# Florida anchoring restrictions survey



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

The FWC has developed an online survey for future use in drafting anchoring restrictions for local municipalities. Their goal is to allow cities and local governments the ability to restrict your rights to anchor in certain places. Most notably, in areas that have waterfront homeowners who think they have a right to govern the water behind their homes.

Boaters need to make sure that any restrictions on anchoring are done on a state-wide basis.

The survey and it’s “concepts” are designed to restrict your ability to choose where and for how long you can anchor. Please respond to the survey, even if you don’t live in Florida.

My suggestion is that you mark question #7 as “None - Authority to regulate should remain with the state”

Also, my suggestion is to “strongly disagree” with the “concepts” so that they come up with a state-wide solution to the problems they present.

Derelict boats and stored in-water boats are a problem in Florida, but we need a state-wide solution. Not local governments choosing when and where you can anchor.

Can't link, but you can find it here: myfwc.com/boating/anchoring-mooring


----------



## svjobeth (Nov 29, 2008)

I started a thread about this in the Pacific Seacraft forum. The mods have moved it to the Destinations forum and placed it in SE US Coast & Florida forum. Here's the link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/AnchoringSurvey


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

Thanks for the heads up about the survey, DavyJ. I checked it out, and from the video introduction got the impression that the FWC is hearing more from homeowners than boaters.


----------



## SENCMac26x (Sep 16, 2014)

DavyJ said:


> The FWC has developed an online survey for future use in drafting anchoring restrictions for local municipalities....
> 
> The survey and it's "concepts" are designed to restrict your ability to choose where and for how long you can anchor. Please respond to the survey, even if you don't live in Florida.


I did it yesterday, and although I did strongly DISAGREE with giving local governing bodies any control in this because of the potential undue influence of the real estate industry and a handful of wealthy donors, I didn't think all of the ideas were bad.

I don't have a problem with a 60 day limited for unoccupied boats being left on public waters. If you need to leave your boat unattended for more than 60 days, perhaps you need a slip/mooring or haul it out.

I also have no problems with prohibitions against derelict vessels left to die (ie. navigation hazards) and a reasonable setback from public ramps and access to make it safer and more accessible to everyone.

However, I strongly disagreed with the setback for private land for 2 reasons 
1) Property ownership ends at the high tide mark then it's public property 
2) There was no distinction made between occupied/developed land and undeveloped land. Why should there be a setback for piece of undeveloped swamp along a river just because there is a residence SOMEWHERE on the estate.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> I don't have a problem with a 60 day limited for unoccupied boats being left on public waters. If you need to leave your boat unattended for more than 60 days, perhaps you need a slip/mooring or haul it out.
> 
> I also have no problems with prohibitions against derelict vessels left to die (ie. navigation hazards) and a reasonable setback from public ramps and access to make it safer and more accessible to everyone.


The problem will come later when they ignore the fact that you are against local governments intervention. But, they will then use the results of the survey to say, see, we need anchoring time limits and set-backs from certain areas.

Also, how will a vessel be determined that it is unoccupied for 60 days. If the owner returns on the 59th day does that clock start all over again......


----------



## SENCMac26x (Sep 16, 2014)

DavyJ said:


> The problem will come later when they ignore the fact that you are against local governments intervention. But, they will then use the results of the survey to say, see, we need anchoring time limits and set-backs from certain areas.


You're right there is a risk my results will be cherry picked; however, those are real problems and honestly give a lot of cruisers/sailboaters a bad reputation.

How would you like to see them addressed?

I stand by my belief that I'd rather see one set of rules that focus on the abuses for the entire state instead of local governments coming up with a patchwork solution.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> I stand by my belief that I'd rather one set of rules that focus on the abuses for the entire state instead of local governments coming up with a patchwork solution


I agree that we need a state-wide solution. And hope one comes about.

The problem is that every time the FWC starts to discuss anchoring restrictions, they use the derelicts and others as a veil to allow restrictions on the use of anchorages by legit cruisers and boaters who just want a safe place to anchor.

There are some waterfront property owners who will not be satisfied until all boats are restricted from anchoring for any time limit.

And just for disclosure, I own waterfront property.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

SENCMac26x said:


> However, I strongly disagreed with the setback for private land


I think in fairness homeowners and marina slipholders should be able to get on and off their docks. People should have a reasonable expectation to be able to launch and retrieve their boats at ramps. Aren't those ideas reasonable?



DavyJ said:


> I agree that we need a state-wide solution. And hope one comes about.


I think this is the most important element. We have to keep legislation at the State level - in every State - or we will have no voice at all.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I agree with Dave on this. 

Gary


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

My two cents.....I like the idea of a setback for anchoring near public or private property, and 150' seems reasonable tome. I don't like the 60 day rule, as that's going to be tough to enforce fairly; FWC should be able to get rid of derelict boats at the Owner's expense, but how are we going to define derelict and interpret that definition consistently? All of the rules, if enacted, should allow an exemption for mariner's seeking safe harbor.

We own waterfront property, also, and have no problem with long-term anchoring in front of our place....I think having boats swinging at anchor adds to the scenic beauty of the river.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

bigdogandy said:


> My two cents.....I like the idea of a setback for anchoring near public or private property, and 150' seems reasonable tome.


There is a chart floating around of where anchoring would be legal in Ft Lauderdale with a 150' setback. It is astonishingly limiting. If I can find it again I'll post it here.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> There is a chart floating around of where anchoring would be legal in Ft Lauderdale with a 150' setback. It is astonishingly limiting. If I can find it again I'll post it here.


This becomes more apparent when you realize that most anchorages have property on both sides. If your boat needs 50' of swinging room, the anchorage needs to be 350' wide. What happens when two, three or more boats also need swinging room.

This is exactly why they are trying to include set-backs, so they can eliminate some anchorages altogether. The set backs have nothing to do with safety or derelicts.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

I took the survey. I strongly disagree with the 150 foot setback. Try traveling the ICW between Miami and Fort Pierce anchoring for the night and meeting the setback.

