ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) - Floatplane pilot Eric Lee feels that the dangerous incident he experienced in Halibut Cove earlier this week should be investigated by law enforcement.
Lee owns Alaska Ultimate Safaris in Homer and had his plane intentionally circled at close proximity by a boater in Halibut Cove as he was attempting to exit the area with flightseeing passengers on board. A video clip of the encounter went viral, and Lee said he hopes it doesn’t happen again.
In his over 20 years of flying, Lee said that he has never experienced anything resembling what happened on Tuesday. In a phone interview, Lee said he was taxiing through Halibut Cove and preparing to take off for a trip with seven passengers on board when he spotted an aluminum boat approaching him.
“The aluminum boat was coming toward me, I thought they were trying to get around me at first,” Lee said. “Then they started weaving back and forth fairly close to the aircraft.”
Lee said the narrow cove made it difficult to maneuver away from the boat and he worried about what would happen if it were to hit his plane.
Yes- like I said, there’s a history. She’s not right, but there’s been an ongoing “feud” where Eric has been running more and more flights a day- pissing her off. She’s also exhibiting symptoms of dementia.
Back in the day Halibut Cove was mostly Clem Tillion’s (her dad) land… he practically gave a lot of it away to young families with children in hopes that there would be enough kids for the state to build a school, and create an actual town. That didn’t happen, and those people sold out to rich lower 48’ers who built vacation homes. I think there’s still some bitterness there.
I dunno….it looked like pretty good boat driving’ to me. She was simply doing what the state patrol does on the freeway when they want people to slow down. 😂
Yes- like I said, there’s a history. She’s not right, but there’s been an ongoing “feud” where Eric has been running more and more flights a day- pissing her off. She’s also exhibiting symptoms of dementia.
Back in the day Halibut Cove was mostly Clem Tillion’s (her dad) land… he practically gave a lot of it away to young families with children in hopes that there would be enough kids for the state to build a school, and create an actual town. That didn’t happen, and those people sold out to rich lower 48’ers who built vacation homes. I think there’s still some bitterness there.
She’s quite the left wing looney as well.
Ahh, so she's president of the Halibut Cove HOA for life.
Hmmm, Hazard to Navigation, Hindrance to a vessel, and several other I'm sure. She better hope she get's a municipal trial and not a CG Tribunal........
Shouldn't be too hard to identify the boat since the registration number is right there on the bow. I have flown out of Halibut Cove on a float plane and there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room there.
I dunno….it looked like pretty good boat driving’ to me. She was simply doing what the state patrol does on the freeway when they want people to slow down. 😂
Really? Whoever was driving that boat should be in handcuffs! The boat driver was risking catastrophe and anyone who thinks that was ok is an idiot!.
Folks living there in a beautiful, quiet place. Guy using their neighborhood to make a buck, and negatively Affecting them.
Can't see much from the video, no idea what all happens there. But that's what it looks like.
Old timers vs "Progress". Old story.
Big dam fights here over the years. Several instances of folks buying a farm, then putting in a race track. Drag bikes, motocross, go-carts.....suddenly you have 150 cars on Sunday afternoon. On a little road that doesn't see that many different cars in weeks. And you hear race engines echo in the valley for miles.
How much aggravation can you project on your neighbors? For some, 6' grass is too much. For others, having the pictures rattle on the walls....
Not defending that at all. Folks could get seriously hurt. Do see how an unstable person might crack though. Hell, folks get shot in the suburbs for where they park.
Folks living there in a beautiful, quiet place. Guy using their neighborhood to make a buck, and negatively Affecting them.
Can't see much from the video, no idea what all happens there. But that's what it looks like.
More complicated than that. She's kinda a known whacko and also owns the ferry and hates to see people have other access to the cove except her ferry. There's video out there from the Beaver's perspective too. Scary stuff that could have ended up with 8 passengers in cold rapidly moving water had she screwed up and hit a float.
Are float planes required to be registered as a vessel? And does a float plane pilot have to have a captains license and all the CG approved equipment for a vessel for hire? Maybe the NTSB can put float planes in the same class as sail boats. This could get really interesting if there's enough money to push some of the federal issues on either side.
the bay people that live there as residents can make rules like 4 -6 float plane trips a day less or more ,no flying Sundays or whatever. but that lady in the boat was very wrong and should be held accountable for her wrongful actions.
Folks living there in a beautiful, quiet place. Guy using their neighborhood to make a buck, and negatively Affecting them.
Can't see much from the video, no idea what all happens there. But that's what it looks like.
Old timers vs "Progress". Old story.
Big dam fights here over the years. Several instances of folks buying a farm, then putting in a race track. Drag bikes, motocross, go-carts.....suddenly you have 150 cars on Sunday afternoon. On a little road that doesn't see that many different cars in weeks. And you hear race engines echo in the valley for miles.
How much aggravation can you project on your neighbors? For some, 6' grass is too much. For others, having the pictures rattle on the walls....
Not defending that at all. Folks could get seriously hurt. Do see how an unstable person might crack though. Hell, folks get shot in the suburbs for where they park.
Wrong, predictable not inevitable, whacko owns most of the island thinks she can control the water and air traffic as well. Beautiful place with a reputation for turning away locals, good place to avoid
This sounds really dangerous. Also interfering with a legal business is not a small thing. Would the "crazy lady defense" work as well if it were a man doing this? I bet not. Like Pete53 says, If you don't like the law, then change it. If not, then get out of the way.
Are float planes required to be registered as a vessel? And does a float plane pilot have to have a captains license and all the CG approved equipment for a vessel for hire?
No. It's registered as an airplane but on the water it has to follow the maritime rules of the road (give way to non-motorized craft etc.)
Jail time? Fines? Doubtful.. More like a politely served firm scolding.
That family is politically connected as well as iconic within their community where she's probably more loved than loathed.
You know, that special kinda love one has for their problematic child or maybe their favorite Pitbull.
Ain't no way this is her first rodeo, that community is use to the families antics, they'll cringe and bare it, life will go on.
It isn't like she shot holes in the tail or sumtin.
A little short lived terror? Sure, but if those two clients the pilot picked up for their 'adventure day' to Katmai from the Still Point Lodge endured the shear terror of the rates that lodge charges, they could handle anything.
$4,400.00 A night for 2 in the cheap room, $3,300.00 if your flying solo. The nice rooms are $10,000.00 a night for 1 or 2.
The saving grace is they are only requesting a 10% lodge tip on their website.
That little excursion to Katmai was a $2,640.00 'add on' for the day since the lodge don't have their own planes.
A private fishing charter for 8 hours is another $6790.00 'add on' at that place.
Being those appear to be contracted out services those captains and pilots would be shaking a tip can at you too.
I'm sure if the Lodge would have been aware their clients were going to have such a memorable experience preformed by such a iconic individual it'd have been another $1,000.00 ea. 'add on'.
They're in the wilds of Alaska and they had brush up with a wild Alaskan, get over it.
They can leave their cellphone videos and social media posts at home.
Jail time? Fines? Doubtful.. More like a politely served firm scolding.
That family is politically connected as well as iconic within their community where she's probably more loved than loathed.
You know, that special kinda love one has for their problematic child or maybe their favorite Pitbull.
Ain't no way this is her first rodeo, that community is use to the families antics, they'll cringe and bare it, life will go on.
It isn't like she shot holes in the tail or sumtin.
A little short lived terror? Sure, but if those two clients the pilot picked up for their 'adventure day' to Katmai from the Still Point Lodge endured the shear terror of the rates that lodge charges, they could handle anything.
$4,400.00 A night for 2 in the cheap room, $3,300.00 if your flying solo. The nice rooms are $10,000.00 a night for 1 or 2.
The saving grace is they are only requesting a 10% lodge tip on their website.
That little excursion to Katmai was a $2,640.00 'add on' for the day since the lodge don't have their own planes.
A private fishing charter for 8 hours is another $6790.00 'add on' at that place.
Being those appear to be contracted out services those captains and pilots would be shaking a tip can at you too.
I'm sure if the Lodge would have been aware their clients were going to have such a memorable experience preformed by such a iconic individual it'd have been another $1,000.00 ea. 'add on'.
They're in the wilds of Alaska and they had brush up with a wild Alaskan, get over it.
They can leave their cellphone videos and social media posts at home.
Yep, she's connected, FAA may have a different take on her antics.
They're in the wilds of Alaska and they had brush up with a wild Alaskan, get over it.
Sounds like she's missing out on a golden business opportunity. She could set up a viewing platform and tourists from all over would flock there to take photos of her in her natural environment.
