I was extremely disappointed to see such blatant use of unnecessarily provocative language in your December follow-up op-ed piece regarding pollution in Bay Area marinas.
Published: March, 2012
I was extremely disappointed to see such blatant use of unnecessarily provocative language in your December follow-up op-ed piece regarding pollution in Bay Area marinas.
The impact of an otherwise reasonably presented article on pollution was seriously compromised by the totally unsupported and unsubstantiated claim that "The most egregious offenders are those who live on their boats (liveaboards)...." There exists absolutely no definitive data aligning greater responsibility for this difficult problem with us liveaboards over any other segment of the Bay Area boating community. Rather, the contrary tends to be the reality. As in all things, exceptions do exist, but the vast majority of legitimate, full time liveaboards are among the least likely to ensure they live in a cesspool by discharging into their own living space! Furthermore, they often provide a de facto "neighborhood watch" resource in their marinas. A far larger community of polluters is to be found among the part time "sneakaboards" and, other weekend recreational boaters who lack the time or inclination to locate a functioning pump-out at the end of their day on the water.
You are to be congratulated on your efforts to highlight the gross pollution emanating from the deteriorating infrastructure of the cities and towns surrounding the Bay, and we boaters certainly have a part to play to help minimize the overall problem, but this anecdotal, inference and innuendo laced style of writing, which unfortunately seems to be appearing ever more frequently on BC pages, does nothing to provide the reasoned and balanced perspective that your readers expect and deserve.
Ian Westbury, MBYH Richmond
Publisher's Response:
You make a fair point, but after writing that "there exists absolutely no definitive data aligning greater responsibility for this difficult problem with us livaboards," you go on to assert that "the contrary tends to be the reality," without providing any evidence to support your claim. The reality is probably that not enough study has been done on the subject to support either of our suppositions.
You also make a distinction between liveaboards and sneakaboards, sneakaboards being people living on their boats without notifying the harbormaster. This was another point that I made in the article that needs to be addressed. Harbormasters surely should be able to know when one of their tenants is living on a boat through simple nighttime observations. Although most marinas’ permits limit liveaboards to 10 percent, Baykeeper estimates that between 10 and 20 percent of the boats in the Bay are used as primary residences.
I admit that I have been only focusing on the negative aspects of this situation, possibly because I have been personally disgusted by this state of affairs ever since I was made aware of it. However, I recently found out that at least one local marina, Emery Cove Yacht Harbor, is proactively attacking this problem at its roots by implementing strict addendums for liveaboards that involves documentation and monitoring to control illegal discharges. Next month we will be running an article that documents their efforts to make sure that Emery Cove Yacht Harbor remains clean, hopefully providing a model for other Bay Area marinas.
I appreciate your letter and will make an effort in the future to not focus as much on finger-pointing or provocative language and more on the solutions to the overall problem. This is a problem that should concern all boaters and harbormasters alike. Bay Crossings will continue to report on this issue and on all who flagrantly disobey the laws regarding sewage dumped from recreational boats.
Joel Williams