Also any regulation must be state wide.


----------



## Yorksailor (Oct 11, 2009)

I think that is a good survey and hopefully things can be resolved. I think a 150 ft setback is reasonable. I anchor 300+days per year and when on land live in Florida on the water. In the last 2,000 days of anchoring I have never anchored within 150 ft of anything that might damage my boat except for another boat. 

However, even when I had a 30 ft boat I never used the ICW...I get nervous near all those boats and people!

Is it as Captmeme writes an ICW problem?

Are there too many boats chasing too few anchoring spots?

Phil


----------



## SENCMac26x (Sep 16, 2014)

SVAuspicious said:


> I think in fairness homeowners and marina slipholders should be able to get on and off their docks. People should have a reasonable expectation to be able to launch and retrieve their boats at ramps. Aren't those ideas reasonable?


I agree they should be allowed to, but is that really a problem?

I always anchor far enough way from nearby docks to protect my own interests (swinging into it, dragging anchor, etc) that also gives those owners room to come and go as they please.

My concern is in narrow bodies of water, trying to keep you swinging circle atleast 150' from both sides of the shore, ends of docks would really limit those areas.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Yorksailor said:


> I think that is a good survey and hopefully things can be resolved. I think a 150 ft setback is reasonable. I anchor 300+days per year and when on land live in Florida on the water. In the last 2,000 days of anchoring I have never anchored within 150 ft of anything that might damage my boat except for another boat.
> 
> However, even when I had a 30 ft boat I never used the ICW...I get nervous near all those boats and people!
> 
> ...


As much as I've enjoyed anchoring in some tight spots like Lake Sylvia in Lauderdale...










...and Sunset Lake in Miami Beach...










...I'm inclined to agree that a setback of 150' is not all that unreasonable... I know that I was located more than 5 boatlengths off that palatial home pictured above, but even so, I was all too aware that I was definitely close to 'intruding' on that homeowner's space... Obviously, he owns neither the water, or the view, but I would hope any cruiser would give similar consideration to any waterfront homeowner's privacy...

Not sure where the 150 foot number is now coming from, previously talk of a 300' setback has been bandied about. Below are the maps Dave was referring to, which clearly indicate anchoring would be all but eliminated in much of Broward County, and a spot like Lake Sylvia might only accommodate 2 or 3 boats dead center...










Let your voice be heard! Potential Florida anchoring restrictions | General | Waterwayguide.com News Updates

So, 150 feet seems to me like an acceptable compromise, if it comes to that. I think the handwriting is on the wall, this seems an example of not letting the Perfect be the enemy of the Good, and such concessions might be the only way to get a reasonable state-wide policy instituted in Florida... And, seriously, anyone expecting to have a full array of anchorages available within a stretch of the ICW like that between Palm Beach and Ft Lauderdale, dream on... That strikes me a bit like driving an RV to New York City, and expecting to be able to park on the streets of Manhattan... )

As I've mentioned before, what will be interesting to see in the event that setbacks are instituted, is what might become of some of the mooring fields already in place... The city mooring field at Las Olas Bridge in Lauderdale, for example, would presumably have to go...


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

150 feet is too big a setback. It'll make places like Lake Sylvia dangerous...especially since there are spoil/shallow areas all over. This is a BAD policy and bad precedent.


----------



## SENCMac26x (Sep 16, 2014)

What about if there isn't a house there, but it's still private land. Is it a privacy issue drifting 149' to an empty swamp that part of a larger estate with a house on it somewhere?


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> I'm inclined to agree that a setback of 150' is not all that unreasonable... I know that I was located more than 5 boatlengths off that palatial home pictured above, but even so, I was all too aware that I was definitely close to 'intruding' on that homeowner's space...


You anchored there anyway. A boat length back and you will have the FWC knock on your hull and tell you to move down the waterway.

I'm not sure why any boater would want the 150' set back. If you purchase a house on a golf course you can expect to see golfers. If you buy a house next to the highway you can expect to see trucks. If you buy a house on the water you can expect to see boats. If you buy a house on the water that also happens to be a good, safe anchorage, you can expect to see boats anchored there.

The problem is that these folks purchased a house and didn't investigate why all those boats are anchored out back.....
Now they think they can take control of the waterway and send you down the road.


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

I think it might be a good idea to have a defined setback and state-level regulations to prevent some local jurisdictions from caving to the demands of waterfront homeowners who would demand a total ban on anchoring. Compromise isn't necessarily a bad thing?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Let me first make clear that I'm not a decision maker here. I am active in SSCA and I am spending my own time at my own expense doing research and writing position papers for the chair of the SSCA Concerned Cruisers' Committee (CCC - our version of Government Affairs).

There is a lot of grunt work to do and more volunteers would be gratefully put to work.

The following responses are my personal opinions. While my opinions tend to align with SSCA proposals my term on the Board of Directors and as SSCA President are over.



SENCMac26x said:


> I always anchor far enough way from nearby docks to protect my own interests (swinging into it, dragging anchor, etc) that also gives those owners room to come and go as they please.
> 
> My concern is in narrow bodies of water, trying to keep you swinging circle atleast 150' from both sides of the shore, ends of docks would really limit those areas.


Good. That is as it should be. Whatever the number is, can't we understand why a homeowner with a boat on their dock would want something in law or regulation?



JonEisberg said:


> Not sure where the 150 foot number is now coming from, previously talk of a 300' setback has been bandied about. Below are the maps Dave was referring to, which clearly indicate anchoring would be all but eliminated in much of Broward County, and a spot like Lake Sylvia might only accommodate 2 or 3 boats dead center...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you Jon for dredging (ha!) those up, and to the good folks at the Waterway Guide for generating them.