“The code of the West”, so to speak? Will the same nonchalance apply if somebody up and kills her for endangering their life? I’d find that just as excusable.
there might be some Federal laws broken by this nut case lady too ?
Hell…what isn’t against federal law? I’m sure that we’re all breaking some law right now.
Fu.ck the feds. Let them handle it locally. The federal government does nothing good for the citizens anymore they only seek to subjugate us and cause us to fear them. I’m sure that Alaskans can figure it out and deal with it without the federal government sending their cuckhold agents.
Clem Tillion, Marian Becks Father, served in the House and Senate for nearly 20 years.
Tillion could be pushy, and a crafty and confounding opponent if you found yourself on the opposite side of an issue. A 1992 Anchorage Daily News profile referenced a bumper sticker that referred to Tillion as the “prince of darkness,” and featured a photo of him sitting on a bulldozer under the headline: “Get out of the way". **
30 years later a new Alaskan bumper sticker is born...
Some day she’ll go out to her boat slip and find her boat at the bottom of the bay.
I thought the same thing the other day. Anyone with a wetsuit, tank and regulator could easily slip in and remove the drain plug late at night. 😁
First thing I thought as well. If I were the pilot I'd spend a fair sum to have someone dive in a sink that bitches boat. Get a new one....sink that [bleep] too. Rinse and repeat.
Ironbender: Unlike most folks "I" have actually written citations to both sea plane operators and boat operators. That boat operator should be cited for reckless operation and or reckless endangerment! None of the views I saw indicated the sea plane operator was doing anything unlawful. Maybe the boat operator was drunk, or an idiot - or both? Regardless that boat operator should be cited. Ridiculous! Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
Some day she’ll go out to her boat slip and find her boat at the bottom of the bay.
I thought the same thing the other day. Anyone with a wetsuit, tank and regulator could easily slip in and remove the drain plug late at night. 😁
First thing I thought as well. If I were the pilot I'd spend a fair sum to have someone dive in a sink that bitches boat. Get a new one....sink that [bleep] too. Rinse and repeat.
A mild inconvenience to her. It would keep the police, the court, the corrections dept and her insurance company busy for a while. So there’s that.
Hmmm, Hazard to Navigation, Hindrance to a vessel, and several other I'm sure. She better hope she get's a municipal trial and not a CG Tribunal........
Coast Guard Rules of the Road give a seaplane on the water the lowest priority, period. Would not surprise me one bit if she has some semblance of reason for being pissed. It is not an FAA problem because it happened on the water and not an AST problem because it is CG rules.
Yeah, I realize she is a nut case, but I also know some back stories.
As a landlubber, I don’t know the rules of the sea, but does state law not apply once you are afloat? This seem like Reckless Endangerment or something similar. Will she get a pass based on her status as an eccentric rich lady? I hope not.
As a landlubber, I don’t know the rules of the sea, but does state law not apply once you are afloat? This seem like Reckless Endangerment or something similar. Will she get a pass based on her status as an eccentric rich lady? I hope not.
There are lots of State laws one could break lots of different ways, but for the situation as we know it (incompletely) the vessel that has the technical right of way the boat wins. If the harbor is too tight, congested, or unsafe the plane has no right to be there and it might very well be an argument they should shut up about.
Like Maryland's AG pushing the limits of abortion, they should have known what might happen.
As a landlubber, I don’t know the rules of the sea, but does state law not apply once you are afloat? This seem like Reckless Endangerment or something similar. Will she get a pass based on her status as an eccentric rich lady? I hope not.
There are lots of State laws one could break lots of different ways, but for the situation as we know it (incompletely) the vessel that has the technical right of way the boat wins. If the harbor is too tight, congested, or unsafe the plane has no right to be there and it might very well be an argument they should shut up about.
Like Maryland's AG pushing the limits of abortion, they should have known what might happen.
It seems that you are being obtuse. Perhaps you have a stake in this? I don’t. The video shows the boat closely circling the plane several times. This was no simple right of way issue. Not even close.
Ironbender: Unlike most folks "I" have actually written citations to both sea plane operators and boat operators.
As have I. 😉
I’ve also responded to and performed “rescues” on several float plane accidents none of which were anyone but the pilot’s fault.
I am curious about the LEO situation giving authority for such broad actions.
We were cross trained by the USCG and could enforce the same laws they enforced. We could also search a vessel under the rules of the USCG without obtaining a warrant. Basically we were “empowered” with the same enforcement abilities as the USCG.
Being a former Coast Guard Boarding Officer and Marine inspector and investigator, had I witnessed the incident in person , I would have sighted the Vessel operator with at least three rules of the road violation, crossing, overtaking, close quarter situation, also had the operator held a Coast Guard issued license, would have recommend RS 4450 proceeding.
Hmmm, Hazard to Navigation, Hindrance to a vessel, and several other I'm sure. She better hope she get's a municipal trial and not a CG Tribunal........
Coast Guard Rules of the Road give a seaplane on the water the lowest priority, period. .
There are some exceptions. Narrow channels are an exception, and that cove has all of the characteristics of a narrow channel.
Way to much unknown for me to come to any kind of conclusions as to who was legally right or wrong in this situation.
LEO types making off the cuff assumptions and willing to write tickets or make arrests, don't mean any of that would hold up in court.
Is there a local ordinance prohibiting or limiting seaplane use in this bay? Just cause you own a plane don't give you the right to land, takeoff or taxi anywhere you want.
One thing I can tell from viewing online images of Halibut Cove is that I don't see airplanes tied to docks. That uppity lodge there don't even have it's own planes.
I find that in itself rather peculiar for a high-end Alaskan community with no road system.
Does she own the bay?
Alaska law offers these types of coastal waterfront land owners very specific rights that extend to mean low water and mean high water marks. Ain't nobody gonna know the mean low water mark on any piece of land with a casual glance. It requires a special detailed survey to figure that out..
She may very well 'own the bay' or at least a single piece of land where her rights extend to the point that you can't access the bay without trespassing on her land.
The way I see it she may have being attempting to get the plane to stop so she could inform him of the woes of his ways. He refused to stop, so she tried again and again.
How different is this from me running my side by side across your private property and you cutting me off with your pickup in order to stop me, I swerve and avoid you so you try again?
Folks living there in a beautiful, quiet place. Guy using their neighborhood to make a buck, and negatively Affecting them.
Can't see much from the video, no idea what all happens there. But that's what it looks like.
Old timers vs "Progress". Old story.
Big dam fights here over the years. Several instances of folks buying a farm, then putting in a race track. Drag bikes, motocross, go-carts.....suddenly you have 150 cars on Sunday afternoon. On a little road that doesn't see that many different cars in weeks. And you hear race engines echo in the valley for miles.
How much aggravation can you project on your neighbors? For some, 6' grass is too much. For others, having the pictures rattle on the walls....
Not defending that at all. Folks could get seriously hurt. Do see how an unstable person might crack though. Hell, folks get shot in the suburbs for where they park.
I get it. Wait until some rich absentee farmer puts up a hog confinement just down the road or up wind. Or, the big farm corporation puts in drainage tile and empties your well. I get it. I don't mind a guy making a buck but when it disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighbors and the neighbors are not cashing in as well, that's a different story.
Way to much unknown for me to come to any kind of conclusions as to who was legally right or wrong in this situation.
LEO types making off the cuff assumptions and willing to write tickets or make arrests, don't mean any of that would hold up in court.
Is there a local ordinance prohibiting or limiting seaplane use in this bay? Just cause you own a plane don't give you the right to land, takeoff or taxi anywhere you want.
One thing I can tell from viewing online images of Halibut Cove is that I don't see airplanes tied to docks. That uppity lodge there don't even have it's own planes.
I find that in itself rather peculiar for a high-end Alaskan community with no road system.
Does she own the bay?
Alaska law offers these types of coastal waterfront land owners very specific rights that extend to mean low water and mean high water marks. Ain't nobody gonna know the mean low water mark on any piece of land with a casual glance. It requires a special detailed survey to figure that out..
She may very well 'own the bay' or at least a single piece of land where her rights extend to the point that you can't access the bay without trespassing on her land.
The way I see it she may have being attempting to get the plane to stop so she could inform him of the woes of his ways. He refused to stop, so she tried again and again.
How different is this from me running my side by side across your private property and you cutting me off with your pickup in order to stop me, I swerve and avoid you so you try again?
Far too much unknown...
