# Daytona Beach,Fl. - Anchoring restriction



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

As anyone who visit's this forum may already know- I prefer to anchor my Vessel. I have done so , successfully for the years I have owned her and hope to continue to do so. As I enjoy anchoring as opposed to a dock and it is quite convenient for me.
I do not reside on my vessel as a liveaboard. I have a home and a legal address (although I wouldn't mind living on the boat, and may move aboard in the future) . As such I am not a liveaboard.
On the 6/18th I recieved a "courtesy Notice" from the city of Daytona Beach, Fl . Informing me that I was in Violation of City Ordinance 106-183 and that the notice "signifies the beginning of the removal process of the vessel by city ordinance 106-184 (impoundment of vessels) by the City of Daytona Beach Florida. here is a link to the City Ordinance;

http://library8.municode.com:80/def...68e495f376edb0c46c17ded5a809cb&infobase=10234

As I read through the ordinance I noticed that "Vessels engaged in Navigation " were exempted from this ordinance.
Also I must say that I believe I am engaged in Navigation and am exempt and further the State Statute 327.60 also backs up my right to anchor.
I contacted the Officer who issued the notice to inform him I intend to move, he said fine. 
I then asked if the anchorage I had previously used for the previous year and a half (which is also in the city) was OK , to which he said yes, that was the area the city was "allowing" to be used as an anchorage.
I said OK and agreed to move in the next few days as weather would permit.
I think we've been down this road before and some folks are just not getting the message. As I understand the law, I have every right to anchor where I am for as long as I see fit to do so, as long as My "intent" is not to permenantly anchor their for perpetuity.
I am in contact w/ a Maritime law firm familiar with these issues and have forwarded the ordinance information and am in the process of forwarding the rest of the paperwork pertaining to the situation as well. and will anxiously await there take on it.
I thought it was a wives tale previoulsly when I heard of this thing happening here in Daytona and attributed it to just the law enforcements way of moving along the derelicts and the other unwashed !
So, I take my plight to the court of public opinion here on sailnet.
What say you fellow sailors? 
Do I fight like a salmon or run like a scared cat?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Fight it...  IIRC, the state has recently passed some legislation clearly defining what constitutes a liveaboard boat... which you should probably check on.


----------



## saildork (Feb 20, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> Fight it...  IIRC, the state has recently passed some legislation clearly defining what constitutes a liveaboard boat... which you should probably check on.


That was the question that came up in my mind. If you're cruising, you will anchor somewhere for some period of time, whether you have a land-based address or not. Do municipalities have a limit on how long you can remain anchored in one place? Do you become a 'liveaboard' when your home address is a PO Box? What are the rules?


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Sailingdog-
Thank you for your response , I am aware of the recent revisions as well as the 1996 rulings and state statutes pertaining to anchoring (namely fl statute327.6) as well as there definition of a liveaboard.
However this goes beyond anchoring by liveaboards and addresses ALL vessels anchoring for any cumulative time exceeding 120 hours in any 30 day period !
As I said I thought this was already addressed apparently Daytona didn't get the memo ??


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

You can report illegal enforcement on this *website.*


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Sailingdog- Thanks I went to the site and filled out a complaint. I also called the gentleman listed and spoke w/ him directly.
I'm very tempted to stay anchored where I am and "be a Salmon" as my dad used to say. To "buck" the system a bit and see just how much of a stir I can create. As, I have a bit of time on my hands and jave finished all of the contract work (I do canvas and boat repair) that I have and was actually hoping to head out of town to haul for a bottom job and other scheduled maint. issues.
Maybe I'll stay and be a thorn ! I haven't decided yet. We'll see what all the lawers have to say. And if there letters (providing they wright any) have any force or influence. It is appearing that I may not be able to afford much justice.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

joethecobbler said:


> Sailingdog- Thanks I went to the site and filled out a complaint. I also called the gentleman listed and spoke w/ him directly.
> I'm very tempted to stay anchored where I am and "be a Salmon" as my dad used to say. To "buck" the system a bit and see just how much of a stir I can create. As, I have a bit of time on my hands and jave finished all of the contract work (I do canvas and boat repair) that I have and was actually hoping to head out of town to haul for a bottom job and other scheduled maint. issues.
> Maybe I'll stay and be a thorn ! I haven't decided yet. We'll see what all the lawers have to say. And if there letters (providing they wright any) have any force or influence. It is appearing that I may not be able to afford much justice.


Uh - if you were conducting business from your boat, then *I BELIEVE* you dont qualify for the protections offered by the recent laws. Anchoring law only applies if you're truly in transit.


----------



## svsirius (Jan 14, 2007)

joethecobbler said:


> As anyone who visit's this forum may already know- I prefer to anchor my Vessel. I have done so , successfully for the years I have owned her and hope to continue to do so. As I enjoy anchoring as opposed to a dock and it is quite convenient for me.
> I do not reside on my vessel as a liveaboard. I have a home and a legal address (although I wouldn't mind living on the boat, and may move aboard in the future) . As such I am not a liveaboard.
> On the 6/18th I recieved a "courtesy Notice" from the city of Daytona Beach, Fl . Informing me that I was in Violation of City Ordinance 106-183 and that the notice "signifies the beginning of the removal process of the vessel by city ordinance 106-184 (impoundment of vessels) by the City of Daytona Beach Florida. here is a link to the City Ordinance;
> 
> ...


So in other words you live in one place. Semi-permanently anchor your vessel so you can sail locally and don't consider that moored? I like your world.

A vessel in navigation [in my world not legally] is a vessel that is moving between locations and a cruiser in my world is someone who is cruising [actively moving between locations]. You are in my opinion, when we were cruising full time the boats we loved to hate, as you took the best anchoring spots [as a local even though they are not designated as mooring fields (which are limited by law)] and permanently claimed them thus severely limiting the choices cruisers actively moving had to choose from. The only reason you are not moored is that you don't have a mooring installed.

And for the guy who asked in Florida there was recent legislation that defined what a liveaboard is legally. And just to be clear I don't think 'joe' fits that definition as I read it. My gripe is something else.

Just for the record I don't care about where you are anchored as I could get not my boat into Daytona anyway due to bridge height restrictions.


----------



## WanderingStar (Nov 12, 2008)

Sounds like you already fought and won. You dealt with the issue, are you now going to stay to invoke a fight? For a moral victory? I think you've taken the necessary action and succeeded. Be content with success and move on.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

joethecobbler said:


> I prefer to anchor my Vessel. I have done so , successfully for the years I have owned her and hope to continue to do so. As I enjoy anchoring as opposed to a dock and it is quite convenient for me.


So, in short, you're anchoring when another person might moor or slip?



joethecobbler said:


> I do not reside on my vessel as a liveaboard. I have a home and a legal address ...


Are you actually currently living in said home, at said address, or are you actually currently staying on your boat?



joethecobbler said:


> As I read through the ordinance I noticed that "Vessels engaged in Navigation " were exempted from this ordinance.
> Also I must say that I believe I am engaged in Navigation and am exempt ...


I guess that would depend on how "engaged in Navigation" is defined. My guess would be that the definition would include verbiage to the effect that the vessel actively be "en route" from one place to another.



joethecobbler said:


> However [the Daytona ordinance] goes beyond anchoring by liveaboards and addresses ALL vessels anchoring for any cumulative time exceeding 120 hours in any 30 day period !


I guess they figure anybody *truly* "engaged in Navigation" (i.e.: "en route from one place to another") wouldn't be anchored in one spot for more than five days out of the month.

So are you actually "en route," or merely anchoring there as a more convenient and/or less expensive alternative to a mooring or a slip? (Somehow I suspect the latter.)

Jim


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

*Where were you anchored?*

I would like to know where you were anchored. I have anchored at Daytona for the past many years and have never been bothered by the local authorities. The longest I've stayed there is about four days. I always anchor south and east of the Memorial Bridge. A beautiful spot.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I will attempt to addrees all of your questions and clarify andy misunderstandings-

Nightowl- I do not conduct any bussiness from or upon my vessel I Have a land location for that or I work on the "sight" (marina,private dock,etc.)

Wandering Star- Best advice so far I thik your approach is a great one and I hope I can get more into that frame of thinking as it makes good sense. Thank you - not being sarcastic , I mean it.

Semijim- Is it me or do you have an axe to grink w/ alot of things?

you posted-"So, in short, you're anchoring when another person might moor or slip?"

response- Well, I guess wherever I am I'm potentially in a spot someone else "could" be? so yea. Actually I'm anchoring not mooring and as far as a slip? it would have to be quite the dock ! I'm usually a good distance from shore/other vessels.

you poste-"Are you actually currently living in said home, at said address, or are you actually currently staying on your boat?"

Response- Unfortunately I reside in my home about 3/4 of a mile from the halifax river in Daytona (I'm actually in Holly Hill, but many don't know where that is). As I said I don't yet liveaboard, but the idea sounds like it could be fun.

You posted-"I guess that would depend on how "engaged in Navigation" is defined. My guess would be that the definition would include verbiage to the effect that the vessel actively be "en route" from one place to another."

