Coastie04

Can't wait for the album to come out!

Coastie

Oh, I fully agree with you. about the laws of what is supposed to be common sense. Big, metal boat vs. small plastic one? Well, I guess Darwin needs to stay on top of his game sometimes. Yes I realize that the rules that I've quoted are from a USCG publication, but they were the international rules of the road. They are international because they apply on the high seas and are not just U.S. rules. They actually have their origin from standardized practices over hundreds of years, but specifically and more recently from the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS). In 1993, the International Maritime Organization adopted some amendments to the rules. So, these regulations have become common law of the sea for all countries due to their wide acceptance. Therefore, rules did apply. Unfortunately, common sense was apparently ignored by one party, as were the rules from what I have seen/heard.

Coastie

Fascinating information! I especially liked the methods of smuggling. I can imagine that some will incorporate these in to their period kits, such as the bags of tea resembling the crown of their cap, etc. It would definitely make a great educational piece!

Coastie

capn'rob:

As I have recently passed the rules of the road test (and all other tests for my 100 ton master, 200 ton mate, and A.B. licenses/certicates), I'm actually quite familiar with them right now. It's rule 2, not rule 1 that requires vessels to avoid collision.

"Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case."

Additionally, Rule 17 (action by Stand-on Vessel) states:

"( When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision."

I just happened to have the book handy for those (and added emphasis). Having not seen the full situation, I can only surmise that the anti-whaling vessel intentionally positioned itself in front of the whaling vessel, and the whaling ship either could not, or chose not to take sufficient actions to avoid collision. However, placing one's vessel in that position is poor seamanship and also against the rules required of a vessel who has right of way (maintain course and speed). Additionally, Rule 16 states that the "vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear" (emphasis added). However, when being antagonized by a protesting vessel capable of traveling 50 kts that decides to stop in your path, it's hard to take early and substantial action in a large, heavy boat with a great deal of momentum.

My opinions of these protestors remains unchanged.

Coastie

Well, as we were in port each night when we were short handed, we didn't have watches. We had the captain at the helm, the cook below doing his blessed duties, and three deckhands. The main point is that if it had been necessary, we could have had two person watches (captain standing a watch, and maybe the cook helping out for all hands maneuvering at times) and just called all hands for major maneuvering. And, one person can trim the sails while the other is at the helm. For an ocean voyage, that would have worked, though it would obviously not have been as safe because in rough weather, more crew is needed. I was using that as an extreme example, such as a prize crew or what could have been done in a case of severe disease, heavy losses in battle, etc. For most ocean voyages, there actually isn't that much maneuvering called for. You can go days or even weeks without adjusting the sails. Also, tacking would probably be out of the question; wearing ship (jibing for square riggers) is much easier and safer when short handed. 12 crew could have fought the ship, though poorly and without much ability to deal with losses. More of a merchant trying desperately to defend herself. 50 would have been cramped (at least by today's standards), but there would have been enough room for food, water, and other necessary stores. Plus, there would be extra people for the necessary daily tasks of cleaning, maintaining the boat, maintaining the armarment, and providing a worthy adversary to any reasonably sized opponent.

Coastie

I have absolutely no respect for the seamanship of the anti-whaling activists, based on what I have heard and seen on the few shows I've watched. This is just one more in a long line of poor seamanship practices which is bound to get someone killed one day. I would not be at all surprised if they steamed at the high speed of 46 mph in to the path of this whaling ship, and stopped long enough to get the video footage of them being stopped before getting their bow chopped off. It just seems like their standard operating proceedure in order to stay in the news.