Its a shallow bay, I've been in there a few times, never tied up as I got the impression they prefer out of state folks with money. Not cheap azz Alaskans! Considering Homer has the 2nd most active tide's in the world, its possible some area's of the bay go dry on a minus tide. Regardless you know damn well she doesn't own the bay. Pretty clear she was antagonizing the pilot of the floatplane. A sane person that wanted to get the pilot's attention would have hailed him on the radio and or paralleled his course. I suspect they have interacted prior to this and have obviously not reached a understanding. It's also obvious she does think she owns the water and can bully people into believing she has a right to control the water. She may be steeped in Ak history, does not give her the right to be an a hole. Seen it a lot with long time Alaskans that want to make it appear that have more rights than anyone that hasn't been here 75 years... yet they like the money outsider's bring... some outsider's stick around and turn out ok..
Way to much unknown for me to come to any kind of conclusions as to who was legally right or wrong in this situation.
LEO types making off the cuff assumptions and willing to write tickets or make arrests, don't mean any of that would hold up in court.
Is there a local ordinance prohibiting or limiting seaplane use in this bay? Just cause you own a plane don't give you the right to land, takeoff or taxi anywhere you want.
One thing I can tell from viewing online images of Halibut Cove is that I don't see airplanes tied to docks. That uppity lodge there don't even have it's own planes.
I find that in itself rather peculiar for a high-end Alaskan community with no road system.
Does she own the bay?
Alaska law offers these types of coastal waterfront land owners very specific rights that extend to mean low water and mean high water marks. Ain't nobody gonna know the mean low water mark on any piece of land with a casual glance. It requires a special detailed survey to figure that out..
She may very well 'own the bay' or at least a single piece of land where her rights extend to the point that you can't access the bay without trespassing on her land.
The way I see it she may have being attempting to get the plane to stop so she could inform him of the woes of his ways. He refused to stop, so she tried again and again.
How different is this from me running my side by side across your private property and you cutting me off with your pickup in order to stop me, I swerve and avoid you so you try again?
Far too much unknown...
Its a shallow bay, I've been in there a few times, never tied up as I got the impression they prefer out of state folks with money. Not cheap azz Alaskans! Considering Homer has the 2nd most active tide's in the world, its possible some area's of the bay go dry on a minus tide. Regardless you know damn well she doesn't own the bay. Pretty clear she was antagonizing the pilot of the floatplane. A sane person that wanted to get the pilot's attention would have hailed him on the radio and or paralleled his course. I suspect they have interacted prior to this and have obviously not reached a understanding. It's also obvious she does think she owns the water and can bully people into believing she has a right to control the water. She may be steeped in Ak history, does not give her the right to be an a hole. Seen it a lot with long time Alaskans that want to make it appear that have more rights than anyone that hasn't been here 75 years... yet they like the money outsider's bring... some outsider's stick around and turn out ok..
Way to much unknown for me to come to any kind of conclusions as to who was legally right or wrong in this situation.
LEO types making off the cuff assumptions and willing to write tickets or make arrests, don't mean any of that would hold up in court.
Is there a local ordinance prohibiting or limiting seaplane use in this bay? Just cause you own a plane don't give you the right to land, takeoff or taxi anywhere you want.
One thing I can tell from viewing online images of Halibut Cove is that I don't see airplanes tied to docks. That uppity lodge there don't even have it's own planes.
I find that in itself rather peculiar for a high-end Alaskan community with no road system.
Does she own the bay?
Alaska law offers these types of coastal waterfront land owners very specific rights that extend to mean low water and mean high water marks. Ain't nobody gonna know the mean low water mark on any piece of land with a casual glance. It requires a special detailed survey to figure that out..
She may very well 'own the bay' or at least a single piece of land where her rights extend to the point that you can't access the bay without trespassing on her land.
The way I see it she may have being attempting to get the plane to stop so she could inform him of the woes of his ways. He refused to stop, so she tried again and again.
How different is this from me running my side by side across your private property and you cutting me off with your pickup in order to stop me, I swerve and avoid you so you try again?
Far too much unknown...
Its a shallow bay, I've been in there a few times, never tied up as I got the impression they prefer out of state folks with money. Not cheap azz Alaskans! Considering Homer has the 2nd most active tide's in the world, its possible some area's of the bay go dry on a minus tide. Regardless you know damn well she doesn't own the bay. Pretty clear she was antagonizing the pilot of the floatplane. A sane person that wanted to get the pilot's attention would have hailed him on the radio and or paralleled his course. I suspect they have interacted prior to this and have obviously not reached a understanding. It's also obvious she does think she owns the water and can bully people into believing she has a right to control the water. She may be steeped in Ak history, does not give her the right to be an a hole. Seen it a lot with long time Alaskans that want to make it appear that have more rights than anyone that hasn't been here 75 years... yet they like the money outsider's bring... some outsider's stick around and turn out ok..
She may not be the only a-hole.
Seems like a collision of idiots.
Yep, HC is a good place to avoid, plenty of other places to go in AK.
This kind of crap has been going on in Halibut Cove for years. Late 80's I was motoring in to go to the restaurant and caught a 3/4" poly line that was strung across the mouth of the bay just under water. luckily it did not mess up my prop.
There’s no question there are quite a few unknowns. I’m just curious, especially in the land of the quick to judge Campfire, why the reluctance to do so in this case?
I’ve interacted with her before. She’s been this way for a long time. And while Jeff’s supposition is likely true, it still does not justify her actions in my mind.
I'm just without a true opinion due to my lack of knowledge about the land, waterways, and possible regulations in place for Halibut Cove.
I refuse to make assumptions based on superficial understanding when it comes to a individuals or a communities rights.
Property rights are a big thing for me, I'll respect yours and expect the same in return.
I've been through a couple of cases in Alaska where 'tide lands' and landowners rights were disputed, one in particular where millions of dollars were at stake and litigation went on for a couple years.
The outcome was far from what I'd have ever thought possible. Land owner rights to mean low water and mean low low water can vary for a lot of reasons from how deeds were worded to the date acquired.
I don't know all of what's needed to come to conclusion.
What I do know is this.
Clem Tillion purchased the lands surrounding Halibut Cove in 1948, Alaska became a state in 1959, prior to '59 Alaska was a territory.
Could there be a difference in what we know to be 'state lands' and the rules that govern it just due to this alone?
Idunno
Clem Tillion was also a Alaskan State politician for 13 years.
If he was much like any politician we know today, he used his politcal tenure to the best of his advantage to better himself and his personal interests.
That makes it a real wildcard for me at guessing at what his real estate holdings might include for special rights and provisions.
Just looking at his home in Halibut Bay makes me think he probably entertained every political figure in the state there at one time or another. Lots of influence gained drinking cocktails and fishing with the right entities.
I'm sure he'd of gotten everything he wanted and more for his little Cove.
I'm not condoning her actions but I'm also not condemning them.
And no, I don't know that she doesn't own the bay.
I'm just without a true opinion due to my lack of knowledge about the land, waterways, and possible regulations in place for Halibut Cove.
I refuse to make assumptions based on superficial understanding when it comes to a individuals or communities rights.
Property rights are a big thing for me, I'll respect yours and expect the same in return.
I've been through a couple of cases in Alaska where 'tide lands' and landowners rights were disputed, one in particular where millions of dollars were at stake and litigation went on for a couple years.
The outcome was far from what I'd have ever thought possible. Land owner rights to mean low water and mean low low water can vary for a lot of reasons from how deeds were worded to the date acquired.
I don't know all of what's needed to come to conclusion.
What I do know is this.
Clem Tillion purchased the lands surrounding Halibut Cove in 1948, Alaska became a state in 1959, prior to '59 Alaska was a territory.
Could there be a difference in what we know to be 'state lands' and the rules that govern it just due to this alone?
Idunno
Clem Tillion was also a Alaskan State politician for 13 years.
If he was much like any politician we know today, he used his politcal tenure to the best of his advantage to better himself and his personal assets.
That makes it a real wildcard for me at guessing at what his real estate holdings might include for special rights and provisions.
Just looking at his home in Halibut Bay makes me think he probably entertained every political figure in the state there at one time or another. Lots of influence gained drinking cocktails and fishing with the right entities.
I'm sure he'd of gotten everything he wanted and more for his little Cove.
I'm not condoning her actions but I'm also not condemning them.
And no, I don't know that she doesn't own the bay.
I knew Clem pretty well for 15 years or so. Stayed at his house, ate dinner with him, and he hosted my parents when they came up to visit.
He gave away most of his land in HC (as I previously posted). He donated (and continued to maintain) the docks that anyone can use, and has the post office. He regularly invited tourists to tie up, and hang out in his yard for picnics and whatnot. For someone who gave away more than he ever “took”, I’d be very surprised that he used his political position to enrich himself.