Response- Well, like most things, "I" don't get to decide what "engaged in Navigation " is defined as. So, as it appears to be a "legal" question I went to the authority of the State on these matters and that is the Florida Legislature. THEY have determined according to Title XXIV Statute 327.6 and 327.2 to define a vessel engaged in Navigation as any vessel not secured to a dock/pier or on a permanent morring Ball, Or hauled onto land or in a dry dock. And I can quote the Atty. General of the state of Florida has said as much as well. So, I guess If I'm anchored (according to the state of florida) I'm engaged in navigation (the anchoring part, to be precise)

You posted-"I guess they figure anybody truly "engaged in Navigation" (i.e.: "en route from one place to another") wouldn't be anchored in one spot for more than five days out of the month."

response- Well I guess "they" (meaning the city of Daytona I presume) are quite wrong in their "figurin' " as it falls outside of their authority to implement ANY restrictions upon federal waterways ( according to recent court proceedings and the State statutes I've already referred to)upon non-liveaboard vessels. 
So, you "guessed" wrong. 
Apparently you haven't taken the time to read the florida state statutes or have the same reading comprehension capabilities as the Local gov't and LEO's who are also in the wrong. 
They just haven't been "taken to task" on this issue ,as I'm sure the majority of the constituants in the City couldn't care less and are oblivious to the laws,maritime traditions and probably most everything else around them ,except for the important stuff, like sports teams,what pop star passed and T.V. programming Schedules.

you posted-"So are you actually "en route," or merely anchoring there as a more convenient and/or less expensive alternative to a mooring or a slip? (Somehow I suspect the latter.)"

response- Well, you get one right (almost) I am always going somewhere on the sailboat. Sometimes I go to St. Augustine for a day or a week, sometimes I go south to Titusville and spend a month ! Sometimes I just go out to the boat and enjoy the day/afternoon/morning or a few days, schedule and workload permitting.
But you are 100% correct about some of my reasons for choosing to anchor, it started out as a financial decision (could see paying 300-500 a month to dock) . But over the last 3-4 years I have grown quite fond of not banging a dock when there is a wake or seas. No roaches aboard from a dock, and so forth . the merrits of anchoring are many !
as far as convenience, that is a matter of personal taste, some would say it's a pain. as I require a dinghy (with at least paddles, I have paddles,motor, and sails)as well as a trailer to put the dinghy upon (or dock it !) and a registered licensed insured vehicle to move it with. So , convenience? maybe/maybe not. (Wow, are you still angry?)

Vasco- I too anchored almost exclusively south of the Memorial bridge (orange ave,) for over a year and a half without a single encounter with the Marine patrol, or any other enforcement unless I summond them myself ! However a couple weeks ago I sailed to Oak Hill,Fl. to do some clamming for a couple days w/ a friend and upon my return decided to anchor the boat just south of the Seabreeze bridge as it is only 3/4 of a mile from my house and I likd the idea of walking or riding my bicycle to the river to check on the boat 1-2 times a day and close by to launch my dinghy as well! Also the anchorage south of memorial is the beginning and end of the no wake zone, very unpleasant on the weekends. And with a stiff southern wind I've seen 3-4 footers rolling . The Seabreeze bridge location is much more sheltered and in a no wake Zone.
Interestingly enough, the Officer (A.Cino Daytona PD) told me on the phone when we spoke that the Memorial bridge anchorage (the rough one) would be fine to use as long as I wanted. I asked "isn't that also in the City?" he said "yes, but we allow you to anchor there" I wonder if the fact that it is adjacent to the waste treatment plant(A beautiful spot ? and smell too during a westerly !) the other anchorage (seabreeze) is across the chanel from the private yacht club,carribean Jacks, and future Nascar docks (currently under construction) has any bearing on that? HMmmmmmm.
When I inquired "so, what's the rub w/ anchoring?" he replied " the land owners complain about having to look at boats at anchor" 
Well I don't care for alot I see outside the property lines of my property either, but if the activity is within the written law , then I guess I cannot do alot about it. I don't get to supersede state law when it suits me. According to the ordinance it refers to ALL the city encompassed waters.

Fianlly SVsirious - I'm glad to hear about "your world" sounds like an interesting place. What color is the sky there? 
Here on Earth, specifically Daytona Beach,Fl. we operate (mostly) on the rule of law and the issues you raise are and have been and continue to be adressed . As far as taking "the good spots" you remind me of watching a child playing w/ others who always wants whatever the other child wants. Get real there are hundreds of miles of shoreline and numerous anchorages. 
if the specific location YOU want is taken, simply choose another ! you could anchor a couple hundred boats in this city area!
I am relieved that your mast height stops you from coming here as apparently we already have a number of people w/ your perception difficulties in good supply. PLEASE stay in Lauderdale.

Well, I hope I haven't missed anyone, I'm sure you'll inform me if I have.
I have to say, as usual here on sailnet I recieved the support of my "fellow sailors" in true sailnet fashion. It's always suprising to see the inuendo and such that different people get from the same scenario and to read the differing opinions. It helps me hone my communication skills a bit, for that I thank you and will continue to participate.It gives me a chance to be enlightened as well as prepares me for the raport of the misguided .

What say YOU.


----------



## svsirius (Jan 14, 2007)

Joe

So in other words you are moored full time on a river and claim to be in navigation. Get real, you can claim to be following the rule of law and if what you are doing is legal just keep on doing it, cause the law applies equally for all, but FWIW and IMHO what you are really doing is skirting the rules. In other words unlike the rest of us that are not cruising full time or really in navigation, you just are unwilling to pay for a fully legal space.

So in the typical sunny, stormy, weather that we all have now I just try to be equitable, and your probably right you don't want my type cause we are the type that actually goes cruising full time, and has a perspective that your kind does not. I could not really care at all about your creek on the ICW but I can show you pictures where the only anchorage in towns [in the US] in full of boats just like yours so that people on the move have to anchor outside the harbor, too close to the channels, or have to pay for mooring and or slips when not working and are on fixed or no income. My type is back at work cause I needed to make more money for the kitty leave and to go cruising again.

So Pay it forward and do the right thing but don't ***** on the net cause you don't like what you consider to be unfair treatment. If you are correct deal with it in court or through the system.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

I don't anchor at the waste treatment plant, that's *west* of the bridge. I anchor just south of the Memorial Bridge. And *east* of it. It's quite sheltered. It's just east of the entrance to Halifax Harbour. I have anchored at the waste treatment plant (only once) the bottom is so crappy there it took me half an hour to wash down the anchor chain. Never been bothered in the Memorial Bridge anchorage.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Joe...under federal law...you are a vessel in navigation even if you are tied to a pier or a mooring ball so you are "in navigation" in the federal sense. The feds have ceded control in inland waters to the states however and the states (Florida in this case) may allow municipalities to control the use of their "bottom land" as long as the municipal regulations don't conflict with the state regulations. 
Most of the Florida battles have been fought around live-aboards vs. "full time cruisers" and that has worked out pretty well over the last few years for cruisers and less so for live-aboards moored in place whether by anchor or traditional moorings. 
Your situation is quite a bit different in that you simply anchor your boat for rather extended periods without being aboard and the question is "Does a Florida resident have the right to anchor/moor his vessel for an unlimited time at a particular spot in Florida waters AND do municipalities in Florida have the right to regulate such anchoring mooring in their waters (and if so...to what extent?)

Personally, I don't think the present statutes address this situation with you and you are probably gonna win if you do go to court. Of course, you will spend a bunch defending your rights and this is what the municipalities count on...when the choice is $$$ or move on...most will move on. 

Finally...with the economy and foreclosures and job losses etc. we might see a lot more folks deciding to forego marinas and do what you do. Of course...state law would get revised very quickly in that case! 

I will be interested in seeing how this turns out for you.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

svsirius-writes


> So in other words you are moored full time on a river and claim to be in navigation. Get real, you can claim to be following the rule of law and if what you are doing is legal just keep on doing it, cause the law applies equally for all, but FWIW and IMHO what you are really doing is skirting the rules. In other words unlike the rest of us that are not cruising full time or really in navigation, you just are unwilling to pay for a fully legal space.


 Response - No what I am doing is abiding by the LAW as it is written in the Florida State Statutes and supported by centuries of precident in navigation. It has been common place to anchor for centuries and it is a right of navigation. As far as how "heap Big Cruiser" you are , each to their own definition of that, you have yours apparently , and are showing it as well.
There is no "skirting " the City is the one who is attempting to enforce an ordinance that is clearly beyond their authority. I too have encountered crowded anchorages. Of course not being from your world (?) you're probably not familiar w/ annapolis,MD. I was there fathers day 2007 and every mooring ball in the mooring area was occupied and the creek was packed as well. Of course I didn't worry as I simply found a spot I felt comfortable in and anchored, no problem. The following morning the Harbormaster came around introduced himself and handed me printed material about the area and we had a nice chat. THAT'S the way it should be, not -get out after 5 days! He even said if I needed to walk the dogs I could take them to the park , this guy was great.

Cam - thanks for chiming in.


> Personally, I don't think the present statutes address this situation with you


 Actually the present statutes DO address my specific situation and I'll post the section of fl statue here for you. It specifically addresses NON-liveaboard vessels at anchor and makes absolutely no reference or diferentiation between "extended Cruisers" and others. The term Extended Cruiser was in fact coined by people wishing to "skirt " the liveaboard label !