Coastie

My time sailing the 112 foot brig Lady Washington might provide some insight here. Soon after I reported onboard as a new and unproven crew member, we had a bit of a crew shortage. We had the captain, a cook, and three deckhands. And, we were setting/dousing sail up to twice a day for three hour sails. Combine that with some dockside tours and it got rather exhausting. However, out at sea, without any fighting to do, it could have easily been done for a matter of days or weeks...provided there were no major storms either. In other words, back in the day sailing with that few crew would have been feasable, but risky. A full crew on that boat is 12 people. That is without fighting, though there are two 3-pounders and two swivel guns that are used in battle sails, and with the constant sail changing and maneuvering done for the short passenger sails, you could probably relate that to a running battle. However, there is also evidence that when a similar vessel was a man of war, there would be a compliment of 12-18 sailors and up to 50 marines onboard. That would be with many more cannons, I'm sure, but also a very formidable fighting ship of her size. Unarmed coastal schooners during the 19th Century sometimes carried as little crew as the captain, two deckhands, and a ship's boy. So sailing the boat wasn't necessarily the problem. But, if you want an efficient fighting machine, then you would need to stack crew and fighting stores as much as possible. The drawback to this, is that you would need to probably have enough extra able bodies to crew a prize vessel, as your boat would not be able to carry much extra loot once you've captured an enemy.

An additional thought. Many boats used quakers, or fake cannons, in order to appear more powerful than they really were. They wouldn't have to man these 'guns', but an enemy would think that they were real and feel that they were going up against a superior foe. If you could capture a ship without a fight, that was far better than the risk of getting people killed!

Coastie

Something to think about for attaching the boom to the mast is a yoke type fitting. Many traditional boats use it, and it's relatively easy to make out of a bit of spare wood and cordage. Essentially, attach a couple of bits of wood on each side of the boom that will cradle the mast. On the forward side of the mast, use some cordage to attach the two parts of the yoke. On the mast, you will need to put a collar that will hold the yoke up. I couldn't find a picture in the few minutes I had online, but I'm sure you can if you search. It's actually really a simple design, but it's also stood the test of time well.

Coastie

Well, THANK YOU Badger! I put a bit of 3F grain in the powder horn and took it to a friend's house for New Years in case he needed priming powder for his cannon. Unfortunately, he couldn't find the main charge powder, so it has not officially been used yet. Of course, I didn't think of bringing over my sea service pistol...

And Blackbeard, that (alleged-in case anyone here works for the postal service) limoncello is always a treat around here when I get around to making it. The coffee's roasted in Ketchikan and named after a beach in nearby Peril Strait. The story goes that in an apparent truce offering, a tribe of natives poisoned a large number of Russians with mussels in Poison Cove. When they found the bodies, the strong current in the area had washed them up on the beach now called Dead Man's Reach. I hope you enjoy it; it's been my favorite coffee since the first time I tried it.

Coastie

Well I finally opened mine yesterday and was very pleasantly surprised to see a horn which was sealed on the inside for drinking, as well as a powder horn with some scrimshaw work. Very beautiful, and I can't wait to use it with my sea service pistol once it stops raining (maybe in May?). It's definitely a great addition to the pirate kit. Unfortunately, so far I have no idea who gave it to me. Still sleuthing it out, though. At any rate, THANK YOU!!!

Coastie

Just recently there was an article in the local paper about a pile of deer found in Sitka, AK. Only the choice cuts were taken, and the rest of the carcasses were left for nature. It's a complete waste and I hope they do find who did it (although the law enforcement officials are skeptical that they ever will). I do enjoy hunting, especially because up here in Alaska, there's plenty of wildlife and it is a very renewable resource. However, I hate people who waste the animal or, as in Bo's case, shoot in a dangerous direction. It's people like that who give firearms a bad name in the first place. 99% of gun owners are responsible, safe, and law abiding. It's the last few @ssholes that ruin it for the rest of us.

Coastie

First off, the Vasa was heading out on her maiden voyage and the gunports were open for ceremony. That being said, sometimes a few gunports were opened in hot and calm weather in order to air out the ship, which when packed with so many sailors, could get rather rank. As for the sails, the first thing they would do is to furl the t'gallants, which would do the most to decrease the heel of the ship. Although taking in the courses and double reefing the tops'ls would be one sail configuration to ride out a storm, for a suddon squall I would furl everything except the fore topm'st stays'l and a double reefed fore course. Usually with squalls, they are sudden and don't have the time to build up very big waves. Therefore, keeping sail area as low as possible without getting becalmed from large waves is a safe way to go. If the waves were big enough to poop the ship, then there is no way that any competent sailor would have the gunports open. Also, with the sail area all forward, the strong wind would keep the ship heading down wind. Of course, the same thing would happen if you just had a reefed fore tops'l set instead of the course, but there would be more heeling and more stress on the rigging.