I'm not sure where the 150' number came from either. Personally I think even that is a bit much. Here in Annapolis we have a 75' stand-off requirement from docks, piers, and ramps. We have a 150' stand-off from installed moorings. When I kept my boat in a slip on Back Creek there were times when boats anchored well inside 75' and I couldn't get out of the fairway and into the Creek (I like to think I'm a pretty good boathandler, so they were really close). At nearby Mears Marina there was a move to increase the stand-off distance because some slipholders fell they didn't have adequate clearance to get into and out of their slips. We (SSCA and I personally) did a lot of work to beat that back.



SENCMac26x said:


> What about if there isn't a house there, but it's still private land. Is it a privacy issue drifting 149' to an empty swamp that part of a larger estate with a house on it somewhere?


Again, I am not a decision-maker. My own position is that a stand-off from marine infrastructure (docks, piers, ramps, and such) is reasonable. The number for that offset is subject to discussion. I personally would not object to codifying civility to prevent running lines, or landing dinghies (particularly for walking pets) above the high tide line on personal property. You could probably talk me into limitations on public property (like parks); if you can't legally drive up with a car to walk your dog you shouldn't be able to dinghy in to walk your dog. I wouldn't object to existing ordinances against littering to apply to leaving trash on private docks and piers. Fair is fair. I wouldn't object to existing ordinances against trespass being applied by people who help themselves to water (and even electricity!) on private docks.

I very strongly agree that the self-entitled that think they bought their view with their homes should be disabused of that notion. On the other hand, trespass and damage to personal property should not be allowed. The ability to use personal property (docks, piers, ramps, etc) should be protected.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Some years back, the Marco Island home owner's association took offense at a 70' shrimp boat I purchased from a customs auction.
They forced the boat from my marina and after a bit of research, I found a loophole. The ICW is a federal waterway, not coming under town or state regulations. If you anchor within the federal jurisdiction, but outside the navigable waterway, the local and state leo's are powerless to bother you, legally. Mind you I was extremely courteous when the city police, county sheriff and finally the FMP came by to hassle me, but all accepted that they were powerless to make me move.
Oddly enough, my shrimper was such an eyesore for the Marco Island home owner's association, that they found me a slip close by, but out of sight, AND paid the first 6 month's rent, just to get me to move.


----------



## Yorksailor (Oct 11, 2009)

I have sailed many times between Fenandino Beach, Key West and many points in between but except for Biscayne Bay I have never traveled longitudinally on the ICW in Florida even when I was on a ICW friendly boat.

How big is the problem? Are there hundreds or thousands of boat anchoring each night within a boat's length of private docks in Florida? 

Will a 150 ft setback force these boats to use marinas or sail at night on the outside?

Phil, a Florida resident who can and does vote!


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I took the survey, but wonder if the first part of putting in my zip code means that it really just goes into a "who cares what he thinks" folder.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Tough lobbying issue. In all likelihood, both sides will over argue their case, hoping a settlement would be more like what they could live with. Unfortunately, the system is designed that way. 

If I were a benevolent dictator, I would impose the following. A setback is fine, it's just a matter of distance. While I would have no sympathy for a land owner that simply wanted to remove boats from their waterfront any more than remove parked cars from the street, a reasonable setback is just good seamanship. Let's face it, there are a-hole boaters who will drop a hook anywhere, just like there are a-hole landowners who are unreasonable. 75', 100', 150', I would welcome reactions to the specific, but something should be reasonable. Seriously, sleeping 75' from a hard object in a stiff wind would ruin my night anyway. This shouldn't be a big deal.

As for an unattended anchored boat? I have little sympathy. To leave a boat unattended, at anchor, near any personal property it could reasonably drag into is not acceptable. Again, very poor seamanship. That property could as easily be another boat. 60 days? I would say 3 days. Sorry, flame on, if you must. You can't abandon your car on the street either.

While I'm sure there are land owners that are being unreasonable, I suspect this is driven by examples of some real derelict year round floating turds. I don't mean unattractive, I mean derelict. Perhaps some that are not seaworthy or even mobile and the authorities have no law that allows them to deal with it. We had an abandon boat at anchor in Newport harbor for over a year before authorities could take possession and eventually sell it at auction. I could also live with a rule that said you must be capable of making way, if you are in navigable waters, with an exception for temporary repair.

In the end, everyone should be able to park their car on the street, but that doesn't mean you can live there with no wheels.

I will take the survey and side with the no restriction folks, assuming some middle ground is what will actually be reached.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> In the end, everyone should be able to park their car on the street, but that doesn't mean you can live there with no wheels


well, there's a jackwagon down my street that has turned his house into a powerboat repair shop, and is parking his crappy 'flip' boats on the street for storage. So I guess you could say, you can park your BOAT on the street...


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> In the end, everyone should be able to park their car on the street, but that doesn't mean you can live there with no wheels.


Not a good analogy. There are jurisdictions where overnight street parking is explicitly forbidden; Garden City NY comes to mind. There are many more where resident permits are required.


----------



## wfish11 (Mar 27, 2012)

I think the real problem with all of this is that it will just become another law that is enforced only for the rich and famous. If you're just a normal waterfront home owner you'll just be run through the merry go round of police agencies. If you're a judge or other important person they'll be right there, unless the owner of the boat is a judge or VIP. Letting each local agency create it's own rules is ridiculous, it infringes on our rights as tax payers who own the water and only gives the town the right to write tickets to pay for enforcement. 

If those people really want to control the water they need to purchase that right. In Fl you can lease the submerged lands, the marinas all have to do this. At least then these people would have to pay for that view.

There are already laws on the books in FL that address abandoned or derelict boats. The agencies don't enforce the laws. Why? the state doesn't give them any money to do so. The gas tax and registration fees all go to other projects. Solving that problem is a no brainer. If you abandon your boat or sell it without properly transferring the title, you are still responsible for it as the last documented owner and you will get the bill from the state for recycling it.


----------



## SENCMac26x (Sep 16, 2014)

SVAuspicious said:


> My own position is that a stand-off from marine infrastructure (docks, piers, ramps, and such) is reasonable. The number for that offset is subject to discussion.