Florida State Statute 327.60 Local regulations;
limitations.-

No ordinance or local law may 
apply to the Florida Intracoastal
Waterway 
Ordinances and local laws are
enforceable only when they
are not in conflict with chapter
327 (including any amendments) 
or the rules adopted under 
chapter 327 (including 68D-23,
Florida Admin. Code)

327.60 Local regulations; 
limitations.-

(2) Nothing contained in the 
provisions of this section shall 
be construed to prohibit local
governmental authorities from
the enactment or enforcement
of regulations which prohibit or
restrict the mooring or anchoring
of floating structures or 
live-aboard vessels within 
their jurisdictions. However, . . .

327.60 Local regulations;
limitations.-

local governmental authorities
are prohibited from regulating
the anchorage of non-live-aboard
vessels engaged in the exercise
of rights of navigation.

"Rights of Navigation"

"Public rights on navigable waters
are not restricted to navigation 
in the strict sense, but include 
such incidental rights as are
necessary to render the right
of navigation reasonably available." 
65 C.J.S. Navigable Waters § 42.

"Rights of Navigation"

These incidental rights include
the right of the vessel to anchor
so long as it does not 
unreasonably obstruct navigation.
The common-law includes rights
of anchorage as an element of
the exercise of rights of navigation.
Attorney General Opinion 85-45 (May 31, 1985)

So you see it DOES specifically address NON-liveaboard Vessels as well as the Local municipalities limitations.

Oddly Even the Daytona City Ordinance makes a distinction between the two , read part C ;

Sec. 106-183. Restrictions. 
(a) No person shall moor any liveaboard vessel in the waters of the city for a cumulative period exceeding 120 hours in any 30-day period, except in a licensed marina. 
(b) No person shall moor any nonliveaboard vessel in the waters of the city for a cumulative period exceeding 120 hours in any 30-day period, except in a licensed marina, at a dock or pier attached to land, or at a permitted floating mooring. 
(c) This section shall not apply to the anchorage of nonliveaboard vessels engaged in the exercise of rights of navigation. 
(Code 1970, § 10-159)

Bear in mind that in the cities limited vernacular they Use the term "moor" to encompass anything that is not docked (by their own definition)
where as the State makes a specific point of the differences of Mooring,docking taking a mooring ball and anchoring.

It is the interpretation of even the city ordinance that is in question. I'm a non-liveaboard vessel engaged in navigation.
As I see it and as admitted by the Daytona Police officer (A. Cino) in our phone conversation the issue is the land owners adjacent to the specific area I was anchored. And this is bolstered by the fact that I was told that if I anchored by the waste treatment facility (where Da Po-folk is be) that it was fine, well this certainly flies in the face of equal enforcement as that location is completeley and unquestionably within the city limits it's just not in sight of the MONEY locations. he even said it !! 
If you fail to see this for what it is you must be blind AND deaf ! 
As it is the weekend I probably won't be hearing from the different Atty's I spoke w/ on friday until next week (at the earliest) 
It's not a question of what is legal and equitable it is a question of "how much justice can you afford?" this is wrong,Wrong,WRONG and as a decorated US Army Combat Veteran and Conspicuous Service cross recipient I take great umbrage with that approach. I thought I was serving to uphold the constitution not make it available only to those of financial means.

In response to your correct assesment that many others will be re-assessing their docking contracts, I can tell you that when I first anchored by the waste treament facility 1 1/2 years ago there were 4-6 sailboats anchored. Today there are over 15 to include power and sail, as I have spoken to most of them on several occasions. Many indicated that they have opted to anchor to avoid the cost of a marina, A wise choice in my opinion.

as always I look forward to reading your opinions on this and other sailing related issues.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Joe, without trying to read all the FS....Are you aware that anchoring "for the purposes of navigation" has been long and uniformly defined to mean that anchoring which a vessel IN TRANSIT normally does when and as necessary?

That is, if my vessel or I am disabled and we need to stop to make repairs or take on spares, that anchoring is NECESSORY. However, if I anchor because there's a cute woman in town and I want to spend a long weekend with her--that's not necessary to navigation and I have no right to do that unless there's an anchorage provision for tourists.

If I need to drop anchor and wait for an inlet to be passable, or for a weather window to my next destination, that's NECESSARY and usual FOR NAVIGATION. Even if that takes some days. But again, if I just want to drop the hook and go to Disneyworld for the day--that's tourism, not navigation.

If you're just hanging out and being a tourist for a few days--you don't have the rights of a vessel anchoring as part of navigation. And you won't be given them. There's no room for discussion on that, the courts are clear all the way up. So, are you en route to someplace and engaged in navigation? Or are you just hanging out catching rays?


----------



## fullkeel7 (Apr 16, 2008)

Joe, might want to check out HB 1423. Might help clarify. Cruisers Net your best source for up to date information on the Waterway - Anchoring Rights


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

hellosailor-


> without trying to read all the FS....Are you aware that anchoring "for the purposes of navigation" has been long and uniformly defined to mean that anchoring which a vessel IN TRANSIT normally does when and as necessary?
> 
> That is, if my vessel or I am disabled and we need to stop to make repairs or take on spares, that anchoring is NECESSORY. However, if I anchor because there's a cute woman in town and I want to spend a long weekend with her--that's not necessary to navigation and I have no right to do that unless there's an anchorage provision for tourists.
> 
> If I need to drop anchor and wait for an inlet to be passable, or for a weather window to my next destination, that's NECESSARY and usual FOR NAVIGATION. Even if that takes some days. But again, if I just want to drop the hook and go to Disneyworld for the day--that's tourism, not navigation.


 Response - No I was not aware of this interpretaion of vessel in navigation. you make the claim but quote no authority law,statute,precedence or leagal defense for this claim other than an unsubstantiated statement;


> There's no room for discussion on that, the courts are clear all the way up.


 please enlighten me as I have found NO clear cut definition that make these claims. what is your source and reference? I am quoting the LAW as it stands and is stipulated time and time again, including the new law HB 1423. and you?

Fullkeel17-
I am eceedingly aware of HB 1423 and see no major changed from previous anchoring laws with the exception of the five (yet to be determined) test site that will require extensive and exhausting approval by the FWC. there has been no conceeding to local municipalities of a blanket type allowing or endorsing any right to regulate NON-liveaboard vessels at all !
quite the contrary it in fact stipulates that the right to anchor and engage in navigation stands with the exception of proximity of established mooring fields w/ upland facilities. and does NOT grant any other authority to municipalities not involved in the five test areas.
Interpretation and reading comprehension seem to be the shortcomingd here.
If anyone can show me precedence or law to the contrary relating to Florida I would be happy to review it. Making unsubstantiated statements about what is long established is just blowing smoke.
to quote Charmaine Smith Ladd "Don't snow me - show me "


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

joethecobbler said:


> Semijim- Is it me or do you have an axe to grink w/ alot of things?


I was unable to locate a definition for "grink," so, being unable to answer the question directly, I'll instead as another: Is it just me, or are you always a jerk?


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

joethecobbler said:


> As I see it and as admitted by the Daytona Police officer (A. Cino) in our phone conversation the issue is the land owners adjacent to the specific area I was anchored.


This is an age-old problem that is no different from what land-lubbers deal with in regards to things such as zoning ordinances, restrictive/protective covenants (tho those are civil matters) and the like. What it boils down to is one individual's "right" to do something another individual may feel infringes on their "right" to that thing not being done. For example: Does my next door neighbour have the "right" to park as many cars as he likes on his property, regardless of their condition, etc? I say "It's his property, let him do as he likes with it." The township government says he doesn't. In your case, you're arguing your "right" to anchor your boat where you like, and the Daytona Beach government is supporting their taxpayers' "right" not to have the view from their (probably dearly-purchased) property degraded by having an off-shore "marina" appear there.

Well, kind of...



joethecobbler said:


> And this is bolstered by the fact that I was told that if I anchored by the waste treatment facility (where Da Po-folk is be) that it was fine, well this certainly flies in the face of equal enforcement as that location is completeley and unquestionably within the city limits it's just not in sight of the MONEY locations. he even said it !!
> ...
> It's not a question of what is legal and equitable it is a question of "how much justice can you afford?" this is wrong,Wrong,WRONG...


On this we agree. We *allegedly* did-away with royalty in this country over 200 years ago.

On this basis alone I support your position. If viewing an impromptu mooring field is good enough for the peasants, it's good enough for the landed gentry, IMO.

Jim


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

> Semijim- Is it me or do you have an axe to grink w/ alot of things?


