F Cove closed.

Well, I don't do anything stupid either -> and I rarely have any alcohol on the boat.

I have no fear of "The Law"; but I still am not a fan of obligatory "courtesy inspections" on general principle.
I might feel differently for boats going in-and-out of the inlets, but for Tices? Where most of the boats are travelling less than 10 miles on protected waters? Nope. There is no significant safety case here.

I feel the same way about lakes where the pleasure police boat/pleasure ratio tends to be too high for my tastes.
 
So what we are saying in this thread is that it is NOT ok to restrict access to a waterway on quasi justifiable environmental grounds.

But that it IS ok to be randomly searched and inspected while on your boat cruising 100 yards to the East? (and the area North of the Mantaloking Bridge is patrolled heavily)

Ok. . .I am finished now; lest we drift further from the original topic in the first sentence.
 
Last edited:
It would be incredibly wonderful if we could restrict access to boating (cars, childbearing, etc.) to only those who will behave responsibly. Unfortunately, they sell boats to dips**ts, too. Likewise, if we could limit access to sensitive areas to people who will behave responsibly, without the dips ruining it.

But we can't do that, so it's an all or nothing proposition. I've never been to "F Cove", but I've boated on the Lake of the Ozarks, and know about the party cove there (and probably on just about any sizable body of navigable water). If F Cove was anything like that, and it is in an environmentally sensitive area, then yeah, they should shut it down. If the people using the resource can't or won't prevent abuse of the resource, then someone else needs to before it is ruined.

From everything I've seen here and in the links provided, the environmentalists didn't spoil your access to F Cove, the dips did.
 
If everyone is to be punished for the stupid activities of the few (a la the closing of F-cove), than everyone should be punished for the stupid activities of the few (ie: random vessel checks at Tices Shoal). If you support the authority of the enviro-freaks, you must also support the water cops authority - the water cops are trying to save humans. The environmentalists are trying to save a species of fern. I believe what Autovette is saying is that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
 
Is that old boat yard that was leveled in that area part of the environmental area?
 
comsnark said:
I have no fear of "The Law"; but I still am not a fan of obligatory "courtesy inspections" on general principle.
I might feel differently for boats going in-and-out of the inlets, but for Tices? Where most of the boats are travelling less than 10 miles on protected waters? Nope. There is no significant safety case here.

I feel the same way about lakes where the pleasure police boat/pleasure ratio tends to be too high for my tastes.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you so naive that you think a person has to cruise a long distance to be a danger to himself, his passengers and the people on boats around him?

Let me show you what happened when a person drove his boat 200 yards from the launch ramp to where he drank all day, then cruised downriver about 3 miles headed to a riverfront bar before he ran into my boat.
P71700532.jpg


P71700522.jpg


Now, try again to convince me that a person who only is going 10 miles on protected waters can't pose a hazard. Are you aware that the "safety checks" that boat cops do is also a check on the BUI status of the boat skipper, and that if the boat cops are any good at what they do they can prevent a lot of accidents and save a lot of lives?

If you REALLY believe what you wrote, you're amazingly naive.
 
GFC is dead on... It doesn't matter how far you travel for a "...singnificant safety case..." to be present.

I've been boating on the Barnegat bay since the late 70's...bought my first boat in '77....a '68 wooden Thompson Lapstreak with a big Johnson. I've seen lot's of crap and chnages over those years. Most dis-heartening though, is the lack of courtesy and knowledge. It's gotten to where hanging on the hook at the 'popular' anchorages is more stressfull than relaxing.

I am 100% with Frank H on this...the more police presence the better. Just having police or CG in the area keeps folks in line. No one is asking for a police state where they would be boarding boats all afternoon. But, when they see the jackasses doing donuts on their PWCs in the middle of the anchorage, or BLASTING their music so that EVERYONE has to listen to THEIR music or OBVIOUSLY drinking too much to be behind the helm or BLATENTLY showing disregard for the local waters and environment (DUMPING TRASH), etc, etc, etc....then yes...bring it on.
 