It seems we agree, though the statute should be cleared on those types of structure and not use a catch all like "Residential Propertly"

Also thinking about this last night...just because I and a majority of other boaters leave space for nearby dock owners; sadly doesn't mean the world isn't full of A$$h0l3$ who won't.

So it probably does need to be codified into something reasonable.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

The rich and famous ain't that smart. A number of years back, the Palm Beach City council passed a no liveaboard law for their waters. Unthinkingly, it covered their yachts behind the mansions and in the marina, so when we brought the yacht home, the owners had to rent the yacht crews hotel rooms, rather than have us aboard the yachts.
I don't think that law lasted but a season or two. Dumb.


----------



## masterofnone (Nov 23, 2014)

wfish11 said:


> There are already laws on the books in FL that address abandoned or derelict boats. The agencies don't enforce the laws. Why? the state doesn't give them any money to do so. The gas tax and registration fees all go to other projects. Solving that problem is a no brainer. If you abandon your boat or sell it without properly transferring the title, you are still responsible for it as the last documented owner and you will get the bill from the state for recycling it.


I second this. An orange tag is placed on the hull that gives the owner 30 days to come into compliance. If you havent been to your boat to check on it in 30 days your negligent and your boat is derelict in my opinion. Its quite expensive if your boat is removed, I think it starts around 5k. No need to enact new laws, just enforce the ones that are already in place.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> Solving that problem is a no brainer


The problem is that they are not trying to solve that problem, (derelicts). They are just using that tactic to eliminate anchoring behind wealthy waterfront homeowners property.

I attended the pilot program workshops back in '07 or '08. I also attended the recent workshop on anchoring in Bradenton.

At these meetings hundreds of people got up and spoke and voiced their opposition to the regulations, mooring field prohibitions, time limits and set backs. The government officials and the FWC are not listening.

They are intent on eliminating anchoring in certain locations. They conveniently have derelicts and abandoned boats to use as their excuse.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> The problem is that they are not trying to solve that problem, (derelicts). They are just using that tactic to eliminate anchoring behind wealthy waterfront homeowners property.
> 
> (snip) They are intent on eliminating anchoring in certain locations. They conveniently have derelicts and abandoned boats to use as their excuse.


I always am the bad guy, but I see these discussions and I wonder why transients/boaters/pass-thru people should believe their opinions and views should trump those who have a stake/are permanent residents? Y'all are TOURISTS, ffs


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> Y'all are TOURISTS, ffs


You may have missed it.........
I own waterfront property in Florida. I also like to travel around this state in my boat.

I do not own the water behind my home. I am not allowed to restrict navigation on the water behind my home.

Why should someone else, who may have paid more for their waterfront property, be able to do so?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

SENCMac26x said:


> It seems we agree, though the statute should be cleared on those types of structure and not use a catch all like "Residential Propertly"


Agreed. Too bad the two of us can't just dictate the rules. *grin*


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> Not a good analogy. There are jurisdictions where overnight street parking is explicitly forbidden; Garden City NY comes to mind. There are many more where resident permits are required.


You responded to my literal example, but thereby acknowledged the bigger point. On land, there are restrictions over when and how long you can park your car. Seems having them in the water isn't much of a departure.

I'm sure there is a selfish rich property owner only looking out for their view. However, I'm sure there are a-hole boaters ruining this for the rest of us too. Some of these proposals aren't any more restrictive than one should self impose.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Many years ago, in the Florida Keys, particularly Stock Island at the Jetty of Boog Powell's Marina, the DEA was stacking captured, contraband boats on top of each other till they were 4 deep. Some were sailboats, but most were go fast boats used to smuggle drugs into south Florida. The confiscated boats were eventually hauled out to the gulf side of Key West near the west end of the Northwest Channel, and scuttled into a huge pile. It became an artificial reef, that in just a few years was completely covered with various forms of marine growth. I dove the site about 5 years after it was put in place and the amount of growth was such that it was difficult to determine if there was a boat on the bottom at all. The grouper, snapper, grunt and many other species thrived over that artificial reef. I wonder why Florida no longer does this - the cost was minimal at best, and from what I recall, they had lots of volunteers that helped offset the cost of cleaning up the boats prior to being scuttled.

Gary


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm guessing there are expedited seizure laws for drug running. Taking title to an abandon boat from someone who has not broken another law is probably much more time consuming and costly in the courts. Not that it has to be, I just suspect it is.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Multihullgirl said:


> well, there's a jackwagon down my street that has turned his house into a powerboat repair shop, and is parking his crappy 'flip' boats on the street for storage. So I guess you could say, you can park your BOAT on the street...


That one *should* be easy to solve. You live in a residential neighborhood and he's running a business. That's only allowed on property zoned commercial.

Contact the town building inspector and ask them to do their job.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

wfish11 said:


> If those people really want to control the water they need to purchase that right. In Fl you can lease the submerged lands, the marinas all have to do this. At least then these people would have to pay for that view.


I can see that being a nightmare for boaters. How do you know if a given bit of canal bottom is or isn't owned by the homeowner?


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> I always am the bad guy, but I see these discussions and I wonder why transients/boaters/pass-thru people should believe their opinions and views should trump those who have a stake/are permanent residents? Y'all are TOURISTS, ffs


The only people who are "tourists" in the United States, are those people who aren't citizens here.

The idea that someone from another state has less rights in a state than a person who happens to live there is bull ****.

(And, if that was true, and it could be done, most of the people in these large waterfront homes would still be waiting for Florida visas, from their homes in New York and New Jersey, and this wouldn't be a problem in the first place).


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Group9 said:


> The idea that someone from another state has less rights in a state than a person who happens to live there is bull ****.


You are deceived if you don't believe that the local and state governments do not give precedence to taxpaying local residents. As well they should. Most of the money to run things comes from them. This isn't about 'rights' and I never used that word.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Group9 said:


> The only people who are "tourists" in the United States, are those people who aren't citizens here.
> 
> .....