 Typo- it should be "grind"

Your response (or non-response) and personal charactor assault as well as reduction in this otherwise civil exchange of perspective and opinion to name calling is typical of someone who has come to the realization that their interpretation of the topic/issue is incorrect and misleading. And the argument they attempt to support hollow and lacking. 
I won't "play" your name calling game.
I am specifically interested in persuing the legal and justifiable course of determining the legality and legitimacy of simply anchoring the sailboat that I own, enjoy ,maintain, watch over and improve, myself as well as with friends and family where I currently domicile in central east coast florida. 
It's not a complicated scenario, not complex and certainly without malice or il-concieved design toward anyone.
Simply put, I just want to sail my boat.
I want to enjoy the company of my signifigant other and our 5 year old child in a wholesome and rewarding outdoor enviroment that we enjoy. 
I do not need ,require or seek your approval in person or here in this forum.
I come here to hear your opinions and perspectives , in an attempt to broaden my own and continue to learn.
I am often curious as to what type of life, experiences,fortune/mis-fortune and upbringing has led some to be so contemptious of others who pose no threat to them, their loved ones or their lifestyle they choose to lead.
I find it a sad testiment to the state of this country/community and culture and the promise of a future we offer our children when I read some of the opinions and perspectives offered here. 
May god have mercy on your tortured souls.
I hope you find the peace and happiness in the next life that has obviously eluded you in this one. 
I think we as a people are headed for some serious "hurtin' " for many in this world in the not too distant future, and those who posess addittudes like the one you have exhibited here are in for a rude awakening. 
As per my anchoring issue;
I chose to move my vessel only a short distance to a municipality that is not obsessed with the minutia of how long I'm anchored causing harm to no-one.
My family and I drove to the wonderful public park ,adjacent to the location I'm presently anchored , and walked about speaking with people fishing,grilling,gazing at the water and enjoying life and the beautiful evening. 
It's actually a better location, aside from the added mile or so travel distance and the absence of the "no wake Zone", than the anchorage in Daytona. there is a launch for the dinghy,pavilions,a playground, beautifully manicured lawns (great for croquet),and reat rooms.

I would like to thank those that provided links and openly offered helpful opinion and perspective pertinant to the legality and right to anchor. and will continue to explore the issue, as well as, assist other sailors who fall victum to this blatant in-justice brought on (in my opinion) by greed , jealousy, and contempt for others.

WanderingStar , I believe has offered the simplest and most calming approach thus far and I thank him/her for that insight again;


> Sounds like you already fought and won. You dealt with the issue, are you now going to stay to invoke a fight? For a moral victory? I think you've taken the necessary action and succeeded. Be content with success and move on.


 The disregard for your fellow sailors/ voyagers and interested potential sailors exhibited in this forum , by some of the more frequent posters, I find offensive/degrading/judgemental/cruel/hateful/presumptious/condisending and testiment to the degredation of our society as a whole. 
Fortunately this does not (I believe/hope) represent the sentiment of the majority of those reading these posts.
I will continue to persue an answer to this legal question in the hope that I might offer the information to others who follow in my wake.

What constructive/helpful action will YOU take/make to assist others following the dream/desire of sailing ? will you give sound guidance or only derogitive comment? 
will you encourage and council? or condiscend and prejudge ?

I hope you choose the former
as "red-green" is so fond of saying- "remember, we're all in this together"


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I have recieved this e-mail from Major Paul Ouellette of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission

This quite clearly supports my position-

Re: Daytona Anchoring restrictionsBack to Messages
From: "Ouellette, Paul" <[email protected]> 
reply To: email omitted
Cc: Bcc: Sent: Sat, Jun 27, 2009 09:23 PM

You are correct. Florida Statute 327.60 prohibits local gov's from prohibiting anchoring out side of legally established mooring fields.

They may regulate livaboards (as defined) within their jurisdictions.

You may want to show them this.

Feel free to call me or our office of general council.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: email omitted
To: Ouellette, Paul 
Sent: Fri Jun 26 23:07:38 2009
Subject: Daytona Anchoring restrictions

Greetings,

On 6/18/2009 I was given a "courtesy Notice" that I was violating Daytona City Ordinance 106-183 that restricts anchoring within city limits to 120 hours in any thirty day period. Subject to towing and impounding of my vessel City ord.106-184.

I called the issuing officer (A. CINO) at the Police dept and inquired about the ordinance and he told me I could not anchor south of the seabreeze bridge but the city would "allow" me to anchor south of the memorial bridge near the waste treatment plant (a terribly rough anchorage with a long southerly fetch).

My understanding of State Statute 327.6 is that local municipalities had NO authority to regulate the anchoring of NON-liveaboard vessels engaged in navigation.

Ironically the third section of the city ordinance also exempts non-liveaboard vessels engaged in navigation.

How is it I am being threatened with impoundment of my vessel ?? I have a home in Holly Hill and DO NOT liveaboard. I mearly anchor south of the Seabreze bridge as it is close to my home (3/4 mile) and launch ramp where I launch and retrieve my dinghy.

I thought the 327.6 legislation addressed these issues, did Daytona not get that memo?

Please feel free to contact me if you feel you need any further information.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

More power to you Joe in fighting over restrictive regulations!!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Joe...I won't bother re-quoting your post to me but would make a couple of points:
1. My comment about the Florida regs not addressing your situation was really meant to mean that the RESTRICTIONS on anchoring rights don't seem to be addressed by Florida law in your situation...so we essentially agree on that.

2. It is my understanding that new anchoring regulations are being discussed at the state level and one of the big concerns is derelict boats at anchor which then end up damaging other boats or facilitities in a blow and costing the landlubbers $$ to remedy/mitigate since the derelicts owners cannot be found or have no $$. 
Being able to distinguish *in the LAW* between a derelict hazard at anchor and a well cared for and loved boat like yours at anchor so such revisions have the potential to affect you. Suggest you continue to follow this over at the SSCA which is very involved in the fight. 
The Seven Seas Cruising Association - Concerned Cruisers

and discussion here: SSCA Discussion Board • View topic - Tell us why SSCA supports the Florida anchoring law.

and also the Florida Open Water Society for the latest... For the protection of the rights of the boater in Florida


----------



## fullkeel7 (Apr 16, 2008)

I've just put my multi-million dollar ICW dream home up for sale because of these issues stated. I just built it two years ago and I'm so depressed. I'm so sick of these yachts infringing on my view of a HOT neighbor across the waterway while she's lounging by her pool (hey, what else am I to look at, because of all the developement, most of the wildlife is absent?). Plus these yachts obstruct my view of the possessions in the backyards of other neighbors...how am I to know what I need to buy in the future in order to keep up?

Anyway, the city council members I play golf with, say that they would like to help, but until they can band with other cities to put pressure on the state to change the current anchoring laws...looks like I'm SOL.

I'm so sick of these "mumbo jumbo" laws, I just bought six acres next to the airport to built another custom home...Screw those cruising ba$tard$ and their publicly owned sovereign waterways! 

Oh, and don't get me started on the abandoned and derelect boats. Maybe a separate issue, but hey, they're are ALL the same to me! BAH!


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Cam- I am already in contact with both the FOWS and the SCCA and there legal representatives. As of today (sunday) of course I've recieved no responses .
The Positive response from Major Paul Ouellette of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission quite clealry states I am in the wright and within the law and the city of Daytona Beach is WRONG. 
The Typical and now expected response to any excercise of nav. wrights has always been scare tactics and Mis-information propaganda by the police authorities and those influencing them. 
it usually goes like this;
1. we (sailors) are all crapping in the river.
2. Safety,Safety,Safety
3.potential for boats to cause great damage to shorefront dockage.
4.can't locate owners,financial responsibility 
5.gotta stop it now or the whole river will be full of boats ! (Oh MY !)

These are all Red Herrings. used to dupe the general population who listen to the Non-stop news loop of BS from the big three TV stations and news centers. 
The facts over the years has reapeatedly proven these points all to be false.
Of course these findings don't sell advertising space, so there rarely heard.
Laws are already available to address Derilict vessels and the new revised anchoring laws now require ALL vessels to be registered therefore eliminating the issues with continuity of ownership. 
The already existing laws are not used, in my opinion, to address the problem because the LEO's are either Lazy or ignorant of them. 
Why do the job your paid for when you can just cry wolf and create a false issue that is easy to do, for example tape notices to the stern of vessels anchored and therefore justifying your paycheck and time spent cruising the waterways on the taxpayers dime. 
there is SO much redundancy on the water it's wasteful, and completely unnecessary.
just in the daytona area you have;
1.FWC
2.Sherriff
3. Daytona Marine patrol
4.coast guard
for 20-25 miles of river ? and that is not including S. Daytona (no boat) ponce inlet police,State police,port Orange and so forth.
The FOWS expounds many of these issues better than I can here. 
THe SCCA also reinforce the anchoring rights to navigation.
And now I have written clear cut endorsement from the agency actually in charge of the waterways- The FWC.
Now I'm just compiling the information and waiting for the rest of the legal experts to wiegh in. When I get it all compiled , I'l move ahead with it . Unless it solves itself beforehand.
You can read whatever you want into it, but as my good friend used to say:

"The Spoken word is like the air, The Written word is always there."

To Fullkeel17- I would like to be a fly on the wall once to see if conversations like the one you represented in your last post DO actually take place in select settings. or if it is just a collective unspoken snobery and prejudice toward sailors in general. 
I just returned from the Halifax Sailng Association and spoke w/ several people there I know and told them of my DBPD encounter. They all shared the same views of the ordinance as I have expresssed, it's not enforceable.

Stay tuned- we'll be back in after a message from our sponsors-


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Joe...sounds like you're doing all the right stuff. My own view is that derelict boats ARE an issue (Boot Key had QUITE an expensive problem and cleanup) BUT...there oughta be a way to deal with THAT problem without trampling your rights. Looks like the law is on your side anyway...but threats keep popping up! Vigilance!!