My objection is to "over policing", and the nanny state running rampant.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand your complacency when the "nanny state" tells you where you can and cant boat, but your disapproval of the "nanny state" attempting to keep order and protect us,which was basically one of the original and ONLY purposes of government.
 
rondds said:
I just don't understand your complacency when the "nanny state" tells you where you can and cant boat, but your disapproval of the "nanny state" attempting to keep order and protect us,which was basically one of the original and ONLY purposes of government.
Click to expand...

I have not yet posted an opinion regarding closure of F cove.

I did post a negative comment or two about unlit speed marker barrels, particularly those in nav channels in the immediate area of F cove.
I did post several negative comments about random boarding of boats, both at Tices and in the area around F cove.

For the record, I am opposed to the closure of F cove on environmental or "there is too much partying" grounds. I would question how "environmentally sensative" that area really is.

Post number #23 was my questioning the disconnect between disagreeing with closing the environmental area but approving other policing.

My read of your posts seems to be that you agree with others on the policing, but I am unclear on your view of F cove. What is your view on this?
BTW: I found your posts on the historical comings and goings of bridges quite interesting.
 
Last edited:
Been in F-cove many times, but not in the past 7 years of so. Not my speed, but many people enjoy it. As far as it's closing, I think it's sad. A "refuge?" Yes, maybe, but not for flora and fauna - more so for testosterone and silicone. You'd have to go back to post #3 for my opinion on the rationale for it's closing.

If there were numerous incidents involving brush fires, pollution, fights, drugs, criminal activity - then MAYBE you'd convince me it should be shut down.
 
F-Cove is like Sicily....it's serves a neccessary evil......it's a great place for the silicone/testosterone folks to hang and it keeps them from looking at the flora/fauna type anchorages.
 
Dom;

Although we do not agree on many things, I am in 100% agreement with your view on the need for a F-Cove.

A few boats pulling up on a sandy beach (actually, a dug out lagoon!) is no big deal in my mind.
 
I'm in agreement with most of you that F Cove served a purpose... that purpose being keeping a select few "Idiots" in a confined area!!! I laughed the other day when I thought about what I used to do in my 18' CC 20 years ago and what I do in my 310 da..... as a Mature Adult!! By limiting an area they will go elsewhere!! As a for instance.. they just voted to close bars in Point at 12:00 as a posed to 2:am! Now where yah think their going to go....... "Your Home Town"!!!
 
rondds said:
Thanks for the link. Interesting that we all managed to survive prior to 1988 with only 35 of these buoys! Once again, the government seems to think we have to save us from ourselves. I'm actually thrilled to see they are looking for ways to cut costs for a change!

The tricky part will be down along LBI. There are a couple of NO-WAKES that were marked and I always forget where they are. I did put them into my GPS but if not, they'd probably bust me down there.
Click to expand...

I was down at Water Street in Toms River this weekend, and I was thinking of this thread. The final half mile, where the marked channel is about 50-75' wide, had three no wake bouys. No reduction there. And naturally, all three the were placed well inside the channel, such that they would be notable obstacles if two boats meet travelling in opposite directions.

I have not been North yet to see what reductions, if any, there are in the Mantaloking area.
 
Does anyone go down to F Cove or is it still just a bunch of kids?? Looking for a nice cove to hang out and Tices Shoals is a little far for the weekend trips.
 
Siboatguy said:
Does anyone go down to F Cove or is it still just a bunch of kids?? Looking for a nice cove to hang out and Tices Shoals is a little far for the weekend trips.
Click to expand...

We don't go to F-cove, because the water is filthy and full of jelly fish... We hang out at Governor 's Cut by the North end IBSP, and at the Cove (Bayville) ..It is a Red Neck bar with palm trees and live entertainment.... The Cove is directly across the bay from Governor's Cut...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,118
Messages
1,426,466
Members
61,034
Latest member
Lukerney
Back
Top