New California law about sailing slowly for mammal protection

[tjcletzgo]

Can anyone tell me exactly what it means and how it affects us?

 

Thank you🛳🛳🛳

[neverbeenhere]

Exactly, no. 

 

I think, you should expect San Pedro disembarkation times to be later. 

[JimmyVWine]

Think of it like this. In a typical recreational harbor there is a “No Wake” zone. Imagine what speed you would run your engine at in this zone. Now imagine that the harbor master said: “Still too fast. Cut your speed in half.”  Your Sailaway will now last longer. Not sure what that means for your return. On many cruises, you are hovering close to your disembarkation port, sort of “circling the runway” until it is time to come in. For example, when we pulled in to Whittier, we docked just after midnight and hung out until morning. Not sure what is typical in San Pedro. But I imagine that adjustments will be made so that the port workers and ship’s crew can still do a turnaround in about the same amount of time as before. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by JimmyVWine

[wineglass]

Coming into SanPedro on our 3 day from Vancouver, the captain announced that they had to slow down to 10 knots as the approached the Santa Catalina island because the whales were protected in the channel between the islands and the mainland. It was two hours later we arrived in port. We were already 12 hours late because of an oil spill in Vancouver. Good for us as we live in LA and got to sleep late, but a bummer for those flying. It’s a new law to protect the sea life in the channel. It will have scheduling effects on ship into and out of LA

[c-boy]

whale migration.. congested waterways means slower ship speeds

Edited October 2, 2019 by c-boy

[clo]

3 hours ago, tjcletzgo said:

Can anyone tell me exactly what it means and how it affects us?

 

Thank you🛳🛳🛳

Could you post a link to the law?  #1  #2 - don't we want to do anything we can to protect our planet and all the animals in/on it?  Seems like a pretty easy thing to do, don't you think?

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, tjcletzgo said:

Can anyone tell me exactly what it means and how it affects us?

 

Thank you🛳🛳🛳

This is becoming increasingly common around a number of ports and estuaries. They have determined that lower ship speeds have less effect on whales and other marine life, which they believe will reduce the number of ship/whale collisions.

 

Should have no affect, as on departure, a higher speed is set to achieve the same arrival time.

[SantaFeFan]

It's to help minimize this type of incident - a dead whale impaled on the bulbous bow of a cruise ship:

 

 

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. We have had an unusually high number of dead whales washing up on our beaches this year. Most have died from traumatic injuries, most likely from ship strikes.

 

These majestic animals need to be protected. Slowing ships in migration zones will give them a fighting chance to get out of the way in time. They don't realize that cruise and container ships can travel at over 25 miles per hour, and can easily misjudge how much time they need to get out of the way. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by SantaFeFan

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, SantaFeFan said:

These majestic animals need to be protected. Slowing ships in migration zones will give them a fighting chance to get out of the way in time. They don't realize that cruise and container ships can travel at over 25 miles per hour, and can easily misjudge how much time they need to get out of the way. 

While I wholeheartedly agree that the whales need protecting, and that whale speed zones (nothing new, by the way, even the LA/Catalina/San Pedro one has been voluntary for decades), I disagree with your statement about whale behavior.  Whales are very smart animals, and easily recognize that a ship can travel that fast, since many animals in the oceans can travel even faster.  Most of the animals that are found with ship strike injuries will also have underlying health issues (pollution, sonar, what have you causes) that restricted the animal's ability to get out of the way.  If you've ever taken a whale watching tour, at least on the East Coast, the whales will "play" with the tour boats, and I've even seen a mother bring her calf right under a boat to teach it about boats.

[K32682]

10 hours ago, wineglass said:

Coming into SanPedro on our 3 day from Vancouver, the captain announced that they had to slow down to 10 knots as the approached the Santa Catalina island because the whales were protected in the channel between the islands and the mainland. It was two hours later we arrived in port. We were already 12 hours late because of an oil spill in Vancouver. Good for us as we live in LA and got to sleep late, but a bummer for those flying. It’s a new law to protect the sea life in the channel. It will have scheduling effects on ship into and out of LA

 

If it's a choice between missed flights or dead whales I'll take option #1. 

[BlueRiband]

An animal that cannot get out of the way of a massive moving object is doing its species a favor by removing itself from the gene pool. 

 

Sounds like a back-door approach by environmental zealots to ban cruise ships in certain areas by increments: Making it increasingly difficult for them to operate.  First it was low sulfur fuel as "reasonable accommodation".  Now it's speed restrictions as "protection".  They will push and push until they get what they want and once they get it, the "it" will never be enough.

[Heidi13]

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Most of the animals that are found with ship strike injuries will also have underlying health issues (pollution, sonar, what have you causes) that restricted the animal's ability to get out of the way. 

Brought one into Vancouver many years ago and we were subsequently advised it had significant health issues before impact.

[c-boy]

hey Blue, mom's and calves migrate up & down the West coast. Mom's are not going to leave their calf in order to get out of the way of a cargo vessel.

[sloopsailor]

1 hour ago, BlueRiband said:

An animal that cannot get out of the way of a massive moving object is doing its species a favor by removing itself from the gene pool. 

 

Sounds like a back-door approach by environmental zealots to ban cruise ships in certain areas by increments: Making it increasingly difficult for them to operate.  First it was low sulfur fuel as "reasonable accommodation".  Now it's speed restrictions as "protection".  They will push and push until they get what they want and once they get it, the "it" will never be enough.

 

Totally misinformed comment. It isn't just cruise ships that are affected. It's all ships. Calm down and think rationally instead of being emotional about your favorite vacation method. 

 

As a long time owner of sailboats, I applaud this direction. Nothing more amazing as being on a 35 ft sailboat watching a 60 ft whale glide by at eye level. 

[K32682]

1 hour ago, BlueRiband said:

An animal that cannot get out of the way of a massive moving object is doing its species a favor by removing itself from the gene pool. 

 

Sounds like a back-door approach by environmental zealots to ban cruise ships in certain areas by increments: Making it increasingly difficult for them to operate.  First it was low sulfur fuel as "reasonable accommodation".  Now it's speed restrictions as "protection".  They will push and push until they get what they want and once they get it, the "it" will never be enough.

 

Yes, heaven forbid your cruise is slightly delayed by going slowly into port to reduce the risk to aquatic mammals. 🙄

[XBGuy]

15 hours ago, wineglass said:

Coming into SanPedro on our 3 day from Vancouver, the captain announced that they had to slow down to 10 knots as the approached the Santa Catalina island because the whales were protected in the channel between the islands and the mainland. It was two hours later we arrived in port. We were already 12 hours late because of an oil spill in Vancouver. Good for us as we live in LA and got to sleep late, but a bummer for those flying. It’s a new law to protect the sea life in the channel. It will have scheduling effects on ship into and out of LA

 

I was on the 12-day AK roundtrip on this ship after Wineglass' 3-day.  Obviously, our departure was delayed significantly.  However, on our return we were right on time.  I think that the cruise lines will rethink some routes and speeds in order to keep schedules, essentially, the same.  The effect on passengers will be zero.

[Hlitner]

16 hours ago, clo said:

Could you post a link to the law?  #1  #2 - don't we want to do anything we can to protect our planet and all the animals in/on it?  Seems like a pretty easy thing to do, don't you think?

By your reasoning, all water craft ( including cruise ships) should be constrained to a maximum speed of about 5 knots....all over the world!  After all, there are all kinds of sea-life impacted by vessels including plancton.  Seems pretty easy to do, don’t you think?

 

Imagine a transatlantic crossing that would only take 30 days.  And we would have to slow all aircraft down to about 20 knots (they would all fall out of the sky) to protect all the birds.  

 

Hank

 

 

[ldubs]

7 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

By your reasoning, all water craft ( including cruise ships) should be constrained to a maximum speed of about 5 knots....all over the world!  After all, there are all kinds of sea-life impacted by vessels including plancton.  Seems pretty easy to do, don’t you think?

 

Imagine a transatlantic crossing that would only take 30 days.  And we would have to slow all aircraft down to about 20 knots (they would all fall out of the sky) to protect all the birds.  

 

Hank

 

 

 

Hey Hank, I think you are overreacting.  Saying we should do what we can to protect whales doesn't mean there isn't a balance.  

[SRF]

On 10/2/2019 at 12:29 PM, sloopsailor said:

As a long time owner of sailboats, I applaud this direction. Nothing more amazing as being on a 35 ft sailboat watching a 60 ft whale glide by at eye level. 

 

And how many have you hit with your sailboat?

 

And considering that the top speed of most sailboats is less than the limit, it is not exactly aimed at them.

[navybankerteacher]

On 10/2/2019 at 11:21 AM, BlueRiband said:

An animal that cannot get out of the way of a massive moving object is doing its species a favor by removing itself from the gene pool. 

 

Sounds like a back-door approach by environmental zealots to ban cruise ships in certain areas by increments: Making it increasingly difficult for them to operate.  First it was low sulfur fuel as "reasonable accommodation".  Now it's speed restrictions as "protection".  They will push and push until they get what they want and once they get it, the "it" will never be enough.