----------



## WanderingStar (Nov 12, 2008)

Joe, thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you found my advice helpful. Frankly, I still struggle at times with anger in my own life. I'm trying to exercise wisdom and kindness instead. There are strong opinions on the forum that sometimes come across harshly (not yours in this thread, but some others). Anchoring rights are a concern to all of us. I recently delivered my boat from Florida to New York. Weather forced me inside at Ponce de Leon inlet. I was a little concerned about anchoring restrictions in Fl. I anchored in Daytona Beach too. But the weather was so bad I thought the marine police wouldn't be writing tickets. I had no visits. You do sound like a reasonable, intelligent fellow. Perhaps we'll cross tacks someday. Fair winds, John.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Cam- Derelict boats are a problem in part because the law enforcement didn't do their job. there are and have been laws on the books that can avoid a derelict becoming a sunken or washed up derelict 
I can and will if you would like reference the laws,statutes and such.
Essentially the vessel must be capable of making way,(sail,power,paddles ,etc) and also must meet coast guard safety requirements as well as blackwater MSD requirements. The Only reason an officer can board your vessel w/out your consent is in the process of checking your MSD device . If the officer cannot see the device he can board your vessel. That is just one example of a manner that law enforcement can do due diligence in determining a vessle to be derelict. there are many other methods. 
With the "new" revised anchoring laws that were just passed the law enforcement has yet another tool to determine a vessels status. That is Registration requirement for ALL vessels upon the water whether they are in use or not.
Previously vessels w/out a motor or "not in use" were exempt from registration. Similiar to the manner in which unregistered vehicles cannot be parked on the street or in your front yard (I am wary of using autos to compare to vessels, slippery slope) However the LEO's have been lazy and remiss in there duties.And now , a big problem. 
Instead of spending one second worrying about an obviously capable vessel's anchoring status, there efforts could and should be spent pursuing the real issues.
But like most gov't operations there is much waste, and misuse of funds,equipment and manpower on fel good actiities that don't require any actual action. They prefer the easy stuff.It is actually the leadership and executive departments that should be taken to task for this approach as the officers are often only doing as instructed or what they think they can get by on. 
I see many instances here in the daytona area where an obvious derelict is sinking due to lack of attention and it is left to sink and create a worse issue than if it was impounded or hauled away before it sank. This is legal anf]d there are laws in place NOW to address it. But that would require actual work. and what is more would not serve to bolster their cry for more resources,more manpower, and more of OUR tax dollars.
derelict vessels according to the state records of recording derelict vessels (a study paid by tax dollars) account for less than one tenth of one percent of all registered vessels in the state of florida. funding has been alotted to continue to ducument derelict vessels and vessel stored on the water, but not for removal, that is a different federal fund. I can get the info on that if you would like as well or you can research it yourself. 
Don't fall for all the hype, it's an age old issue that has and can be dealt with equitably, and without major expense with the tools we already have and have paid dearly for.
the registration requirements are a good thing as it will shoe continuity of ownership and if a vessel is found to be unregistered it can be removed before it sinks and becomes a bigger issue.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Joe, I'm not here to practice law or do your research for you. I have seen the definitions elsewhere and suggest that if you want to find out how any body of law has previously been ajudicated and defined, you start with something like WestLaw or a law library. You may need to find definitions in the various codes (which could be CFR or other totally separate federal statues as well as state ones, or even international conventions, there's a lot of ground to search) or you might stop by a local law library and ask them how to research "how a term has been held to be defined" on that topic.

Or by all means, take the issue to court without doing your own research, and let the other side step up and say "Your honor..." and have the case dismissed with all costs assigned against you, when they pull out the definition.

I could be wrong on that, Florida could well follow their own codes and federal laws are being revised all the time. I'm just telling you, I've been following water user issues for a long time, and sometime in the last two or three decades, I've seen "navigation" uniformly and consistently held to be very different from "tourism". Ignore it at your own peril. Or do us all a favor and post a citation for the source when you find it.

"The Only reason an officer can board your vessel w/out your consent is in the process of checking your MSD device ."
I don't know who you mean by "officer" but if you mean watercops in general including the USCG? ROFL. It just ain't so, and no, I won't cite you sources for that one either. While the Second Amendment clearly protects the sanctity of your boat, the courts have ruled that it does not. So unless you take up arms to correct that misunderstanding, you have no second amendment protections on a boat. And considering that the Second Amendment was written to ensure that terrorists and revolutionaries could safely transport documents and weapons in their carriages, on the King's own road, it really is hard to understand why boats should have any less protection. But as galileo is siad to have remarked, "Nevertheless, it turns."


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

wandering star,- when did you stop in Ponce inlet ? and where did you anchor? Is wandering star the name of your vessel ? 
I cruise the halifax almost daily on the water and/or on the shore taking note of the vessels transiting as well as the vessels at anchor.
also where in NY did you get to? I sailed up the hudson and across the Mowhawk to the fingerlakes in 2007. A great trip, hope to do it again i the early spring.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

hellosailor- 
I have already done that in this thread. I have provided the title XXIV Section 327.6 and 327.2 florida statute and definitions of vessels in navigation,anchoring as well as made refernce to recent court battles and specific jurisdictions who have attempted to impliment new anchoring laws and failed. do you want me to list them all again?
Or you could got ot the other web sights(FOWS,SSCA,SCCA,Boatus,MYFWC,etc) and state web sights and read them for yourself as I have.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> While the Second Amendment clearly protects the sanctity of your boat, ...


It does? How's that?

Jim


----------



## gafred99 (Jun 26, 2009)

Joe, so you gave in by moving.... sad that the control freaks won.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Joe, you quoted some statues, and I have no way of knowing how complete they are, nor reason to guess. I do know from experience that the Florida Statutes are not always easily searched online, sometimes their search engine simply misses relevant sections and finding topics can be like pulling teeth--painful.

Bear in mind that the FS are not the complete "law" on everything. Florida being one of the newfangled states with less regard for history and a high percent of invaders from the North (damn tourists don't go home!), folks might not realize that in all of the US (except Louisiana) our laws are also based on English Common Law and you won't find that cited as statutes at all. Nevertheless, rights and obligations going back to precedents in English Common Law are still legally recognized in all of the US (again, excepting Lousiana at times, where the precendent is the Napoleonic Code) and it is possible that the rights to navigation and anchorage go that far back.

That something can't be found in the FS, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ommon law, case law, federal law, admiralty law, international treaty and convention...there's a lot more than the FS that might cover here.

All of which is a moot point if you're saying that you are looking for rights under navigation law--when you're not "in navigation" but being a tourist dropping a hook. If you're sure that doesn't make any difference, it still pays for you to MAKE SURE there is no legally recognized difference, at any level, before you tackle the rest of it.

Or, wait for the sea level to come up a foot from global warming as the Everglades Levee collapses from neglect. Those million-dollar homeowners bitching about boaters will all move away fast enough as the wheel turns on them.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

gafred99-

Yea, it is sad, but I didn't give up I just avoided a possible legal battle I cannot fight financially. Lests be realistic, the officer,PD, and town representatives know well that the ordinance is on shaky ground , they also are quite selective of whom they enforce it upon. I'm sure they looked at my vessel and thought " here's an easy mark (broke) . after all if I was flush w/ cash I'd probably be hangin' in the $600 dollar a month slip , correct?
Economics play a big role in your life when you don't have alot of financial means. 
It's demonstrated in the cost of gas/diesel as when the price skyrocketed there were still plenty of power boats tearing up the water. Just not so many of the little 20-30' fishing boats with the 40 hour a week $10-15 an hour middle class w/ wife and kids types. They probably had to assess there limited entertainment funds to something w/ a little more value for a while till the gas price dropped a bit.
you see,if your fairly wealthy you probably are not affected by these increases in utilities as much as if you are working middle class. I'm sure wealthy folks don't like to just hand out cash, but I'm positive that they are not having to decide between expending $100 dollars for a day on the water or groceries and nothing left to save for later/emergencies.
a great and widenng desparity between wealthy and poverty is growing in this country. 
The wealthy are capitolizing on it as well as there political influence. The same as it has been since the beginning of time, just a little more apparent today.

"he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day."


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Jim, very simple. READ it. The second amendment applies to a number of specific things, including your "effects". Those were previously held (up into the early 70's and the start of the drug wars) to include "personal effects" such as automobiles. And then some clever state attorney generals side-stepped that protection saying that you give implied consent (or in some states now, formal consent) to have that property searched simply by having it registered and licensed, or as part of your driver's license.
There's a whole legal back and forth dance about how "effects" are protected--and aren't. This is the type of serious issue where the US Supreme Court finds way to say "absolutely!" then 40 years later "absolutely not!" on a regular basis. 
But the bottom line is, read the amendment. Read the Federalist Papers (a bit tedious but at least free to download these days) and other papers that were public correspondence on the topics when the amendments were bring written. 
Your rights against unreasonable search and seizure are guaranteed and inviolate. In your home, at the airport (despite whatever the TSA thinks), and on your boat. That our courts and government have chosen to refute those rights, does not alter them. It just makes it "damned inconvenient" to exercise them at the moment.
That's part of what happens, when only 20% of the citizens are judged smart enough to vote, and then some liberal heartbleeders extend the right to run the country to the other 80%. Literate or not.

Bear in mind that when these rights were being put down, if you wanted to mount a brace of eight pound cannon on your yacht--it was perfectly legal to do so, and no one had any question about that. I think it was Don Street who, up into the 70's, used to describe his boat as a "sloop of one gun" even on his formal entry papers. (Yes, he had a small cannon aboard, and yes, that's the correct historical term for it.)