I’ve learned that these types of disputes, at least in Alaska, often run much deeper than they appear and the old beefs between sourdoughs can have accidental collateral damage.
I knew Clem pretty well for 15 years or so. Stayed at his house, ate dinner with him, and he hosted my parents when they came up to visit.
He gave away most of his land in HC (as I previously posted). He donated (and continued to maintain) the docks that anyone can use, and has the post office. He regularly invited tourists to tie up, and hang out in his yard for picnics and whatnot. For someone who gave away more than he ever “took”, I’d be very surprised that he used his political position to enrich himself.
It was actually your earlier post that first provoked my thoughts.
With Clem having the desire to create a coastal community of sorts, he'd need all the special rights he could muster up to help achieve that.
Personal pursuits made by a politician might be driven by personal goals they seek to achieve not nessasarly personal riches they desire to stack up.
What good is land you're attempting to develope if it's high tide access only?
When the area you're in has a tide exchange of upwards of 30ft it can become very limiting on the lows, twice a day.
You have to have tide land rights to reach out there so you can be accessible 24/7.
Driving pilings off the shore to build on adjacent to your property is one thing.
But when you reach out far into a bay and start driving pilings I'd suspected you'd have special specific rights and provisions to be allowed to do that.
So that's what makes me suspect that the surrounding property owners may have some unique rights to that bay that you might not see just anywhere.
The rights to these tide lands don't necessarily roll over with a sale or gifted parcel of land, they can be held by the original owner if so desired and deeds are written accordingly.
That's one thing, but you may be able to answer another.
I'm still not seeing airplanes tied to docks in these pictures. I'm not even seeing provisions for airplanes in the ways these docks are constructed, why?
When you were hanging out at Clems place, how common was it to see a plane taxi up the bay?
This really puzzles me and makes me think there could be some sorta rule or ordinance limiting or prohibiting the use of seaplanes in this bay.
A beautiful, protected bay like that should be a magnet for airplane owners seeking weekend and summer retreats to wisk their families away to. It'd be a pretty easy flight from Anchorage if you owned your own plane.
I knew Clem pretty well for 15 years or so. Stayed at his house, ate dinner with him, and he hosted my parents when they came up to visit.
He gave away most of his land in HC (as I previously posted). He donated (and continued to maintain) the docks that anyone can use, and has the post office. He regularly invited tourists to tie up, and hang out in his yard for picnics and whatnot. For someone who gave away more than he ever “took”, I’d be very surprised that he used his political position to enrich himself.
It was actually your earlier post that first provoked my thoughts.
With Clem having the desire to create a coastal community of sorts, he'd need all the special rights he could muster up to help achieve that.
Personal pursuits made by a political can be driven by personal goals they seek to achieve not nessasarly personal riches they desire to stack up.
What good is land you're attempting to develope if it's high tide access only?
When the area you're in has a tide exchange of upwards of 30ft it can become very limiting on the lows, twice a day.
You have to have tide land rights to reach out there so you can be accessible 24/7.
Driving pilings off the shore to build on adjacent to your property is one thing.
But when you reach out far into a bay and start driving pilings I'd suspected you'd have special specific rights and provisions to be allowed to do that.
So that's what makes me suspect that the surrounding property owners may have some unique rights to that bay that you might not see just anywhere.
The rights to these tide lands don't necessarily roll over with a sale or gifted parcel of land, they can be held by the original owner if so desired and deeds are written accordingly.
That's one thing, but you may be able to answer another.
I'm still not seeing airplanes tied to docks in these pictures. I'm not even seeing provisions for airplanes in the ways these docks are constructed, why?
When you were hanging out at Clems place, how common was it to see a plane taxi up the bay?
This really puzzles me and makes me think there could be some sorta rule or ordinance limiting or prohibiting the use of seaplanes in this bay.
A beautiful, protected bay like that should be a magnet for airplane owners seeking weekend and summer retreats to wisk their families away to. It'd be a pretty easy flight from Anchorage if you owned your own plane.
Why aren't they there?
I never saw floatplanes in HC. With the exception of visitors like the ones that AKwolverine posted, they WERE very rare. The lodge selling bear viewing trips is a new thing. Heck the lodge is a relatively new thing.
In Alaska, the public has a constitutional right to access and use navigable and public waters regardless of who owns the underlying bed....Article VIII. Section 14. If Tillion had any prior existing rights concerning the tidelands they would likely have been shown as an exception in the quitclaim deed that Alaska received from the feds at statehood. It and its accompanying documents are around 900 pages if anyone is interested in checking through it.
A few random points: Generally the rules applying to real estate were established at the time of the first survey and filing.
Those rules are further separated by the changes coming at Statehood.
Those rules are being further separated by the changes resulting from (and in process due to) the Sturgeon case.
The Federal failure to turn over the many millions of acres promised to the State at Statehood is a hammer hanging over all sorts of transactions, land disputes, and concessions.
Tony Knowles's unilateral decision to drop the Katie John case at SCOTUS adds a whole other level of bullshit which could have settled many issues.
For example, Afognak Natives own much of the undersea land fronting their lands, some even below Mean Low Level.
There’s no question there are quite a few unknowns. I’m just curious, especially in the land of the quick to judge Campfire, why the reluctance to do so in this case?
I’ve interacted with her before. She’s been this way for a long time. And while Jeff’s supposition is likely true, it still does not justify her actions in my mind.
This is what law enforcement interviews are for. Both sides have the right to remain silent but in this case with a huge amount of video evidence, it looks like she went too far, back story or not. Come court time the one who speaks first has the right to get their story in front of the judge first. Yea, she can bring up the past but she needs some evidence that she either owns that water or the airplane pilot violated her rights to that water in some form. Right now, it's all on her and the behavior caught on camera. I see it that she has a big hill to climb. Remaining silent only adds to the confusion and to future confrontations.
There’s no question there are quite a few unknowns. I’m just curious, especially in the land of the quick to judge Campfire, why the reluctance to do so in this case?
I’ve interacted with her before. She’s been this way for a long time. And while Jeff’s supposition is likely true, it still does not justify her actions in my mind.
This is what law enforcement interviews are for. Both sides have the right to remain silent but in this case with a huge amount of video evidence, it looks like she went too far, back story or not. Come court time the one who speaks first has the right to get their story in front of the judge first. Yea, she can bring up the past but she needs some evidence that she either owns that water or the airplane pilot violated her rights to that water in some form. Right now, it's all on her and the behavior caught on camera. I see it that she has a big hill to climb. Remaining silent only adds to the confusion and to future confrontations.
kwg
Nope... the prosecutor has to prove she violated some law...
There’s no question there are quite a few unknowns. I’m just curious, especially in the land of the quick to judge Campfire, why the reluctance to do so in this case?
I’ve interacted with her before. She’s been this way for a long time. And while Jeff’s supposition is likely true, it still does not justify her actions in my mind.
This is what law enforcement interviews are for. Both sides have the right to remain silent but in this case with a huge amount of video evidence, it looks like she went too far, back story or not. Come court time the one who speaks first has the right to get their story in front of the judge first. Yea, she can bring up the past but she needs some evidence that she either owns that water or the airplane pilot violated her rights to that water in some form. Right now, it's all on her and the behavior caught on camera. I see it that she has a big hill to climb. Remaining silent only adds to the confusion and to future confrontations.
kwg
Nope... the prosecutor has to prove she violated some law...
I get that. And, the operator of the boat seems to be the one most likely to have committed a crime and since the video is in the public domain (evidence) all the investigator has to do is put her behind the wheel. I am obviously not versed in Alaska law but I find it hard to believe there was not at a minimum a reckless boating violation involved. But, then again, it is Alaska. Is she claiming any Alaska native heritage ?? The natives apparently have more rights than whites and transplants from the lower 48.
Wow, just saw the video. Wonder what the passengers on the plane were thinking.
She’s in deep [bleep] with the puddle pirates 🏴☠️ would be my guess. I think you can add reckless endangerment to the list of charges already mentioned.
Wow, just saw the video. Wonder what the passengers on the plane were thinking.
She’s in deep [bleep] with the puddle pirates 🏴☠️ would be my guess. I think you can add reckless endangerment to the list of charges already mentioned.
I doubt anything will happen to her... and race has nothing to do with it.
FAA puts it all on the pilot, they state pilots must be aware and respect local rules and ordinances. There is no equivalent of the airport traffic pattern to govern boat traffic…."
Halibut Cove has a local rule/ordinance which states,
'Halibut Cove practices Quiet Time until 1 PM to respect our locals' privacy. Please join us in respecting this time and arrive no earlier than 1 PM.'