One possible scenario that I would suggest is that while taking in sails (it would take a little while), fore tops'l blows out and the mate orders the course to be re set in order to keep the bow downwind and prevent the broaching from having too much sail area aft. Just a few thoughts I had; hope it helps.

Coastie

Happy Birthday, and may you continue to bless (or curse) us with your knowledge.

Coastie

Beautiful work! What wood did you use for those plates?

As for oil, I'd second the motion of walnut oil over olive oil for this type of application. Also, probably any oil that's made for wooden cutting boards will work. Personally, I use a combination of mineral oil and bees wax. It's designed for cutting boards and wooden salad bowls, so I'm sure it's food safe. It would give a little bit of a hard surface to seal in the cinnamon that much better. Overall, though, a great design and a great process. Thanks for sharing!

Coastie

If he were Scottish, I'd suspect a very different title.

Coastie

Best of luck on a quick and full recovery!

Coastie

I also recall an old method of preserving fire for journeys. A wooden box was filled with reeds, wool (if I recall correctly on this material), or wood shavings. Then, an ember was put in it, covered with more of the packing material. The lid was closed, and the ember would have insulation to stay warm, just enough oxygen entering the box to keep it burning, and additional fuel surrounding it as well. I think I saw this on a history channel show about the exodus, so it definitely predates GAoP, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar fire boxes were around then.

Coastie

Rhumba, I sent you another PM with my address. Let me know if it didn't go through again.

Coastie

That's a good loooking liveaboard, Joe. It's always sad to see most liveaboards get run down and look like sinking hulks in a junkpile. It's always great seeing one that is able to leave the dock, and especially one that I would love to sail myself. Let me know if you make it up to Alaska...I can be your local pilot.

I'm definitely in again. Unfortunately I missed last year, and have been kicking myself for slacking off. Also, I've got a new address that I'll PM you, Rhumba.

Coastie

Museum presents documentary about legendary schooner captain

This was a great little article about a footnote in history that I felt people here would appreciate. I just wish the film would make it's way to Juneau!

Coastie

I'll second that Pyrat XO Reseve (on the rocks). Never tried the Cask 23 yet, but for the price I can't imagine it being THAT much better. Best bang for the buck, and I might go with Gosling's Black Seal; a very good rum for about the same price as bottom-of-the-barrel Capt. Morgan or Mount Gay. Occasionally, I also enjoy Pusser's once in a while. But, it still doesn't quite compete with Pyrat XO Reserve.

Coastie

That just sounds AWESOME!!! I wish I could afford a visit.

Coastie

I've had my eye on this baby for years. She's been for sale in Chile, made passages around the horn, and is built sturdy. However, I just don't have that kind of money right now, and getting her from Chile to Alaska, while a fun passage, would just be one more big expense. Granted, at $310,000, it's only $50k more than I'm buying my first house for! But, add to that the passage up, moorage fees, and the basic maintenance of owning a boat, and it's still too far out of my price range.

General Comments About The Boat:

Construction of this classic William Garden topsail schooner first began in 1970, but political uncertainties then delayed the project until 1983 and the ship was finally christened and launched new 1986. She was built to handle some of the world's toughest conditions. Thanks to her heavy ballast, wide beam and full keel, she is exceptionally seaworthy and has sailed for 17 years from one end of Chile to the other, Arica to Cape Horn, sometimes braving hurricane-force winds. She has been used on and off to carry up to 60 tourist passengers on day sails and up to 12 on overnight trips. Only a captain and 2 crew are required to handle her. Her reliable Cat diesel was completely overhauled, including head and injector pump, just 1500 hours ago. Both her forward and main Oregon pine masts were replaced in 2002, when she also received a new rudder and other upgrades. Her overall condition at this time is very good. She is a go-anywhere, sailorman's sailing vessel ready for sea with a size is not excessive for anchoring in small coves.