Board a vessel on the high seas, the way the USCG does now? Tchh, tchh, that's part of how the War of 1812 got started. "Secure against search and seizure" predates a lot of modern things.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

hellosailor-
You make interesting points about historical legal influences on different areas. I think this encompasses the issue and explains much of the debate an interpretation. After all, if it was cut and dried , it would not be an issue. 
I have to disagree w/ you about the difficulty in researching the Florida statutes and local ordinances online . There are state and local gov't sites and are absolutely complete, with the obvious exception in the case of lag time for updating new legislation. Of which there really is not an over abundance of, concerning the narrow catagory we are discussing here. 
That is not to say that all the proposed as well as newly passed laws and ordinances are not available. As here in florida we have what is referred to as "sunshine laws" which require that this information, as well as any other proposed laws and discussions of proposed laws are constantly before the constituants. 
The issue is not access as much as it is interest.
Just turn on the T.V. News, 2 minutes of content and hours of mind dumbing sports,pop star updates,what the stars had for lunch, who's adopting what, all very interesting and mind numbing. 
It's testiment to the degredation and failing of the citizens responsibilities of citizens of a democracy, to thier responsibility to stay informed,participate and act, to assure vigilence in the protection of our rights hard won by those who gave all before us. 
This is even obvious here on sailnet. look at the "hot" topics and responses and look at the legal and conflict type threads. what get more play? the "feel good" stuff or the often boring (as my 5 year old says) and complex often frustating labrinth of the legal issues ?

make any sense?


----------



## saildork (Feb 20, 2007)

Not to drift too far from the subject matter of this thread, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution is the one that protects us against illegal searches and seizures. The 2nd Amendment deals with the right to keep and bear arms.

Good thread, tho, Joe. As commercial enterprises grow along our waterways, state laws protecting our right to anchor here and there will continue to be very important.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

dork-
Thanks! I've got to stop drinking the decaf, I've forgotten how to count. 

Joe-
Watch the Nooze? I don't know, is there anything on besides the Michael Jackson Channel this week? Will Pepsi sponsor the cremation, or is the hair gel company going to do that? (My bad.)


----------



## RhosynMor (Apr 23, 2008)

my 0.02
I speak(write?) as a UK cruiser currently on the Eastern Seaboard USA.
I think that there are two seperate issues here.
One is derelict boats- they should not be lumped together with cruisers, and there are laws already existing that allow for their removal. I understand that places such as Marathon have such an extensive number that removal is expensive (m and where will they put them?) If the land based residents want them out of their site they should contribute to the cost, but that would mean taxes, ( or something like that) that they have no wish to pay. If local governmint had any courage they would tell their citizens that in order to accomplish what they need doing they will need a revenue source. Instead they ban anchoring and stick in mooring fields. But unfunded mandates seem to be an American political foible.
THe second issue is that of anchoring rights IMHO one should be allowed to anchor when and where one wishes, subject to safety of those around.
As an interesting side bar I am currently here in Annapolis. Had two boats drag into me on Back creek ( the holding is terrible) the DNR officer who towed one away said that the City now spends money chasing down drqgging boats because the two places on back creek that have decent holding are now mooring fields that lie almost empty most of the time.
When anchoring in Annapolis one is required to register with the harbourmaster, there have been a number of boats that they have required to move on within the first day due to safety considerations. And finally, also in annapolis, the city requires that for anchoring purposes one MUST liveaboard. THey considered anchored vessels to be under navigation and by COLREGS must keep a watch while underway.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Rhosynmor- 

Thanks for the insight. I agree with you on your take of the issues.
As you "yanks" are so fond of saying- I think your "spot-on" Eh?

great info about the situation in back creak and the liveaboard requirement. Isn't it an eye-widener to see how similiar situations are handled completely differently in different locals? Annapolis being a traditional Sailng/Boating Mecca , in my view has the right take on it 80% of the time.
I hope you folks continue to come to the states to sail/cruise as I enjoy your often unique approach and welcome your perspective as well.


----------



## RhosynMor (Apr 23, 2008)

Thanks,
without wanting to divert the thread, the USA is a wonderful place to cruise. ( and unlike many countries a crusing permit is free and valid for a year)but have never seen a place with so many varied constabularies! between the local water polic, the harbor master and the coasties we are visited at least twice a day. by the by, the harbourmasters boat comes through every day and makes a note of the vessels and takes their GPS location, here while offering a good deal on pump outs! I noticed one vessel had a warning sticker on it placed there by the harbour master, the boat was gone the following day. 
Perhaps this is the answer to the derelict boat question that appears to vex so many municpalities


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

The FWC here in the Daytona Area make note of all vessels anchored on the water. Which I have absolutely no problem with. Funding for this continued record keeping has been approved. (I think $150,000.00) for the whole state of florida. Of course keeping records and acting on the compiled information is aparently beyond the lawmakers and LEO's capacity. I'm sure they'll cry that they need yet more money (to waste, and pilfer) 
As for Annapolis,MD. When I stopped briefly or a few day I was approached by the harbor master aboard. I found him pleasant and he offered good area information for me and also indicated that after a certain number of days at anchor they required that you get pumped out. Sounds reasonable to me ! and they didn't want big money either just a few dollars. Many of the pump out facities in Florida area federally funded in part or whole to promote the clean marina and clean water initiative, money well spent. and often, as here in Daytona Beach Halifax city marina the pump out is FREE. So, what could possibly be the issue of getting pumped ??? you can also top off your water tanks at no cost while your getting a free pumpout. 
Of course,as I stated before, Waste water issues are the usually the first hype/scare tactic reported by the PD's and oponents to cruising/boat/anchoring claiming we're all poluters. What a crock.
But it plays well with the unimformed non-boating public and serves the interest of those bent on eliminating sailors/cruisers and those who choose to legal engage in navigation (anchoring).


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

We are pretty restricted up here in that most harbors are packed with mooring fields with NO PLACE to anchor at ALL 

In Northport harbor it is a some kind of Anchorage-area on the charts and the outer areas are open to anchor BUT even then i can see it becoming a mess if the masses all anchored out there long term ?


Just wondering do they have mooring fields down there as up here at 250 to 500 a year it is one of the few afforable ways to keep a boat in the water compared to dock space at 3000 to 5000 + and safe when your not there ?


----------



## gafred99 (Jun 26, 2009)

Joe, from reading the entirety of your thread I was hoping to see the end result being the local gov. took a swan dive into a pile of muck and left you alone.
From the way I read the law (laws state and local) and what you described about you not living on board and the boat is not a sinker you would have stood ground, firmly. Plus you had an email response in your favor from someone in charge at the DNR?????

As far as the posts on illegal search and seizure, personal effects, etc in the constitution. It’s just who and how they are interpreted by the gov mainly. And interpretation is subject to change as needed, I change my underwear less often then said interpretation. I change’em daily for those that are curious.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

GAfred99- It's not over till it's over

The end game has not been played yet we're still in the first inning.
And alog those lines another favorable response from a noted authority on Maritime Law - Barbara Cook the Maritime Atty from Stuart,Fl. who successfully handled that city when they tried a similiar approach.

I spoke w/ her and forwarded the Daytona Beach City ordinance 106-183 and I am posting her response here now:



> Of course you are right&#8230;.both as to the local ordinance exception that yours is a non-liveaboard vessel and in navigation and as to the prohibition of local regulation of your vessel under Florida Statute 327.60.
> 
> You can stand your ground, have your boat impounded, and pay the city and several thousand dollars in attorney fees and court costs to recover it and to challenge the ordinance in federal court (you may be able to recover some of those fees under civil rights violation - that's up to the judge or potential settlement). Or you can move the boat. Or for a nominal fee of $250, I can write a letter to the city as to the error of their ways. What would you like me to do?
> 
> Barbara A.Kreitz Cook, Esq.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Rhosyn, you very definitely have an alien view of what should be. Dare one even say, a monarchist view.

" If the land based residents want...If local governmint had any courage they would tell their citizens..." Ah, this is a democratic republic and in Jefferon's or Franklin's words, the people may get the government they deserve. May.

Land based has nothing to do with this, the people who _reside_ in a community and are _citizens _of it, have the right to vote there and run it. The tourists who are not willing to undertake the responsibilities if citizenship (like voting and paying taxes and serving in the military) have no privileges other than those bones thrown to them. That's the way it works here, and in most of the world.

The citizens in most parts of the world don't want to raise their own taxes and ante up their own money, in order to clean up the mess that some tourist or other transient left behind. Whether that mess is a pile of trash or ten tons of boat trash, it is still trash cleanup and all that they are asking for is what they are entitled: Take your trash with you when you leave. If you can't do that--you won't be allowed to bring it in.

What they could easily [sic] do is what is done in many other countries. Require a bond before tourists come in. Want to bring in a boat and anchor it for more than "passing through" ? OK, require proof of insurance, the same way marinas require it, and he same way that almost all state car registration requires it. No "removal" insurance? Sorry, move on, you've got 48 hours from when the weather breaks.

That's not unfair, that's reality. Folks leave ten tons of trash behind, and the natives have every right to get upset about it. If you want to be welcome? Figure out how to make sure the folks who leave the trash pay for removing it. Or, figure out how fellow tourists will pay for removing it.

Because you're sure not going to be so generous when someone asks YOU to spend YOUR MONEY to clean up ten tons of someone else's trash, are you?