I don't think there's any stipulation that a tourist be from an outside country.

If we travel across country to visit/sightsee in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland I'd certainly consider myself to be a 'tourist'. Similarly a WA resident touring FL would 'qualify' as a tourist by definition.

Sorry for the nitpick.. 

As an aside, in Canada if you want exclusive rights to shore-side waters you must take out a 'water lot lease' from the government. It's helpful, but not necessary, to be the 'uplands owner', though that owner would have some say in whether or not your lease application would succeed if you weren't.

But even if you were the uplands owner AND held the water lot lease you couldn't close off the 'beach' below the High water mark.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> You are deceived if you don't believe that the local and state governments do not give precedence to taxpaying local residents. As well they should. Most of the money to run things comes from them. This isn't about 'rights' and I never used that word.


Well, you're deceived if you don't think this isn't about people trying to use money to buy rights they don't have. It's not about taxes, it's about someone making payments of money to politicians to something they want, but that they are not entitled to (because if they were entitled to it, they wouldn't have to have the law changed) That's the real world.

I understand the difference between the real world and how things should be. In the real world, some people even go so far as to kill people to get what they want, when they know they don't deserve it. That doesn't mean it's right, or a right.

In any fight, from a Presidential election to a street fight in a gutter, the person who wins in the end, is the always the person who is willing to do anything it takes to win, and who when they do lose, will come back, over and over again, until they do win.

I'm just at the point in my life where although I know how these things usually end, I'm just not ready to be okay with it yet. As I have said earlier, if it makes you feel better, I have no doubt who will win this battle in the end. It will be the same people who always win these battles.

Thank God for hurricanes where I live. They can't be bought off or the same people would be trying to pull the same **** where I live.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

I am not sure why some folks, some boaters here included, want to give up any of their freedoms. You have the right to navigate the waters of the USA. Why should the state of Florida or some municipality like Miami Beach be able to take those rights away.

I'll say it again. The FWC has an agenda and that is to eliminate anchoring in certain places. They have already succeeded in areas where they have implemented the Pilot Program.

Boaters must stand together and at least make an attempt to stop the erosion of those rights.

Here is a link to the FWC Youtube page. You may leave a comment there. Some folks already have.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> I am not sure why some folks, some boaters here included, want to give up any of their freedoms. You have the right to navigate the waters of the USA. Why should the state of Florida or some municipality like Miami Beach be able to take those rights away.


Hmmm, sounds like you might need to get out more... Why don't you come on up here to the Northeast and New England, and try asserting your right to anchor anywhere you damn well please...

)

I doubt anyone here really wants to "give up their freedoms"... All I've suggested, is that _IF_ - and granted, that's a mighty big "IF" - such a 'concession' like the 150' setback is the sort of compromise that ultimately can result in a statewide policy being implemented, that seems reasonable enough to me, and something worth discussing as a bargaining chip... After all, such a setback would make very little difference in the larger scheme of Florida anchoring, and only eliminate a comparative handful of anchoring spots, mostly entirely within the highly developed and constricted waterways of Broward County... If you think the current status quo is gonna be maintained indefinitely in Florida, without some degree of compromise being reached on both sides of this very contentious issue, well... Dream on... )



DavyJ said:


> I'll say it again. The FWC has an agenda and that is to eliminate anchoring in certain places. *They have already succeeded in areas where they have implemented the Pilot Program.*


Well, anchoring may no longer be as unrestricted or _CONVENIENT_ as it once was in those venues - but where has it been "eliminated" entirely?


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> Well, anchoring may no longer be as unrestricted or CONVENIENT as it once was in those venues - but where has it been "eliminated" entirely?


You obviously have not been cruising in the pilot program areas.......
These places may not mean anything to you, but you may no longer anchor here:
St Petersburg North Yacht basin
St Petersburg South Yacht Basin

All because the city added 13 moorings. BTW, that no one uses.

150' Set back will eliminate more than half the anchorages now in use.
And that's exactly what they want.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> You obviously have not been cruising in the pilot program areas.......
> These places may not mean anything to you, but you may no longer anchor here:
> St Petersburg North Yacht basin
> St Petersburg South Yacht Basin
> ...


You're right, St Pete is the one pilot program venue I haven't seen since it was instituted...

Last time I was there, Vinoy Basin contained a surprising number of what appeared to be derelict boats, considering the surroundings...

Gee, what a shocker, that a mooring field wound up taking their place... 












DavyJ said:


> *150' Set back will eliminate more than half the anchorages now in use.*
> And that's exactly what they want.


Seriously ??? "Half of the anchorages in use" _WHERE_, exactly? Even in Vinoy Basin as pictured above, to my eye only a few of those anchored boats might be within a 150' setback... My apologies for not being as familiar with the Gulf coast, but along the East coast between Fernandina and Key West, the number of anchorages "eliminated" by a 150' setback would be miniscule...

Surely, you're not referring to anchorages statewide, right?


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

Cape Haze. Lake Sylvia. Delray Beach - (Just north of Linton Blvd. Bridge).

I Really can't recall other places where the new regs (150' setback) would be an issue for us. At least for the anchorages we've been using, and these are pretty much shown in Skipper Bob's and Waterway Guide.

We've cruised from Texas to Georgia and back, so both coasts of Florida. As a visitor, I appreciate the opportunity to use moorings now and then. Places like Ft. Meyers Beach, Boot Key, St. Augustine, and Fernandina. It is nice to have a good dinghy dock with access to water, showers, and easy access to transportation for provisioning or to get boat parts. I'm not saying we could afford that all the time, but nice to have occasionally. Seems to me, it takes a pretty big budget to install moorings and amenities to go along with it. 

Ralph


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

So now the FMP and local leo's will be running around the anchorages with a yardstick measuring the 150'? Perfect. With all the serious crime in Fla, let's send the leo's out for a day on the water, at taxpayer expense, to hassle the oh so dangerous yachties. Yep, that's a great use of available resources. And of course they will have to raise taxes to pay for the officers and equipment necessary for keeping all these dangerous yachties in check. You gotta love Florida!