I really like the size (75 ft LOA), and the fact that she was built to be sailed hard in any condition. One of those boats that will always bring you home if you take care of her.

Coastie

Well, as with most things, the lawyers are going crazy over it. Here's an update:

Sunken Ship at Center of Legal Tug of War

The shipwreck hunters who want to raise an old schooner from the bottom of Lake Erie and put it on display in the Buffalo harbor have been entangled in a five-year federal court battle with the state over rights to the vessel.

State historic preservation and museum officials believe federal law gives the state control of the ship, and they feel it is best preserved where it is, off the Dunkirk shoreline. They also allege the company behind the schooner-raising plan has damaged the ship and accuses its divers of improperly handling human remains found onboard.

Northeast Research LLC denies the accusations and says it has followed all the rules to obtain the legal rights to the sunken ship.

The company, headed by Richard Kullberg, whose previous business ventures include starting Cape Cod's first whale-watching boat tour, laid claim to the shipwrecked vessel at the bottom of the lake in federal court in August 2004.

Last month, after years of research on the ship, Northeast Research met with Erie County Executive Chris Collins, the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp. and other government and tourism officials to lay out its plans for the schooner.

Northeast Research wants to raise the two-masted ship from the lake and place it on display in a giant water tank. They see it as a potential centerpiece of the Buffalo waterfront and say thousands of tourists would flock to Western New York to see it.

They also want to make a series of documentaries about the shipwreck and its raising, which they say will bring international attention to Buffalo.

The group says it will put up as much as $5 million from investors to raise and store the ship while a museum is prepared. They said they'll lease the shipwreck to waterfront officials for $1 over a 99-year period. And they say they will spend "over $1 million" on the first of four documentaries.

In exchange for all this, they want a third of ticket sales from the museum. To pay for the museum, Northeast has suggested using money that has been set aside for other projects in the Buffalo harbor redevelopment plan.

Northeast Research says its research shows the ship was a trading schooner, based on grains and hickory nuts found in its hull.

A disputed identity While no nameplate has been found on the ship, Northeast Research and its experts believe there's a strong possibility the schooner at one time had been the warship Caledonia, which was commandeered by the British during the War of 1812, then taken over by the Americans and used against the British in the Battle of Lake Erie.

It then was refitted in 1816 to become a trade ship called the General Wayne, which may have been used to smuggle slaves to Canada.

The identity of the ship is key to Northeast Research's claim to the sunken vessel. Federal law protects only abandoned shipwrecks, but not those whose owners have living descendants who want to lay claim to the ships or insurance companies with policies on them. In this case, Northeast Research has tracked down a direct descendant of one of the owners of the General Wayne who has given consent to the group to raise the ship.

But as Northeast Research has been developing and promoting its plan, it has been simultaneously fighting off efforts by the state to gain control of the shipwreck.

The state attorney general's office, representing state historic preservation and museum officials, has been arguing for the rights to the shipwreck since almost immediately after Northeast Research went to federal court in 2004.

In court papers, an expert for the state argued there's no evidence the ship is the Caledonia/General Wayne, which would mean the ship is abandoned. Under the federal Abandoned Shipwrecks Act of 1987, such a vessel would fall under the jurisdiction of the state where it was found.

Arthur B. Cohn, an underwater archaeologist with the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, said none of the artifacts found on the ship points to its being the historic vessel. Cohn said the ship's "flat-bottomed hull and parallel sides" are more consistent with ships built to fit in the Welland Canal, which was completed in 1829. The Caledonia is believed to have been built near the end of the 18th century.

In addition, the state has "serious concerns regarding the archaeological methods used by the plaintiff in their efforts on the shipwreck," including what officials called the "desecration of human remains," court papers read.

In June 2008, during the course of the lawsuit, the state had been forced by the courts to give Northeast Research an archaeological permit to work on the ship. The permit lays out specific guidelines on how to handle an archaeological site and includes specific guidelines on what to do with human remains that are encountered.