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

I responded that I appreciated the time and efforts that her and the law firm have expended thus far . However as I am basically dirt poor I cannot afford much justice nor do I expect her to work for free as it is a buss. not a charity. 
So, I'll continue to persue it myself and welcome any input or suggestions from others that might futher the interest of justice in this situation.
Suggestions ??? Already e-mail SCCA,POWS,FWC,and I'm not stopping there.

I'll bet if patrick henry was still alive he may say something to this affect-
"my only regret is that I have but one boat to anchor and get towed and impounded !"


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Tommy, you have to realize the mooring and anchoring in NY and most the Northeast is very different from anchoring in the latter states like Florida.

In NY and most of New England some of the bottom lands date back to private title under Crown Patent from the kings of Europe. Especially on Long Island, where surely you are aware that Gardiner's Island is all owned in a direct chain going back to a Crown Patent, predating the US?

So while bottom lands in Florida may have been assigned ownership under state and federal laws--the bottom in New York has been owned BEFORE there was a state or federal government, and that prior ownership is still recognized. Also, most famously, during WW2 the federal government SOLD bottom land to municipalities in order to raise money for war bonds. So many towns and villages on LI outright OWN bottom land. There is a public right to navigate and transit the waters over it--but not to touch the bottom, or take anything from it, except as related to navigation rights.

Then there are "public safety" issues. That's a valid legal issue. If 2500 people want to moor in Northport Harbor but there's only room for 500 boats...someone has to police that, unless we want violence every night. You might try asking the town clerk, it is very possible that Northport actually owns the bottom rights in the harbor. Or, you might have a local historical society that knows the local history of this. 

Florida? New kid on the block. Can't be assumed that anything there is the same as it was in a founding colony. Water rights most definitely aren't.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

The whole thing gives me the S/V Distantstar boat anchored out and washed into the mud during a storm and lost as a wreck deja vue


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> Ah, this is a democratic republic ...


No, it's a constitutionally-limited representative republic. Democratic government is where two wolves and a sheep get to vote for what's for dinner .

Jim


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Hello sailor- 
Just when I think your seeing the light, back into the hole goes your head !



> That's not unfair, that's reality


 maybe your reality but not here in Florida.



> require proof of insurance, the same way marinas require it, and he same way that almost all state car registration requires it.


 There is NO leagal requirement to have insurance on your vessel in florida to enter a marina and I only frequent the ones that do not require it of there own accord. As far as the Vehicle analogy (aplles to oranges) there is NO insurance requirement here in florida to insure a Motorcycle either (unless you choose to ride helmetless ,then you need medical) So, again your either mis informed or possibly existing in a different reality than here in Florida.



> to clean up the mess that some tourist or other transient left behind. Whether that mess is a pile of trash or ten tons of boat trash, it is still trash cleanup and all that they are asking for is what they are entitled: Take your trash with you when you leave. If you can't do that--you won't be allowed to bring it in.


 Again, not the same issue. Polution,Waste disposal and "trash (litering) are already extremely well addressed by current laws that have been on the books for years. Why make more laws when apparently the ones we have now are not being enforce AND misinterpreted as well?



> the people who reside in a community and are citizens of it, have the right to vote there and run it. The tourists who are not willing to undertake the responsibilities if citizenship (like voting and paying taxes and serving in the military) have no privileges other than those bones thrown to them. That's the way it works here, and in most of the world.


 Again your batting a ZERO , There is currently no requirement I am aware of to serve in the military here in the USA. Although I have served Honorably and am a decorated veteran and recipient of the conspicuous service cross. So , that dog won't hunt ! 
As far as voting thats up to you if you choose NOT to excersise your right , your loss.
as far as the tax issue, what are you purchasing here in florida that your not paying taxes on? I pay them with every purchase, if its beer,bread or a car,even a Sailboat ! I pay taxes. If there is a legal way not to pay them I didn't get that memo !
The tourist approach isn't going to fly here, your the only source making that claim. Apparently your better informed on it than the FWC ,and the Atty's I've contacted. Or maybe your struggling w/ the verbage of the laws and statutes the same way the local City of Dytona beach ,Fl. is .
Well, sit back and I'll attempt to "learn ya' " 
What's more I'm talking about anchoring not littering !? * how do you get all that from anchoring? that's quite a leap.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

hellosailor- Buck -buc-ba-ba-ba-WHAT?


> Then there are "public safety" issues. That's a valid legal issue. If 2500 people want to moor in Northport Harbor but there's only room for 500 boats...someone has to police that, unless we want violence every night.


 First of all whaere the hell are all these boats materializing from?? are they drawn by some gravitational force yet to be discovered ? that's pretty unlikely.
Secondly, you mean to represent that if you enter an anchorage or harbor that is packed w/ anchored and moored vessels you'll be forced to commit civil unrest,assault and perpetrate violence upon the other anchored vessels and their crew? 
Man, you better check the expiration date on those meds. I don't know of a single incidence of that happening in this country, or anywhere else for that manner. 
Do you also believe that all the anchored boats are responsible for polution from blackwater as the law enforcement would have you believe as well? 
You don't seem that gullible and you do raise some good historical points about bottom land ownership. Unfortunately non of it applies here in Daytona Beach,Fl. It does apply in other parts of the state (St.Augustine and Green cove, that I'm aware of) but not here in Daytona Beach,Fl.
And that is the area in question presently.
That's not to say I don't appreciate the other info. it's just not relevant to this situation.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

We get garbage in the water in the from fisherman that cant keep there floating work docks from falling apart and doing a bowling ball act through the field and various boats that are clearly one windy day from sinking and they sink about once a week and get hauled onshore and off to the landfill 

The only thing that keeps it working is the mooring commission that sets requirements on size and condition of moorings and signs off on them every year before they are reset


And there is a whole lot of UNREST when the pack the field one boat to tight and they start hitting each other when they swing



And there are in fact over 1000 moorings JUST in Northport


----------



## RhosynMor (Apr 23, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> Rhosyn, you very definitely have an alien view of what should be. Dare one even say, a monarchist view.
> 
> " If the land based residents want...If local governmint had any courage they would tell their citizens..." Ah, this is a democratic republic and in Jefferon's or Franklin's words, the people may get the government they deserve. May.
> 
> ...


I am assuming that most of the derelict boats were local citizens. That is what makes this such a difficult problem for local residents. In respect to transient boats being unseaworthy i cannot speak to that for US boats, I do know that Rhosyn was given a good look at by US customs when clearing in, including making sure that she met US MSD requirements. I was not arguing against the rights of citizens to have derelict free waterways, just that there are already regulations that deal with them, they need to be enforced, and that enforcement costs money. To create further regulations , and then not fund them seems the height of folly. And so the answer becomes. let no person anchor here, which seems draconian, plus then limits the amount of transient sailors who do wish to come and spend money but perhaps not take a mooring. While I was still in the UK there had been talk in the local yachtie rags of suggesting to people that they not cruise Florida because the local governments were giving the impression they only wanted the rich to come and play. This cannot be the impression that Florida wishes to give.
I think Annapolsi has it about right, give power to the local harbour master to allow boats to anchor or not, fund him/ her so that they have the resources to do so, and catch derelicts before the vessels are left.


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

tommays-

I wouldn't have problem w/ a mooring field. However I still want to exercise my right to anchor.And that is the way it's moving in some areas of florida. 
Along with the simple moorings the requirement is "upland facilities" that means a dinghy dock,showers,access to pump out,water, and even parking! and that too is in the Florida State Statutes. 
But , until those things materialize here in Daytona, then I can legally anchor in accordance with State law .
Deal with it. and what I might suggest to those ashore adjacent to the area I legally choose to anchor is, if it troubles you so to see the boat/boats at anchor, simply avert you eyes. Or, lobby to change the law, Oops ! already tried that and it won't "float" Too-bad SOooooooooooo sad.

"Money can't buy everything, but it sure gives you a hell of a barganing position ! "


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

Rhosymor-



> I was not arguing against the rights of citizens to have derelict free waterways, just that there are already regulations that deal with them, they need to be enforced, and that enforcement costs money. To create further regulations , and then not fund them seems the height of folly. And so the answer becomes. let no person anchor here, which seems draconian, plus then limits the amount of transient sailors who do wish to come and spend money but perhaps not take a mooring.


 Again you've got it totally correct. Did you say you were a writer? you express my opinion better than I do !
I wish I could convey my thoughts as well as you convey my thoughts, dam public school education anyway !


----------



## gafred99 (Jun 26, 2009)

Joe, you maybe "poor" in cash in the pocket. But not in desire in what is right.

When I read your thread it reminded me of the left turn issue in Ga.

Court throws out Georgia's left-turn law | ajc.com

I do not endorse, represent, agree with, or other wise stand by the fellow 
arrested.

I can see that having your boat impounded, lawyer fees, cop wanting to taze for disagreeing can be a pain in the rear, but most of all having your boat scuffed during the impound and trying to recoupe for the repair maybe the most painful of all after you win, constitution does say something about life, liberty and property. Ahhh well depends on what day that is read.


----------



## RhosynMor (Apr 23, 2008)

joethecobbler said:


> Rhosymor-
> 
> Again you've got it totally correct. Did you say you were a writer? you express my opinion better than I do !
> I wish I could convey my thoughts as well as you convey my thoughts, dam public school education anyway !


