prevent the vehicle process from being applied to vessels. The proposed resulting legislation will make it a mandatory priority for the impounding officer to first find an alternate qualified operator, find a temporary mooring, or find a means to get a vessel back on a trailer and off the water in lieu of the vehicle policy of mandatory expensive impounding, towing, storage, etc. In other words, we are again working hard to address the basic need but at the same time keep the boating process separate from the vehicle process and avoid regulatory overkill.

I hope this helps in understanding where we are coming from. We are no less concerned about our mutual safety on the water, but don’t want to be over regulated -- or cause undue "snafus" by mixing common law with maritime law. Your comments are certainly appreciated and will be kept in mind with all other input as time goes on. We need and rely on boater feedback to help us reach an overall position.

Be glad to continue the discussion if new thoughts come to mind or you have additional questions.

Thanks again for supporting RBAW.

Loyd Walker, RBAW Treasurer & Wayne Gilham, RBAW President

I can understand some of their thinking but I disagree with their protection of someone who goes boating and is drunk. That persons boat should be towed, (SeaTow or other) and the officer should not be burdened with taking care of their vessel. AND if they are likely to drink before driving either the boat or the car, they are just as likely to drive the other one in the same state. And I think those offenses should be related to their record and their insurance rates.

Guess I have just seen too many results of inebriated (or other chemically influenced) drivers in the ER or ambulance.

Thoughts on their response?

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[Robert H. Wilkinson]

At this point boating is a right (protected by Federal maritime law and navigational priority) and driving is a privilege [that can be taken away] and we don’t want to see boaters lose their ability to boat based on unrelated behavior.

"UNRELATED BEHAVIOR" - while Loyd did bring up some valid points - I think he lost the audience with this statement. The way I read this - he is saying - drink and drive a car and there will be consequences - drink and drive a boat and it will be "carry on Captain - have a good day".

Regarding his mention of off road vehicles - in Ontario you won't loose your license for drinking and driving an off road vehicle ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. But again if you smash it up don't expect your insurance to pay the damages.

Rob

 

[hardee]

Not a pilot here, so I am wondering, "What happens if you are flying a plane and are over the legal limit?" Is there any connection to the drivers license?

Would be OK with me if it was flat straight across the board "operating a motorized device - vehicle, vessel or plane.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon