GL: U.S. boats in Canadian waters

[ed]

Ted

Thanks for the interesting product. I think I'll try one. I haven't 
installed the last piece of head hose to the seacock barb yet. This will 
make it much easier regardless of potty law.

My apologies for misreading the website. It does indeed only apply to inland 
waters. No help to me now, but not an issue for coastal cruisers in places 
like Nova Scotia. I had a conversation with someone from Vancouver. He said 
they almost made the law the same there as for inland waters. The only 
saving grace was the lack of pumpout facilities. When the pumpout facilities 
are in place...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Stehle" <tstehle at waterwayguide.com>
To: "ed" <ekcine at gmail.com>; "Bill Donovan" <trailersource at mindspring.com>
Cc: <great-loop at lists.samurai.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: GL: U.S. boats in Canadian waters


> Ed,
>
> Check out www.turncouple.com. An interesting product that addresses the 
> issue you face.
>
> Ted Stehle, Editor
> Waterway Guide/Skipper Bob Publications
> www.waterwayguide.com
> www.skipperbob.net
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "ed" <ekcine at gmail.com>
> To: "Bill Donovan" <trailersource at mindspring.com>
> Cc: <great-loop at lists.samurai.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: GL: U.S. boats in Canadian waters
>
>
>> What if you have a lectrasan?
>> What if you are coastal cruising up the Nova Scotia coast and want to go 
>> off
>> shore 3 miles to discharge?
>> You say it's easy to disconnect hoses...speak for yourself! I'm in the
>> process of replacing my head hoses. They are VERY difficult to access.
>> Removing hoses can damage the hose. I spent $120 for the forward hose and
>> about $100 for the aft hose. I don't have a macerator on the holding tank 
>> or
>> I'd have 2 more hoses to disconnect. A LOT of difficult work.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Bill Donovan" <trailersource at mindspring.com>
>>
>>> Ed:
>>>
>>> The answer to your concern lies in the paragraph just prior to the one 
>>> you
>>> quote.  The website states, "...a pleasure craft fitted with a toilet 
>>> must
>>> also be fitted with a holding tank and if fitted with a piping system 
>>> that
>>> allows the discharge of sewage directly overboard, then this discharge
>>> must be visibly disconnected."
>>>
>>> The solution is to close the thru-hull for the macerator discharge, 
>>> remove
>>> one end of the discharge hose leading to the thru-hull, and put a wooden
>>> plug into the thru-hull as a safety measure to minimize risk of leaking.
>>>
>>> That way, you have "visibly disconnected" the discharge.  By the way, I
>>> would also wire the thru-hull closed so there is no chance of scuttling
>>> the ship.  Once back in US waters, or when the fancy strikes you, put 
>>> the
>>> hose back together.  It isn't a big job at all.
>>>
>>> The bit about "congruent" just means "compatible" or "harmonious" or
>>> "appropriate."  Any professionally installed holding tank will most 
>>> likely
>>> be so.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> At 07:57 AM 2/19/2009, ed wrote:
>>>> >From the Canadian gov't. website:
>>>>
>>>>Portable Toilets
>>>>
>>>>Portable toilets are illegal on Ontario waters.
>>>>*The owner of a pleasure craft shall ensure that each toilet and the
>>>>holding
>>>>tank(s) is/are installed so that;
>>>>..snip...
>>>>I may have to re-think my plan for this summer
>>>>to visit Ontario, I'm not ripping out my Y-valves and overboard 
>>>>discharge
>>>>lines. Not sure at all what that last line means.
>>>>
>>>>Ed K
>> _______________________________________________
>> http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/great-loop
>>
>> To modify your Great-Loop subscription options (change email address,
>> unsubscribe, etc.) go to: 
>> http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/options/great-loop