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> Last time I was there, Vinoy Basin contained a surprising number of what appeared to be derelict boats, considering the surroundings...
> 
> Gee, what a shocker, that a mooring field wound up taking their place


Thank you for your comments. They demonstrate exactly what local officials _want_ you to think.

Because a derelict boat _might_ anchor here, because an abandoned boat _might_ anchor there, because someone _might_ anchor too close to something. Let us eliminate all anchoring in this area. It's for your safety after all......

As they say, you've taken the bait, hook, line and sinker....


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

If derelict boats are the problem, then remove derelict boats.

See how simple that is.

But, it's not about that. And, pissing down our backs, and telling us it's raining, doesn't always work.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Seriously ??? "Half of the anchorages in use" _WHERE_, exactly?


Lots of places on the Southeast coast. Mike Ahart at the Waterway Guide has been keeping track and has some great graphics.

It is a problem, and could get worse.



capta said:


> So now the FMP and local leo's will be running around the anchorages with a yardstick measuring the 150'?


I don't know what FMP and the local's will use, but I carry a tennis ball, some pool chalk, and a bunch of light line (some tiny kevlar stuff I also use for hauling HF antennas up). I have this stuff from when I lived aboard in a slip with 75' stand-offs. If I could leave a blue mark on the hull of a boat they were too close. *grin* Tennis ball and a string works pretty well.

I know I can throw 75'. I'm not sure I can through 300'. I may need to add a potato gun. *grin*


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I would love to see the emotional argument, that navigable waters are free for all to use, cited in a legal reference. 

As I understand it, the federal govt owns the water out to 12 miles. They gave all the State's the right to regulate their water out to 3 miles (which is why no-discharge areas are set there, not science). Some States then delegate that authority to local municipalities.

Restrictions already exist (ie NDZ laws). The argument should be for appropriate compromise.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I would love to see the emotional argument, that navigable waters are free for all to use, cited in a legal reference.
> 
> As I understand it, the federal govt owns the water out to 12 miles. They gave all the State's the right to regulate their water out to 3 miles (which is why no-discharge areas are set there, not science). Some States then delegate that authority to local municipalities.
> 
> Restrictions already exist (ie NDZ laws). The argument should be for appropriate compromise.


Not exactly. There is no doubt that navigable waters can be regulated. The issue is what are navigable waters and by whom may they be regulated.

This is the basic hornbook law on the subject: (with the cites you are looking for).



> Navigable Waters
> 
> Waters that provide a channel for commerce and transportation of people and goods.
> 
> ...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> Thank you for your comments. They demonstrate exactly what local officials _want_ you to think.
> 
> Because a derelict boat _might_ anchor here, because an abandoned boat _might_ anchor there, because someone _might_ anchor too close to something. Let us eliminate all anchoring in this area. It's for your safety after all......
> 
> As they say, you've taken the bait, hook, line and sinker....


No, not at all... I'm simply accepting the reality of the situation, and how things are done in Florida... Certainly, the derelict boat issue is often being used as the 'excuse' here, as a means to restrict anchoring. It serves no one's argument to try to deny that...

Another related issue in Florida is the proliferation of NO WAKE ZONES along the ICW... Not an issue for most of us here, but as one who often winds up running large, fast boats thru certain stretches of the Ditch, it is for me... Gets more annoying with each passing year, how much more my "freedom" to run as fast as I can past waterfront homes is being lost... )

Here's how it works... As soon as a previously undeveloped stretch of the ICW becomes developed, it becomes designated as a MANATEE ZONE... Apparently, manatees are strongly attracted to expensive real estate, and their migration patterns are influenced by new waterfront McMansion construction  But, that's how such stretches become designated as NO WAKE ZONES, with all the ridiculous, convoluted speed restrictions that apply to Manatee Zones (30 MPH in Channel, 25 MPH at Night, for example)... Manatees are being used as the rationale for speed limits, just as derelicts are are re anchoring... Of course, they're not the REAL reason, we all know that...

Simply pointing out how this happens, doesn't mean I've fallen for it "hook, line & sinker"


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Minnewaska said:


> I would love to see the emotional argument, that navigable waters are free for all to use, cited in a legal reference.


Some cool stuff above. There is also the Public Trust Doctrine but my understanding is that the courts support has been iffy.



Minnewaska said:


> As I understand it, the federal govt owns the water out to 12 miles. They gave all the State's the right to regulate their water out to 3 miles (which is why no-discharge areas are set there, not science). Some States then delegate that authority to local municipalities.


Nope. NDZ designation is a Federal matter.

On the other hand, where State and Federal authorities overlap my understanding is that the courts tend to rule with the State unless there is a clearly overriding Federal issue.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> Some cool stuff above. There is also the Public Trust Doctrine but my understanding is that the courts support has been iffy.
> 
> Nope. NDZ designation is a Federal matter.
> 
> On the other hand, where State and Federal authorities overlap my understanding is that the courts tend to rule with the State unless there is a clearly overriding Federal issue.


Exactly. It's interesting that a lot of the waterfront land owners in favor of anchoring restrictions seem to be operating under the notion that it is the state or county that is regulating their building of piers on their property. It's not. That is regulated under the authority of the U.S. Corp of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, Section 9 of this Act, Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403; Chapter 425, March 3, 1899; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which prohibits the construction of any bridge, dam, dike or causeway over or in navigable waterways of the U.S. without Congressional approval.

Administration of section 9 has been delegated to the Coast Guard. Structures authorized by State legislatures may be built if the affected navigable waters are totally within one State, provided that the plan is approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of Army (33 U.S.C. 401).

You see this kind of thing happen all the time without thinking about what is going on. When the State of Mississippi decided to build a non-opening bridge over Biloxi Bay, to replace the opening bridge destroyed by hurricane Katrina, they just arbitrarily decided they would make it 85 feet high.