 Mindless objection: conspiracy theory —- that hateful “THEY” are pushing for their unattainable “IT”.

I suppose your great grandfather lobbied against installing traffic lights on comparable grounds  as automobiles came into use.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by navybankerteacher

[BlueRiband]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

 Mindless objection: conspiracy theory —- that hateful “THEY” are pushing for their unattainable “IT”.

I suppose your great grandfather lobbied against installing traffic lights on comparable grounds  as automobiles came into use.

 

 

Unidentified "they" pushing for an unattainable "it"?  In the US Forbes magazine is considered a mainstream business magazine but recently ran this article that included a video produced by a major enrivonmental activist group.  Cruise Ship Pollution Is Causing Serious Health And Environmental Problems

[chengkp75]

On 10/2/2019 at 3:21 PM, BlueRiband said:

An animal that cannot get out of the way of a massive moving object is doing its species a favor by removing itself from the gene pool. 

 

Sounds like a back-door approach by environmental zealots to ban cruise ships in certain areas by increments: Making it increasingly difficult for them to operate.  First it was low sulfur fuel as "reasonable accommodation".  Now it's speed restrictions as "protection".  They will push and push until they get what they want and once they get it, the "it" will never be enough.

You do realize that the low sulfur fuel and whale speed restrictions are not limited to cruise ships, but to all ships that enter the respective areas?  Cruise ships account for about 5% of world shipping, so if this is a move to ban things, it will get very costly for general consumers, since 80% of world commerce travels by sea.  As a professional mariner, while these things cause us more headaches, I wholeheartedly applaud them and support them.

 

Not sure what is meant by "reasonable accomodation" with regards to low sulfur fuel, but the maritime industry has been the least regulated with regards to exhaust emissions of any industry in the world until recently, and in fact the major shift in reducing emissions (which is not the limited ECA's that exist today) is the voluntary move by the industry's own watchdog, the IMO, to reduce fuel sulfur limits worldwide next year.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, BlueRiband said:

Unidentified "they" pushing for an unattainable "it"?  In the US Forbes magazine is considered a mainstream business magazine but recently ran this article that included a video produced by a major enrivonmental activist group.  Cruise Ship Pollution Is Causing Serious Health And Environmental Problems

And, everything that this article blames on the cruise industry can apply 20 times over to the maritime industry as a whole, since as I say, cruise ships account for only 5% of world shipping.  The article states that Nabu found that 76 out of 77 cruise ships "surveyed" burned residual fuel.  It does not say that virtually 100% of the cargo ships that call at these ports also burn this fuel.  It does not also mention that the North Sea and Baltic ECA's restrict all shipping, even cruise ships, to low sulfur fuel from a north-south line from Ushant in France, to above the Faroe Islands, and west to St. Petersberg.

 

It says that a single cruise ship can emit as much emissions as 700 trucks, but it does not say whether that ship's emissions is from the reduced load in port, or the full speed at sea.  And, in a port like Southampton or Liverpool, how many trucks are there each day, taking the containers to and from the cargo ships in the port, and how much of the pollution in these ports is caused by these trucks?  No one goes after cargo shipping for two reasons, it ain't sexy so no money there, and doing so would affect the price of their Iphones and smart TV's and Lexus'.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, BlueRiband said:

Unidentified "they" pushing for an unattainable "it"?  In the US Forbes magazine is considered a mainstream business magazine but recently ran this article that included a video produced by a major enrivonmental activist group.  Cruise Ship Pollution Is Causing Serious Health And Environmental Problems

And just what do you think is wrong about “ a mainstream business magazine”  running an article concerning a problem that every business must deal with?

 

Do you really think that fossil-fuelled vessels  do NOT  contribute to global warming - and that businesses which contribute to global warming and air pollution do NOT have a   responsibility to take steps to limit the damage they do?

 

When you realize that cruising is recreation. - it does not produce food or meet any human need except fun - you should recognize that it is really unnecessary to human life - like food production and essential transportation. It would be great if cruising remains available —- but it is a non-essential contributor to a global problem - and should be more responsible than essential activities.

 

I am glad you are not king of the world.

Edited October 4, 2019 by navybankerteacher

[sloopsailor]

5 hours ago, SRF said:

 

And how many have you hit with your sailboat?

 

And considering that the top speed of most sailboats is less than the limit, it is not exactly aimed at them.

 

I have never hit any, nor would I come out of it unscathed if I did. Positively stupid question to ask based on the comment your are sesponding to.  

 

And I course I realize that sailboats aren't the target of these new laws. I don't understand why you would even assume that I thought so. It's insulting that you think I am that ignorant. 😠