 In the UK a public school education is private, a state School is public, but I get yer point, and thanks, its the benefit of a state school education


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

gefred99-
Presicely, not to mention stealing everything aboard that isn't bolted down and most of the stuff that is ! (Oh, I know the valient LEO's would NEVER do that). 
An aquaintence of mine and fellow sailor recently spent time in Key West, He made the error of loaning his bicycle w/small trailor with a few things like ext.cord ets in it, to another individual , the individual engages in an unlawful act and the bicycle gets impounded. Fair enough. So, after wondering what happened to the bike/gear and the guy who borrowed it. They locate the bike in the police impound. When inquiring about the return of the bike , he was informed he'll need to produce proof of ownership, fair enough/
He bought it at west marine and promptly showed the reciept. The bike was brought out sans the trailer and other stuff. "what about the trailer ?" he askes. The reply "no problem, show proof of ownership ! I wonder, nobody probably needs an extension cord in the PD. and what of the trailer?
similiar to happenings in South Daytona a few months back. After getting their proposed anchoring ordinance shot down as illegel. the cops started grabbing dinghies tied to the shore. when you inquired they said "no problem, just show up w/ proof of ownership and pick it up" one individual I know said"like hell, I'll show ownership and you'll bring it back where you took it from" they did ! of course he's a legalasst. or some such. the other fellow that got his stolen by the cops wasn't as well prepared and couldn't aparently produce the necessary proof. 
After learning of this I promptly titled and registered my homebuilt dinghy !! 

"go ahead, make my day."


----------



## joethecobbler (Apr 10, 2007)

GOOD NEWS-

Today, After an exhaustive seach,many phone calls to every boaters rights and interest group I could find. As well as contacting any and all legal representation I could get to speak w/ me . 
I finally took the bull by the horns and decided to approach the City of Daytona Police Dept. Sgt. Flores in charge of the marine division directly.
(only after I was 99.9% sure my position was correct).
To my Relief and pleasant suprise Sgt. Flores was cordial and receptive to listening to my situation. And after a short discussion and airing of each of our experiences and interpretations of the local ordinance as well as the Florida State Statutes. Sgt. Flores assured me that the City of Daytona Beach was not in the bussiness of trampling on anyones rights and that the action originally taken was due to the limited exposure and use of the obscure City ordinance. 
Also that in accordance with State Statutes on anchoring of non-liveaboard vessels that I was in fact entitled to anchor in the loacation I was in. Provided the vessel is maintained in a manner as not to become a navigational safety hazard or an eyesore. 
Also he revealed to me that in fact one of the most frequent complaintents (or respondants) was in fact the main street bridge tender, whom Sgt. Flores said calls on a regular basis w/ concerns (and rightfully so) about vessels seemingly un-attended or that the bridge tender feels might be intruding upon the navigable channel posing a safety concern for others on the water or those ashore.
At that juncture I indicated that I would (should) probably take the time to introduce myself to the bridge tender(s) and make them aware that I am in charge of the vessel and it is not abandoned . and thank him/her for the diligence of watching the area., in regards to anchoring activities.
I also indicated that I would be returning to the anchorage area in question as we now are all on the same page. He assured me that it would not be an issue, in fact he would be sending a memo to his officers to that effect.
So, for all of you that supported me in this, I thank you, and for those nay-sayers , well, I don't know what to say. 
so if you're transitting the Daytona Beach Area of the halifax river feel free to anchor and take in the local flavor for as long as you deem appropriate and hopefully we can all benefit through better relationships with the local marine patrols and also the community . 
Don't hesitate to drop me an email or a PM and if I'm available, (and in the area) I would enjoy trading sailing experiences w/ you.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

A most excellent resolution, Joe.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Nicely done Joe...Congrats!


----------



## gafred99 (Jun 26, 2009)

It's all about who you talk too,, post a pic of it parked back home anchorage.


----------



## flyboy26m (Mar 28, 2010)

I realize this is an old post but hopefully will be seen.
I own a vacation condo in Daytona Beach and am planning on storing my sailboat on land in Daytona as well.
Being new to the area as a owner I do not want to step on anyone's toes. I will be in town 1-4 weeks at a time until
I retire then for much longer stays. I would like to place my boat on anchor to use during my stay and have a few questions for 
the experienced sailors located here.

Where is a safe place to anchor for a few nights at a time. Can I leave it there while not on board. Still new to sailing as I have only owned
her a few years. Any insight would be appreciated.


----------



## rick-calaloo (Feb 1, 2016)

You can anchor on the west side of the ICW south of Main st. bridge,
but there is no place to leave dinghy. you didn't say if your boat
was trailerable. there is a yacht clubthere that is very casual that you 
may want to look at joining.


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

rick-calaloo said:


> You can anchor on the west side of the ICW south of Main st. bridge, ------ there is a yacht clubthere that is very casual that you
> may want to look at joining.


Do you know the name of the yacht club?
Thanks.


----------



## rick-calaloo (Feb 1, 2016)

Halifax sailing association.
not the Halifax river yacht club


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

Thanks Rick


----------



## williamrnutile2222 (8 mo ago)

joethecobbler said:


> Cam- Derelict boats are a problem in part because the law enforcement didn't do their job. there are and have been laws on the books that can avoid a derelict becoming a sunken or washed up derelict
> I can and will if you would like reference the laws,statutes and such.
> Essentially the vessel must be capable of making way,(sail,power,paddles ,etc) and also must meet coast guard safety requirements as well as blackwater MSD requirements. The Only reason an officer can board your vessel w/out your consent is in the process of checking your MSD device . If the officer cannot see the device he can board your vessel. That is just one example of a manner that law enforcement can do due diligence in determining a vessle to be derelict. there are many other methods.
> With the "new" revised anchoring laws that were just passed the law enforcement has yet another tool to determine a vessels status. That is Registration requirement for ALL vessels upon the water whether they are in use or not.
> ...





SEMIJim said:


> This is an age-old problem that is no different from what land-lubbers deal with in regards to things such as zoning ordinances, restrictive/protective covenants (tho those are civil matters) and the like. What it boils down to is one individual's "right" to do something another individual may feel infringes on their "right" to that thing not being done. For example: Does my next door neighbour have the "right" to park as many cars as he likes on his property, regardless of their condition, etc? I say "It's his property, let him do as he likes with it." The township government says he doesn't. In your case, you're arguing your "right" to anchor your boat where you like, and the Daytona Beach government is supporting their taxpayers' "right" not to have the view from their (probably dearly-purchased) property degraded by having an off-shore "marina" appear there.
> 
> Well, kind of...
> 
> ...


i suggest that all boating people realize that the uscg is your only friend on the water as long as you are complying with u.s. code of federal regulations title 33 navigation,jurisdiction... and most importantly inthese situations realize only the uscg has jurisdiction ,u.s.army corps of engineers regulations,u.s. 2nd district court maritime and admiralty court adjudication (special court) and a vhf ch. 16 call to the uscg immediately upon antecedent /incident such as local,municipal,county or state and they will either respond ,or request such will explain it to the leo's quite earnestlyand descriptively to cease and desist or stand down awaiting uscg arrival on scene. even florida statute327.6 ,2 (a) thru (h) restricts all state divisions from enforcement on all navigable waters for all vessels. all state divisions of maritime are in official misconduct except upon state owned waters of florida (ie landlocked bodies of water and non navigable streams brooks... again state waters is uscg demarcations and state owned waters and the trial state moorings are the only state jurisdictives. uscg will stop these harrassments immediately. just dont have criminal issues to which uscg must act upon when they arrive. trust me, i have many, many times called the uscg to stop the non jurisdictional reality.. stand up for the supremacy laws and your rights with the proper jurisdiction which is the law of the land,supremacy clause and most importantly [the interstate and international commerce federal laws which govern all navigable waters and all vessels. remember, uscg is the only enforcement herein, and the army corps of engineers the only regulatory for all waters (navigable or not) which includes all wetlands all banks along all bodies of water and 250 foot from waters ,or50 year high water mark or the dune line. also all property line surveys /deeds follow along this setback.water and vessels were here soooo long ago and the waterfront properties sooooo recent to which have no ownership even of the docks , seawalls beaches...etc (all requiring uscg and army corps permit requiring submittal. i own waterfront properties and had to accept that i am not a dog in the fight as to having chosen to purchase the waterfront property and all vessels navigable therein. uscg uniquely being the dept. of of homeland security, and the military to which also protects us from our shoreline threats to our constitution from within and abroad to which alluscg captains oath to be vigilant and only we the people can legislate to clean up state complete boating /safety statute 327 and 328 which became eroding since done by 2008 legislation and needs the return to the state being compliant and in compliance with uscfr title 33 . thusly returning to the us constitution (emphasis on interstate and international commerce ) to which every vessel including canoes are operated by you the captain!!! its your waters ,public lands act of 1938.... exercise your rights as captains and rely on the real powers to be which can and will coorect thisofficial misconduct by state of florida and please always be with mannerly conduct to stop this official misconduct!!!! united we stand and start hailing the proper jurisdictive enforcement,regulatory ,adjudication as enabled by congress and constitution(READ ARTICLE VI CONSTITUTION MARITIME. it will bring you a mariner smile as when you have the wind at your back..


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Xxxxxxxx


----------