Trinity Marine, which builds boats taller than than on the up side of that bridge, filed a protest with the Coast Guard, who enjoined the State from building the bridge at that height. In the end, it was redesigned and built with a clearance of 95 feet as authorized by the Coast Guard, but during the entire debate, the State of Mississippi was basically making the same arguments that the landowners are making in Florida; namely, that it was a state issue because the state had decided it was state issue.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

SVAuspicious said:


> Lots of places on the Southeast coast. Mike Ahart at the Waterway Guide has been keeping track and has some great graphics.
> 
> It is a problem, and could get worse.


Again, just to be clear, I'm not _IN FAVOR_ of a mandated 150' standoff... I'm simply arguing that if it comes to that eventually, I just don't see it being all that onerous a restriction throughout Florida - at least in the waters of the East coast with which I'm most familiar...

In trying to recall all the times I might have anchored within 150' of private property in FL over the years, I can only come up with 3...

Once in Lake Sylvia, when a strong W wind preceeding a frontal passage probably swung me within that distance of the docks on the E shore...

Another time in Miami Beach, where I usually anchor much farther out in the general vicinity of Monument Island... Again, with the passage of a very strong front, I tucked up into the corner afforded by the lee of the Venetian Causeway, and the first island to the west for a day or so...

Third, I sometimes anchor just inside Ft Pierce Inlet... There's a small little patch that lies outside of the strongest current just to the NE of the Pelican Yacht Club, close to the dock of a nice little pub/restaurant with an open wifi  Not the most comfortable spot to be, and requires an anchor watch with each swing of the tide, but probably within about 150' of the shore... OK, I've anchored there a few times, so that ups my total number to more than 3...  But if I simply went further to the west, a couple of hundred yards past the CG station, there's all kinds of room outside of the channel there, well away from shore... No wifi signal that I can pick up, however 

The tightest spot I've anchored in recently, was last summer when I went up into the head of Lake Tashmoo on the Vineyard to ride out Hurricane Arthur. I was probably just about 150' from either shore there, but it sure felt a lot closer that night 

Passing back thru there in September, I once again went into Tashmoo at the end of my passage back from Nova Scotia... I was pretty tired and was looking forward to a nice quiet night, so once again I headed for that spot...

When I got back in there, however, it just seemed too close to the beautiful home I'd anchored in front of during the storm... The conditions were benign, there was no need for me to be seeking that level of protection, and I simply felt I was an intruder in that situation, seemed like I was anchoring right in that guy's front yard... So, I moved back out to the middle of the lake, outside of the mooring field, and everything was fine...

I don't know, 150' is really not all that far... Twice the width of my lagoon, to be precise...

)


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

I'm not saying that anchoring restrictions are never warranted or a good idea.

I'm saying that it ought to be the marine professionals, the Coast Guard, not the "for sale to the highest bidder" local politicians, making those decisions. If for nothing else, for some uniformity and certainty (although I can certainly understand why those wanting and able to buy those politicians would want them to be the deciding authority).

Again, bridge heights are a good example. A lot of these communities could rid themselves of anchored vessels spoiling their view by just building really low bridges, or stringing steel cables across waterways like fences. Ask yourself, why aren't they allowed to do that?

There are practical as well as legal reasons.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Again, just to be clear, I'm not _IN FAVOR_ of a mandated 150' standoff... I'm simply arguing that if it comes to that eventually, I just don't see it being all that onerous a restriction throughout Florida - at least in the waters of the East coast with which I'm most familiar...


Understood Jon. My point was that in a lot of places 300' says no anchoring and 150' says a lot less anchoring. A lot depends on what we are measuring _from_: marine infrastructure or just any private property?


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> I'm saying that it ought to be the marine professionals, the Coast Guard, not the "for sale to the highest bidder" local politicians, making those decisions. If for nothing else, for some uniformity and certainty


And this brings us back to right where we need to start from.

Currently, no local government can regulate anchoring, except those that are participating in the Pilot Program.

The FWC Is conducting "workshops" and online questionnaires that would give local government the right to regulate, *based on the responses to the survey*.

Please be careful how you respond to the "concepts". They are worded, so that they are stacked against anchoring.

Again, while we debate the minutia, the FWC has an agenda to restrict anchoring in areas where "someone" doesn't want you.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> And this brings us back to right where we need to start from.
> 
> Currently, no local government can regulate anchoring, except those that are participating in the Pilot Program.
> 
> ...


If the people wanting these anchorage restrictions could get them by following existing federal laws and protocols, they would have done it already. They know they can't so they are trying the FWC/state route.

It is a constitutional authority issue (commerce clause), but the people trying to pull this off have lots of money to spend. Losing the Marco Island case didn't slow them down, and neither will anything else.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Bill Bishop, a Florida resident, has also weighed in on this topic in his blog; The Marine Installer's Rant: Anchoring? No aweigh

FWIW - I believe that the waterways are a public resource, and authority to limit anchorages currently lies with the state. Under no circumstances should this authority be transferred to the local community, or homeowner. A reasonable setback from an existing marine structure is 75 feet, and homeowners/builders should require state _*and*_ local approval to build any such structures.

Full disclosure; my wife owns Florida property.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Localities are progressively filling old, free anchorage areas with mooring balls. Some of these work out tremendously well and allow safe anchorages and MUCH more available numbers of boats to anchor due to the short scope required vs an anchor. BUT there are places where the municipal moorings are underused and poorly maintained. These spots do no one any good and lessen the safety factor by forcing people to anchor in less safe spots or on the questionable mooring. 
I don't think there is a good argument against a well maintained mooring field even if there is a reasonable cost to the boats using those moorings but it takes a lot of planning and money for a municipality to do this in an ongoing operation. Governments are usually not all that good at operating things over the long term.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Ironically, there are a few places along the ICW where some municipalities offer a free mooring ball to transients after 5 p.m.. I thought that was a nice touch.