The state says bones believed to be human that were found on the ship were never reported to authorities. The state said that the bones were gathered up into a "bone bag" and that other pieces of bone were sucked up through a dredge hose and are being kept in cold storage in Dunkirk.

After the state received information about the discovery of bones, it rescinded the permit.

Northeast Research strongly denies the state's assertions that it has been anything other than careful with the shipwreck.

"The last thing we're going to do in a shipwreck of this historical magnitude is to destroy the integrity of the ship," Pat Clyne, a part-owner and spokesman of Northeast Research, told The Buffalo News.

He said his firm has been working on the ship using expert technical divers and archaeology experts from Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa.

Northeast Research contends any damage to the ship had been caused by trespassers.

Regarding the human remains, Clyne said the state's accusations "are blatantly false and hearsay."

Clyne said that divers sent down to explore and desilt the ship came across objects that they thought could be human bones and that they were set aside in a canvas bag inside the hull. A dredge hose also sucked up tiny, blackened fragments of bone, some of which were human and some from fish. A few pieces were sent to an Army

DNA lab, and the rest were frozen for conservation purposes, as was recommended to Northeast Research by archaeological consultants.

Experts have doubts

Northeast Research also contends that its experts have found strong evidence that the ship is the Caledonia/General Wayne. It disputes Cohn's description of the ship, saying its design is consistent with the types of vessels built when the Caledonia was and also cites a line drawing by a Great Lakes historian that looks very close to the historic ship.

The drawing was based on historic accounts in 1997, (CQ) which the state says should not count as proof.

Northeast also says the lack of identification on the ship is consistent with the theory that it had become involved in helping escaped slaves.

Northeast alerted Collins about the "unresolved legal issues surrounding the wreck," said Collins' spokesman, Grant Loomis. "Erie County has done its own due diligence on this matter" he said.

Collins says he doesn't believe the project can be funded by the county alone.

"Going forward, Northeast Research must now resolve its legal matters and convince the state and federal governments that this project is worth pursuing in Buffalo," he said.

The legal fight and publicity over the schooner proposal have raised questions among some in the Great Lakes shipwreck community.

They wonder about the ethics and wisdom of disturbing archaeological sites to such an extent.

"In terms of picking it up and putting it in a tank, I don't see how that's a good idea in any way, shape or form," said Carrie Sowden, archaeological director of the Great Lakes Historical Society in Vermilion, Ohio.

Sowden supports leaving ship wrecks in their final resting places. "The general rule of thumb within the Great Lakes is almost everything stays where it is," she said.

"I really think they're best preserved left where they are," said Pat Labadie, historian for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Michigan. "Diving activity alone takes an awful toll on historic wrecks."

Still, he said, it's feasible that the shipwreck could be raised and that keeping it in a tank "could be a way of preserving the vessel. ... It would certainly be impressive," he said.

Many shipwreck researchers cited the cautionary tale of the Alvin Clark, a schooner not unlike the Dunkirk wreck, that was raised in 1969 off of Wisconsin.

Valerie Van Heest, who made a documentary about the ill-fated ship, explained how the Alvin Clark was raised "with good intentions." The vessel was put on display outdoors on the waterfront in Green Bay. "But there was absolutely no financial backing beyond taking it out of the water," she said. "It rotted. Storms took it apart ... To make a long story short, they had to bulldoze it, and it went into a landfill."

Northeast's Clyne says he understands such concerns.

"It just wasn't done correctly," Clyne said of the Alvin Clark. "We have the technology now. We know what destroys shipwrecks. We know how to conserve them indefinitely. There is no reason in the world that shipwrecks can't be put on display."

Clyne said he believes that his company and the state are really on the same page and hopes they can figure out a way to work together.

"We as private, historical shipwreck salvors would like to bring this up and display it for the people of Buffalo," Clyne said. "The state wants to keep it at the bottom of the lake. We both feel it belongs to the people of Buffalo."

Additionally, I found some great photos of the shipwreck that they mention as a botched salvage of the Alvin Clark. Also, in the 'ship kits' column, check out the 'wreck 1' through 'wreck 6' links in the Alvin Clark section. It has some great photos of a ship being neglected.

Coastie