This was a morning flight taking lodge guests to Katmai for the day. The pilot was in violation of local ordinance, the FAA hand book points directly at this.
Not that I nessasarly support Marian's actions but she most certainly appeard to have her boat precisely under control.
If this was reckless boating, how do you define what takes place when boats set nets on the line for salmon in Bristol Bay or better yet, the action that takes place on Herring openers in congested waters?
A commercial Alaskan fishing boat without battle scars is a boat that's never been wet.
FAA puts it all on the pilot, they state pilots must be aware and respect local rules and ordinances. There is no equivalent of the airport traffic pattern to govern boat traffic…."
Halibut Cove has a local rule/ordinance which states,
'Halibut Cove practices Quiet Time until 1 PM to respect our locals' privacy. Please join us in respecting this time and arrive no earlier than 1 PM.'
This was a morning flight taking lodge guests to Katmai for the day. The pilot was in violation of local ordinance, the FAA hand book point directly at this.
Not that I nessasarly support Marian's actions but she most certainly appeard to have her boat precisely under control.
If this was reckless boating, how do you define what takes place when boats set nets on the line for salmon in Bristol Bay or better yet, the action that takes place on Herring openers in congested waters?
A commercial Alaskan fishing boat without battle scars is a boat that's never been wet.
Wow. That’s quite a stretch in defense of the crazy lady. Clearly there’s a backstory which has locals supporting her. Several posters here make that plain to see.
FAA puts it all on the pilot, they state pilots must be aware and respect local rules and ordinances. There is no equivalent of the airport traffic pattern to govern boat traffic…."
Halibut Cove has a local rule/ordinance which states,
'Halibut Cove practices Quiet Time until 1 PM to respect our locals' privacy. Please join us in respecting this time and arrive no earlier than 1 PM.'
This was a morning flight taking lodge guests to Katmai for the day. The pilot was in violation of local ordinance, the FAA hand book point directly at this.
Not that I nessasarly support Marian's actions but she most certainly appeard to have her boat precisely under control.
If this was reckless boating, how do you define what takes place when boats set nets on the line for salmon in Bristol Bay or better yet, the action that takes place on Herring openers in congested waters?
A commercial Alaskan fishing boat without battle scars is a boat that's never been wet.
Wow. That’s quite a stretch in defense of the crazy lady. Clearly there’s a backstory which has locals supporting her. Several posters here make that plain to see.
The pilot is a widely known azzhole. He was violating a number of rules and had been ignoring complaints. He knew where she was going and refused to yield the right-of-way which belonged to her. The pilot is far more likely to be charged.
No one will be charged and the lodge is going to need a work around.
Wow. That’s quite a stretch in defense of the crazy lady. Clearly there’s a backstory which has locals supporting her. Several posters here make that plain to see.
My post wasn't made in defense for anyone.
It's just facts relating to this story and why it's likely there will not be a investigation or related charges.
Gotta have a crime or violation first.
Who's going to waste time investigating an alleged action when there is no related incident involved?
It'd be like getting cut off in traffic on your way home from work and then calling the cops wanting them to arrest the guy cause it's recorded on your dash cam, it ain't gonna happen.
Wow. That’s quite a stretch in defense of the crazy lady. Clearly there’s a backstory which has locals supporting her. Several posters here make that plain to see.
My post wasn't made in defense for anyone.
It's just facts relating to this story and why it's likely there will not be a investigation or related charges.
Gotta have a crime or violation first.
Who's going to waste time investigating an alleged action when there is no related incident involved?
It'd be like getting cut off in traffic on your way home from work and then calling the cops wanting them to arrest the guy cause it's recorded on your dash cam, it ain't gonna happen.
It is hard to believe that her actions didn't fall under reckless endangerment. Towards the end you can hear his prop hit the water due to the wake she threw when she came within feet of a collision.
I'm not saying that they pilot was in the right, and he may be a real a-hole, but I don't see how some can say that he was at fault and should have yielded her the right of way. She was weaving around him in a random manner and was obviously harassing him, so I don't see how anyone can say that "he could see where she was going" or whatever.
Honestly, if the pilot had shot her and claimed self defense, I would think that he would gotten away with it. I mean, could any of you argue with him if he said, "I feared for my life, and my passengers, because the boat was trying to sink my plane. So I had to shoot in self defense..."
The owner of a well-known restaurant in Halibut Cove was indicted last week on federal charges accusing her of engaging in a dangerous interaction between a boat and floatplane last summer.
The incident Aug. 23 in the small community across Kachemak Bay from Homer was captured on video and has been widely circulated online. The footage shows a boat making extremely close passes in front of a float-equipped de Havilland Beaver DHC-2.
A federal grand jury indicted Marian Beck, owner of The Saltry Restaurant, on Jan. 19 on charges of attempted destruction of an aircraft and gross negligent operation of a vessel. Beck declined to comment on the case when reached by phone Thursday but said she did nothing wrong and has hired an attorney.
The plane’s pilot, Eric Lee, previously told the Anchorage Daily News that he was initially confused when the boat began making passes at his plane, appearing to come “straight at” him. Lee, who owns Alaska Ultimate Safaris out of Homer, said he was taking a group of people on a sightseeing tour of Katmai National Park and Preserve that day.
Lee told a reporter he flew into the west entrance of Halibut Cove, picked up passengers from the Stillpoint Lodge, and was taxiing back into the bay with seven passengers when the aluminum boat began making passes at the plane.
Lee, who could not be reached by phone Thursday, said at the time he did not know the woman driving the boat, which came within feet of the aircraft.
The indictment against Beck contains few details about the incident. It’s unclear what may have motivated her actions. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt said Thursday he was not able to comment on the case.
Beck and her husband opened The Saltry in 1984. She is one of four children of the late Clem Tillion, a longtime, influential state legislator who died in 2021.
Beck is scheduled to appear at an arraignment hearing next week.
The old point that anyone could get a grand jury to indict a baked potato? Going at it from outside the Coast Guard... you know the Fed branch that regulates waters, or the FAA, the ones that rule the air? Months after the incident?
No telling what will happen, but it is oitside the usual course of things.
(a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by any rule of this section.
(b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way.
(c) Approaching head-on. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are approaching head-on, or nearly so, each shall alter its course to the right to keep well clear.
(d) Overtaking. Each aircraft or vessel that is being overtaken has the right-of-way, and the one overtaking shall alter course to keep well clear.
(e) Special circumstances. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, approach so as to involve risk of collision, each aircraft or vessel shall proceed with careful regard to existing circumstances, including the limitations of the respective craft.
(a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by any rule of this section.
(b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the other's right has the right-of-way.
(c) Approaching head-on. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, are approaching head-on, or nearly so, each shall alter its course to the right to keep well clear.
(d) Overtaking. Each aircraft or vessel that is being overtaken has the right-of-way, and the one overtaking shall alter course to keep well clear.
(e) Special circumstances. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel, approach so as to involve risk of collision, each aircraft or vessel shall proceed with careful regard to existing circumstances, including the limitations of the respective craft.
The fact the plane was violating the rules for the area repeatedly caused the CG to say no to prosecution means what to you? There are a ton of other parts to the situation. Why did they accept the pilots claim to not knowing anything? There had been many confrontations...
You guys did watch the video , right? This had nothing v to do with “Right of Way”. The Sea Hag was obviously harassing the folks in the plane. Only the most obtuse would suggest otherwise.
You guys did watch the video , right? This had nothing v to do with “Right of Way”. The Sea Hag was obviously harassing the folks in the plane. Only the most obtuse would suggest otherwise.
Because the video gives the entire story of the conflict?
You guys did watch the video , right? This had nothing v to do with “Right of Way”. The Sea Hag was obviously harassing the folks in the plane. Only the most obtuse would suggest otherwise.
Because the video gives the entire story of the conflict?
So address the conflict in court. As she told me one time when I was docked at the Saltry “my sister is an attorney!”
You guys did watch the video , right? This had nothing v to do with “Right of Way”. The Sea Hag was obviously harassing the folks in the plane. Only the most obtuse would suggest otherwise.
Because the video gives the entire story of the conflict?
Of course not. It appears that the conflict is an ongoing thing. How would that excuse the boat spinning circles around the moving plane?
This is an old grudge match. The pilot is an asswhole and was pushing the confrontation from day one. For him to claim he knew nothing is an obvious lie. That alone when presented to the judge, coupled with the fact the CG and FAA refused to intervene, should result in a no standing order.
You guys did watch the video , right? This had nothing v to do with “Right of Way”. The Sea Hag was obviously harassing the folks in the plane. Only the most obtuse would suggest otherwise.
Because the video gives the entire story of the conflict?
Of course not. It appears that the conflict is an ongoing thing. How would that excuse the boat spinning circles around the moving plane?
The “ongoing thing” aside, I’m going to guess that there was something prior to the video starting.
You guys did watch the video , right? This had nothing v to do with “Right of Way”. The Sea Hag was obviously harassing the folks in the plane. Only the most obtuse would suggest otherwise.
Because the video gives the entire story of the conflict?
Of course not. It appears that the conflict is an ongoing thing. How would that excuse the boat spinning circles around the moving plane?
The “ongoing thing” aside, I’m going to guess that there was something prior to the video starting.
But, I’m guessing.
Very likely true. Things like this usually have a backstory. But unless he did a strafing run or dropped napalm, the video is hard to explain.
i don`t have a dog in this fight but the video shows what she was doing she will pay a fine and might get time in the slammer too ? she might be right ? but he has the video against her she will loose. those passengers were endanger that`s what a judge will get her on, she is not the law ! if she gets off easy she better be dang careful for now on.
Going at it from outside the Coast Guard... you know the Fed branch that regulates waters, or the FAA, the ones that rule the air?
Da plane was on the water at the time of the incident.
Exactly! And the pecking order states clearly that a seaplane on the water has the lowest priority.
The narrow channel rule, Rule 9, supersedes Rule 18. Oddly, there is not a legal definition of "narrow channel" in the rules. Marked narrow channels are somewhat obvious. Those that aren't marked, aren't always obvious. Court cases determine which bodies of water are considered narrow channels, Halibut cove has the characteristics of places that are found to be narrow channels in court rulings. In that case, a vessel crossing the channel cannot impede the passage of a vessel that can operate safely only within the channel. The sea plane is certainly limited in where they can operate within Halibut cove.
In addition to violating rule 9, the boat also violated Rule 2 and Rule 8.
For one second let’s assume she was driving the boat and she owns the land under that water or has any other special property rights .... and assume the pilot is trespassing.
I think this falls under the , just because you can, it doesn’t mean you should. IMO She clearly endangered people’s lives.
Going at it from outside the Coast Guard... you know the Fed branch that regulates waters, or the FAA, the ones that rule the air?
Da plane was on the water at the time of the incident.
Exactly! And the pecking order states clearly that a seaplane on the water has the lowest priority.
The narrow channel rule, Rule 9, supersedes Rule 18. Oddly, there is not a legal definition of "narrow channel" in the rules. Marked narrow channels are somewhat obvious. Those that aren't marked, aren't always obvious. Court cases determine which bodies of water are considered narrow channels, Halibut cove has the characteristics of places that are found to be narrow channels in court rulings. In that case, a vessel crossing the channel cannot impede the passage of a vessel that can operate safely only within the channel. The sea plane is certainly limited in where they can operate within Halibut cove.
In addition to violating rule 9, the boat also violated Rule 2 and Rule 8.
2, 8 AND 9? That sounds like some serious do-do! I sense that Double Secret Probation will be forthcoming. 😳
For one second let’s assume she was driving the boat and she owns the land under that water or has any other special property rights .... and assume the pilot is trespassing.
I think this falls under the , just because you can, it doesn’t mean you should. IMO She clearly endangered people’s lives.
Pretty obvious to the most casual observer the boat was harassing the plane........ even if water nav rules are applied to the plane.
In a crossing situation the "Stand on vessel" would have needed to be crossing in front of the other vessel from the right, as it was the plane was the stand on vessel, not only is she wacky, she doesn't think or know the rules, jail the goofy bitcch......
FAA puts it all on the pilot, they state pilots must be aware and respect local rules and ordinances. There is no equivalent of the airport traffic pattern to govern boat traffic…."
Halibut Cove has a local rule/ordinance which states,
'Halibut Cove practices Quiet Time until 1 PM to respect our locals' privacy. Please join us in respecting this time and arrive no earlier than 1 PM.'
This was a morning flight taking lodge guests to Katmai for the day. The pilot was in violation of local ordinance, the FAA hand book point directly at this.
Not that I nessasarly support Marian's actions but she most certainly appeard to have her boat precisely under control.
If this was reckless boating, how do you define what takes place when boats set nets on the line for salmon in Bristol Bay or better yet, the action that takes place on Herring openers in congested waters?
A commercial Alaskan fishing boat without battle scars is a boat that's never been wet.
Wow. That’s quite a stretch in defense of the crazy lady. Clearly there’s a backstory which has locals supporting her. Several posters here make that plain to see.
The pilot is a widely known azzhole. He was violating a number of rules and had been ignoring complaints. He knew where she was going and refused to yield the right-of-way which belonged to her. The pilot is far more likely to be charged.
No one will be charged and the lodge is going to need a work around.
My hypothetical post was made using the assumptions she may have property rights under Alaskan law to low water line. It also assumes she was actually driving the boat , and that she was “on her property “.
And to the main point of my post, it really is not relevant where it happened. IMO she needlessly endangered lives for something that wasn’t life threatening.
Originally Posted by JeffA
Does she own the bay?
Alaska law offers these types of coastal waterfront land owners very specific rights that extend to mean low water and mean high water marks. Ain't nobody gonna know the mean low water mark on any piece of land with a casual glance. It requires a special detailed survey to figure that out..
She may very well 'own the bay' or at least a single piece of land where her rights extend to the point that you can't access the bay without trespassing on her land. .
I could care less about what feud may or may not be going on between pilot and boat lady. I don't care if pilot is azzhole or she's nuts. If I was a passenger on that plane, I would have punched her in the throat when we returned.
I could care less about what feud may or may not be going on between pilot and boat lady. I don't care if pilot is azzhole or she's nuts. If I was a passenger on that plane, I would have punched her in the throat when we returned.
I could care less about what feud may or may not be going on between pilot and boat lady. I don't care if pilot is azzhole or she's nuts. If I was a passenger on that plane, I would have punched her in the throat when we returned.
I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man! 😁
Seriously, maybe she did have a beef with the pilot, maybe the pilot is a dickweed, but that has nothing to do with the passengers, so I would throat punch her if I was one of the passengers.
Troopers refused to do anything. CG refused to do anything. FAA refused to do anything.
Currently have virtually no respect for the Federal Government... I hope she walks. And I do not like her and despised Clem.
Apparently you like the pilot even less....
Never have met the pilot, but heard the story before the incident. That it escalated is no surprise. The Lodge is trying to do something the neighbors do not like. Local ordinance is not on the pilot's side. His outright lie that he knew nothing when reporting the "crime" is interesting...
Troopers refused to do anything. CG refused to do anything. FAA refused to do anything.
Currently have virtually no respect for the Federal Government... I hope she walks. And I do not like her and despised Clem.
Apparently you like the pilot even less....
Never have met the pilot, but heard the story before the incident. That it escalated is no surprise. The Lodge is trying to do something the neighbors do not like. Local ordinance is not on the pilot's side. His outright lie that he knew nothing when reporting the "crime" is interesting...
Just what is the local ordinance? Strikes me you know more than you are letting on. What other story before this incident are there?
Troopers refused to do anything. CG refused to do anything. FAA refused to do anything.
Currently have virtually no respect for the Federal Government... I hope she walks. And I do not like her and despised Clem.
Apparently you like the pilot even less....
Never have met the pilot, but heard the story before the incident. That it escalated is no surprise. The Lodge is trying to do something the neighbors do not like. Local ordinance is not on the pilot's side. His outright lie that he knew nothing when reporting the "crime" is interesting...
Just what is the local ordinance? Strikes me you know more than you are letting on. What other story before this incident are there?
It is posted above in this thread. No loud noises before 1PM. The lodge is doing grizzly viewing flights and start with pick-up flights long before 1PM. The local ordinance has been in place for a very long time and is not a response to a new problem.
There is much more. The pilot is lying when he says he had no idea what was going on.
FAA puts it all on the pilot, they state pilots must be aware and respect local rules and ordinances. There is no equivalent of the airport traffic pattern to govern boat traffic…."
Halibut Cove has a local rule/ordinance which states,
'Halibut Cove practices Quiet Time until 1 PM to respect our locals' privacy. Please join us in respecting this time and arrive no earlier than 1 PM.'
This was a morning flight taking lodge guests to Katmai for the day. The pilot was in violation of local ordinance, the FAA hand book points directly at this.
Not that I nessasarly support Marian's actions but she most certainly appeard to have her boat precisely under control.
If this was reckless boating, how do you define what takes place when boats set nets on the line for salmon in Bristol Bay or better yet, the action that takes place on Herring openers in congested waters?
A commercial Alaskan fishing boat without battle scars is a boat that's never been wet.
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Ok, so he lied. Does that make him responsible for endangering his passengers or wacko in the boat? The fact he lied and broke some "ordinance" does not give her the right to take matters into her own hands. Even if she had exhausted every legal avenue available. I don't think a court would see it any other way... Do you?
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Ok, so he lied. Does that make him responsible for endangering his passengers or wacko in the boat? The fact he lied and broke some "ordinance" does not give her the right to take matters into her own hands. Even if she had exhausted every legal avenue available. I don't think a court would see it any other way... Do you?
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Ok, so he lied. Does that make him responsible for endangering his passengers or wacko in the boat? The fact he lied and broke some "ordinance" does not give her the right to take matters into her own hands. Even if she had exhausted every legal avenue available. I don't think a court would see it any other way... Do you?
I only have third hand info, but authorities refused to do anything, apparently. I am no fan of either side and have no dog in the fight. To me I expect the court to look a little deeper and drop the charges as a petty spat between idiots...
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Ok, so he lied. Does that make him responsible for endangering his passengers or wacko in the boat? The fact he lied and broke some "ordinance" does not give her the right to take matters into her own hands. Even if she had exhausted every legal avenue available. I don't think a court would see it any other way... Do you?
I only have third hand info, but authorities refused to do anything, apparently. I am no fan of either side and have no dog in the fight. To me I expect the court to look a little deeper and drop the charges as a petty spat between idiots...
It's not a petty spat when other people are in that plane. She needs to spend a little time in a shrimp pot.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Who has governing authority over Halibut Cove? Is there a village council that approved the ordinance? Or basically just a neighborhood agreement?
Assuming it is a legitimate ordinance, who has the authority and duty to enforce the ordinance?
Knowing this might help to understand some of the details as to why the issue was allowed to persist so long.
This is obviously a neighborhood spat that got out of hand. Involving the passengers on the plane was a mistake by the boat captain that will likely sink her ship. (pun intended)
Hard to know exactly how close or dangerous the event really was. She did make them change course and speed. Beyond that it is hard to get worked up about it.
Hard to know exactly how close or dangerous the event really was. She did make them change course and speed. Beyond that it is hard to get worked up about it.
The plane was moving slow, it looked pretty close. But maybe your right and its hardly worth discussing, if it wasn't for the internet, video and social media it would practically just be heresy.
Hard to know exactly how close or dangerous the event really was. She did make them change course and speed. Beyond that it is hard to get worked up about it.
The plane was moving slow, it looked pretty close. But maybe your right and its hardly worth discussing, if it wasn't for the internet, video and social media it would practically just be heresy.
Actually, if it weren’t for all the personal videos, lots of bad behavior would go unchallenged. Rats hate it when the lights go on.
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Ok, so he lied. Does that make him responsible for endangering his passengers or wacko in the boat? The fact he lied and broke some "ordinance" does not give her the right to take matters into her own hands. Even if she had exhausted every legal avenue available. I don't think a court would see it any other way... Do you?
I only have third hand info, but authorities refused to do anything, apparently. I am no fan of either side and have no dog in the fight. To me I expect the court to look a little deeper and drop the charges as a petty spat between idiots...
You also said, "the pilot is FAR more likely to be charged", and "no charges would be filed." So, forgive me if I think you dont know wtf youre talking about here.
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Ok, so he lied. Does that make him responsible for endangering his passengers or wacko in the boat? The fact he lied and broke some "ordinance" does not give her the right to take matters into her own hands. Even if she had exhausted every legal avenue available. I don't think a court would see it any other way... Do you?
I only have third hand info, but authorities refused to do anything, apparently. I am no fan of either side and have no dog in the fight. To me I expect the court to look a little deeper and drop the charges as a petty spat between idiots...
You also said, "the pilot is FAR more likely to be charged", and "no charges would be filed." So, forgive me if I think you dont know wtf youre talking about here.
Fair enough if you forgive me for not caring what you think.
Comparing boating for Herring or Salmon fishing to HC is a bit of a stretch. Fishing boat captains and crew know and intentionally undertake those activities and all assume the risk. Any issues are likely settled between them.
I am sure the CG gets involved if there is a injury.
Regarding the "noise" ordinance, I wonder if that is merely imposed by the lodge or if there is actually some governing body that potentially enforces or oversees compliance?
Due to location its not simple to get a authority to respond, regardless of that its not ok to take matters into ones own hands. Has dimwit filed complaints on the or other pilots in the past?
From where I sit, she potentially and intentionally endangered others.
The other stuff about fishing was not the issue, just the ordinance.
The quiet ordinance was developed by all the landowners. The Lodge is trying to ignore it.
I would think the defense would ask the pilot a million times on the stand why he lied to everybody and had no idea what the problem was. They should then ask the Troopers why they failed to act on his lying to them.
Ok, so he lied. Does that make him responsible for endangering his passengers or wacko in the boat? The fact he lied and broke some "ordinance" does not give her the right to take matters into her own hands. Even if she had exhausted every legal avenue available. I don't think a court would see it any other way... Do you?
I only have third hand info, but authorities refused to do anything, apparently. I am no fan of either side and have no dog in the fight. To me I expect the court to look a little deeper and drop the charges as a petty spat between idiots...
You also said, "the pilot is FAR more likely to be charged", and "no charges would be filed." So, forgive me if I think you dont know wtf youre talking about here.
Fair enough if you forgive me for not caring what you think.
FAA puts it all on the pilot, they state pilots must be aware and respect local rules and ordinances. There is no equivalent of the airport traffic pattern to govern boat traffic…."
Halibut Cove has a local rule/ordinance which states,
'Halibut Cove practices Quiet Time until 1 PM to respect our locals' privacy. Please join us in respecting this time and arrive no earlier than 1 PM.'
This was a morning flight taking lodge guests to Katmai for the day. The pilot was in violation of local ordinance, the FAA hand book points directly at this.
Not that I nessasarly support Marian's actions but she most certainly appeard to have her boat precisely under control.
If this was reckless boating, how do you define what takes place when boats set nets on the line for salmon in Bristol Bay or better yet, the action that takes place on Herring openers in congested waters?
A commercial Alaskan fishing boat without battle scars is a boat that's never been wet.
Here it is again.
Am neither an attorney nor an Alaskan, but when an ordinance states, " Please join us in respecting this time..." That is not an enforceable rule or law PERIOD. It is a casual request for people to please abide by what the council would like.
For anyone to state this "ordinance" carries any weight is delusional.
Boomers need to realize everyone has a video camera these days.
I have seen way worse stuff than that on the water. Usually a boomer who thinks he owns the water, owns the fish, and has the right to try to hit everyone who dare challenges his false thinking.
If she truly intended to injure the plane or occupants she could and would have, for example.
She’s apparently not being charged with directly attempting to injure them. Still sounds pretty serious. Lots of room for a prosecutor to bargain down and still leave her in a bit of trouble. At the least, it will likely be very expensive.
By Paul Choate Published: Oct. 17, 2023 at 5:39 PM AKDT|Updated: 6 hours ago ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) - The woman indicted after a viral video showed a boat circling dangerously close to a floatplane in Halibut Cove has entered a plea agreement, according to court documents.
Marian Beck was indicted on Jan. 19 on charges of attempted destruction of aircraft and gross negligent operation of a vessel in connection with the Aug. 23, 2022, incident.
Per the terms of the agreement, Beck will plead guilty to gross negligent operation of a vessel, with the charge of attempted destruction of aircraft to be dismissed at sentencing.
The agreement includes a 90-day maximum cap on time to serve, a fine of $25,000 and the relinquishing of Beck’s mariners license to the U.S. Coast Guard.
Beck will also agree to pay full restitution to the victim after an evidentiary hearing. She will face one year of supervised release or up to five years on probation.
The pilot of the plane involved in the incident, Alaska Ultimate Safaris owner Eric Lee, said he was trying to taxi out of the cove with seven passengers on board for a bear sightseeing tour when the boat sped around in circles close to the plane.
According to court documents, Lee said he initially thought the boat operator was trying to communicate something to him, but the boat did not slow down and got so close to the aircraft he was concerned a collision might damage the plane’s floatation.
After the incident, video of the encounter circulated widely on social media.
It is unclear if a date has been set for the evidentiary hearing.
put it this way she was wrong and should have been sentenced to more jail / prison time. we all know if it would have been a white male the sentence would have been more severe .
The covenant is either enforceable by law and should've been handled through legal means, or it isn't... there was certainly a way to gather evidence against the plane if it were doing something actually illegal. Either way it's no excuse for endangering a plane full of people. The jackasz is right to have her mmc taken away -- should be permanent.
Thanks for the update, BTW. I had lost track of this story.
First, I do not like the lady and liked her father even less.
There is a covenant in place which went with the property purchased by the lodge which the airplane was violating and had been.
You would be surprised at the variety of land holdings on property owned prior to statehood.
Covenants that were applicable on navigable waterways of the US?
Navigable is different if you do not own the beach. (from the plane's perspective)
More gobbledygook
gob·ble·dy·gook [ˈɡäbəldēˌɡo͞ok] NOUN INFORMAL language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense:
Ten words in the definition and yet johnn finds it excessive...
Both brain cells rubbing together as rapidly as possible...
First, I do not like the lady and liked her father even less.
There is a covenant in place which went with the property purchased by the lodge which the airplane was violating and had been.
You would be surprised at the variety of land holdings on property owned prior to statehood.
Covenants that were applicable on navigable waterways of the US?
Navigable is different if you do not own the beach. (from the plane's perspective)
More gobbledygook
gob·ble·dy·gook [ˈɡäbəldēˌɡo͞ok] NOUN INFORMAL language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense:
Ten words in the definition and yet johnn finds it excessive...
Both brain cells rubbing together as rapidly as possible...
I have not read the contract, but understand it says there will be no nonemergency airplane traffic before noon. As I understand it Clem had the property long before Statehood.
The owner of a well-known restaurant in Halibut Cove will spend three months on home confinement for a potentially dangerous encounter in 2022 between a boat she was driving and a nearby flightseeing plane.
Marian Beck, 70, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of gross negligent operation of a vessel during a sentencing hearing in U.S. District Court in Anchorage on Tuesday. A charge of attempted destruction of an aircraft was dismissed as part of a plea agreement after she was originally indicted in January 2023.
During the hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess also sentenced Beck to give up her mariner’s license, spend three years on probation, and pay a $9,500 fine. Burgess described the incident as “road rage on the water” and said he hoped the sentence will “send a message that it’s not OK to take things into your own hands.”
What is the mariner's license mentioned? Is that a Coast Guard license for vessels above a certain size/rating, or is that required in Alaska to operate any boat with an engine?
What is the mariner's license mentioned? Is that a Coast Guard license for vessels above a certain size/rating, or is that required in Alaska to operate any boat with an engine?
What is the mariner's license mentioned? Is that a Coast Guard license for vessels above a certain size/rating, or is that required in Alaska to operate any boat with an engine?
They are called Merchant Mariners License from the coast guard and carry whatever rating you might have. Mine is Master to 50 tons.
What is the mariner's license mentioned? Is that a Coast Guard license for vessels above a certain size/rating, or is that required in Alaska to operate any boat with an engine?
What is the mariner's license mentioned? Is that a Coast Guard license for vessels above a certain size/rating, or is that required in Alaska to operate any boat with an engine?
To carry passengers for hire (paying passengers)on navigable waters, the Coast Guard requires the captain to hold some level of a captain's licence. A "six pack" license allows them to carry six or fewer passengers. Its formally an Operator of Uninspected Passenger (OUPV) license.
That seems like a reasonable sentence in this type of case. Somebody could have got killed, but nobody did. The court says she was in the the wrong, fines her 10k, yanks her license and puts her on probation. Saves the expense of a trial; the outcome of which is never certain. Being on probation gives her incentive to stay out of trouble going forward. I’d call that justice.
What is the mariner's license mentioned? Is that a Coast Guard license for vessels above a certain size/rating, or is that required in Alaska to operate any boat with an engine?
A license is required for commercial activity (guiding), just as Paul describes, a six pack is the minimum.
Key word is 'navigable waters', on inland lakes and rivers no coast guard licensing is required.
That seems like a reasonable sentence in this type of case. Somebody could have got killed, but nobody did. The court says she was in the the wrong, fines her 10k, yanks her license and puts her on probation. Saves the expense of a trial; the outcome of which is never certain. Being on probation gives her incentive to stay out of trouble going forward. I’d call that justice.
Suspect she can afford it and its just a slap on the wrist, maybe it will deter her from acting out, but its doubtful. If the flight operator received no fine / penalty then likely he will continue, if a actual covenant had any meaning then he would at least get scolded... maybe he has?
The Judge should have included a year of weekly Anger Management classes, would've sent her the msg, at least a little bit...... that is one mean old Liberal byatch
Key word is 'navigable waters', on inland lakes and rivers no coast guard licensing is required.
The Kenai River guides still need a CG license to take people fishing on the river. There is a Western Rivers endorsement for this. I'm not sure if a CG license is required for non-power vessels (drift boats), but it's definitely required for power boats.
The Coast Guard requires a special endorsement for the Great Lakes, as well. My Near Coastal license is no good for the Great Lakes. I would need a certain number of documented days (and maybe another exam?) on the Great Lakes to earn the endorsement.
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES BY DEFINITION UNDER 33 CFR 2.36(A)(1) OR (2): These waters include the territorial seas of the United States and all internal waters of the United States that are subject to tidal influence......
.......and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
When guiding in the Tikchik Lakes region of Southwest Alaska, all guides that worked the Nushagak River were required to have a current license (6-Pack).
We all took a two day course in Anchorage and were issued our license but were told it wasn't necessary for those strictly working inland waters..
As the description states.
Everything I read other than the description for 'navigable waters' is contrary to what we were told.
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES BY DEFINITION UNDER 33 CFR 2.36(A)(1) OR (2): These waters include the territorial seas of the United States and all internal waters of the United States that are subject to tidal influence......
.......and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
When guiding in the Tikchik Lakes region of Southwest Alaska, all guides that worked the Nushagak River were required to have a current license (6-Pack).
We all took a two day course in Anchorage and were issued our license but were told it wasn't necessary for those strictly working inland waters..
As the description states.
Everything I read other than the description for 'navigable waters' is contrary to what we were told.
It'd be interesting for me to hear others opinions on the matter.
It's confusing at best.
This was a big deal in 1980 when the ANILCA act was established. The state rivers were researched to determine if they were navigated at some point by the natives.
Mostly a bunch of horse schit, but the natives decided the ground under the rivers had no value and did not claim it, worked out good for us white boys as it allowed access to mean high water. I think they could claim X amount of acres and saw no value in the underlaying land, might I see greed was the driver.
Losing her USCG license might be the biggest blow to her out of all of this.
The Danny J is not operated under a 'six-pack' license. She must take a couple dozen passengers or more.
Right. That’s what I’m saying if she was part of running the water taxi. Not in the incident, but that may have been the license she had. I don’t know.
Losing her USCG license might be the biggest blow to her out of all of this.
The Danny J is not operated under a 'six-pack' license. She must take a couple dozen passengers or more.
Right. That’s what I’m saying if she was part of running the water taxi. Not in the incident, but that may have been the license she had. I don’t know.
She is an owner of the water taxi company and the vessel Danny J. I know she used to run the ferry, but don't know if she had scaled back (she's about 70 yo). Given the size of the vessel, I suspect she has a 50 or 100 ton Master's license.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/200405.jpg)
![[Linked Image from andywolcottphotography.com]](https://www.andywolcottphotography.com/img-get/I0000OJgRmKPEORc/s/1200/I0000OJgRmKPEORc.jpg)
![[Linked Image from wildnatureimages.com]](https://www.wildnatureimages.com/images/640/080816-042-Halibut-Cove.jpg)
![[Linked Image from media-cdn.tripadvisor.com]](https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/9b/64/24/saltry-restaurant.jpg)
![[Linked Image from mag.irnko.ir]](https://mag.irnko.ir/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/20140910-HALIBUT-slide-Z9PQ-superJumbo-768x478.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from apostcardjourneytravel.files.wordpress.com]](https://apostcardjourneytravel.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/wp-15985366969557690167770961176501.jpg)
![[Linked Image from themilepost.com]](https://themilepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Halibut-Cove-Alaska.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/0QXJXVtx/C9-F4-ECB9-5835-42-AE-BF65-48-B459-EC94-BF.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/tJ1nKFf6/58992-F90-A3-BF-4-EBE-AFB4-655-BAA78179-F.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/wx4fK8Mp/57-AB5148-56-E5-4-C5-B-9373-1-A88-C50-FBBE1.jpg)
![[Linked Image from m.media-amazon.com]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51AY2474PSL._AC_SL1500_.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/PKVPDxD.jpeg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/3461/0BoOB3.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/204/JVE5vF.jpg)