Gary


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> Bill Bishop, a Florida resident, has also weighed in on this topic in his blog; The Marine Installer's Rant: Anchoring? No aweigh
> 
> FWIW - I believe that the waterways are a public resource, and authority to limit anchorages currently lies with the state. Under no circumstances should this authority be transferred to the local community, or homeowner. A reasonable setback from an existing marine structure is 75 feet, and homeowners/builders should require state _*and*_ local approval to build any such structures.
> 
> Full disclosure; my wife owns Florida property.


One problem, is people like Bishop, writing articles about laws, that he clearly doesn't understand very well. He has somehow combined underwater lands with navigable waters into a hodge podge of what I like to refer to as "internet search law" that is not really that accurate in either context (and, like many amateur lawyers, he has failed to provide cites or references as to his source for his interpretation of "the law").

And, he seems to genuinely believe there is no federal interest here. It makes me wonder if really thinks the State of Florida is the governmental body maintaining and dredging, and servicing the buoyage, of the navigable waters of Florida.

About as useful as your typical letter to the editor on any subject.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

It is a blog post, not a brief to the court, so don't get too excited. Bill is simply stating his observations, forecasting what he believes will happen, and venting.

You may agree, or disagree with his view, but he always writes well, and gives you something to think about.

I think he is spot on.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

eherlihy said:


> It is a blog post, not a brief to the court, so don't get too excited. Bill is simply stating his observations, forecasting what he believes will happen, and venting.
> 
> You may agree, or disagree with his view, but he always writes well, and gives you something to think about.
> 
> I think he is spot on.


I agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of what he says. But if someone like Bill, who seems to have a genuine interest in the issue, is nevertheless very content to form opinions, and write about them, from a very incomplete, as well as erroneous, knowledge base, what does that say about the odds of getting people, including legislators and Congressmen, who are less interested in the issue other than what campaign contribution is attached to what position, to make any kind of effort to educate themselves on the issue before making decisions on this issue?


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

I did this survey a few weeks back. It does not matter what the survey says, they will do what they want.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

UnionPacific said:


> I did this survey a few weeks back. It does not matter what the survey says, they will do what they want.


That's only true if both political parties want the same thing. Otherwise, one would use negative feedback to hammer the other for ignoring it.

It's a reason I oppose political parties. We should have hundreds of endorsements, but no parties. There should be hundreds of differing opinions.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> That's only true if both political parties want the same thing. Otherwise, one would use negative feedback to hammer the other for ignoring it.
> 
> It's a reason I oppose political parties. We should have hundreds of endorsements, but no parties. There should be hundreds of differing opinions.


I have never liked the two party system myself. I also like direct democracy. I would love to enact a balanced budget law. The lawmakers would never do that, but we would I believe.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> That's only true if both political parties want the same thing. Otherwise, one would use negative feedback to hammer the other for ignoring it.
> 
> It's a reason I oppose political parties. We should have hundreds of endorsements, but no parties. There should be hundreds of differing opinions.


One of the things George Washington warned us against in his fare well address, were political parties. Even then, smart people knew what was coming.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

Sorry if I missed it, but when is this whole anchoring thing supposed to be resolved? I'm heading back through Florida again next spring or fall (from Texas). Hopefully I will actually understand what is legal and not legal when I drop the hook there.

Ralph


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

RTB said:


> Sorry if I missed it, but when is this whole anchoring thing supposed to be resolved? I'm heading back through Florida again next spring or fall (from Texas). Hopefully I will actually understand what is legal and not legal when I drop the hook there.


It will be a long time before anything is resolved. Data analysis will take a while. There will likely be draft legislation hammered out with "help" from a lot of stakeholders including SSCA, Boat/US, NMMA, various Chambers of Commerce, municipal government representatives, and legal counsel for homeowners, individually and in small groups. Legislation will go to the Florida House and Senate where the lobbying will start all over again. It's possible things will end up in court.

It's going to be messy and drawn out.


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

The derelict vessel issue is the key to the entire issue. I don't think too many people mind seeing a cruising sailor stop for the night or a couple of days as they travel. The rub occurs when some decide to stop indefinitely. The bigger rub occurs when the boat is left to rot. 

The sixty day rule should not stop and restart...you should have 60 days then its time to move on and the move should be at least 25 miles. 

Derelict vessels no problem. If it cannot be moved for 90 days, it derelict. 

Pisses me off when I travel and cannot find a spot to get some rest for the night. The days of responsible ownership are gone.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Hush34 said:


> The days of responsible ownership are gone.


Yes, because instead of people having old boat shredded, they give them away.
And no, If I want to stay in a town for 6 or 10 months, This should be my right, I should not have to move 25 miles because you say I must.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Making it against the law for normal, taxpaying, boaters to anchor, under the guise of getting rid of the homeless living on boats, is akin to the notion that they way to prevent the homeless from sleeping in their cars, is to ban all parking.

Derelict boats are ugly, and a problem, I admit. And, that's why they are the perfect smokescreen for wealthy and politically influential landowners and real estate brokers to use to fix the real problem: boaters having the nerve to park and disturb their view of the world out of their window.

I have no problem with:
1. Ticketing derelict boats that don't meet existing safety regulations.
2. Seizing them and towing them (just like a car under those circumstances) when they do not fix the safety issues.

What makes these anchoring restriction people think that:
a) the homeless are going to honor these new anchoring laws, or 
b) that the authorities who won't use existing laws to deal with the problem now, will enforce the new laws?

The only people that will follow these laws, will be the law abiding citizens who are maintaining their boats now. A homeless person doesn't fear getting arrested. It happens to them a lot. They will immediately re-engage in the exact same behavior that got them arrested, including anchoring their old POS boat, where ever they fell like it. Without a seizure and forfeiture component to these regulations, which none of them have that I have seen, nothing will change in regard to derelict boats (I agree, it annoys me to be cruising and come up on a good place to anchor, and have it filled with boats that look like they haven't had anyone on them for five years, but let's deal with that problem instead of the problem that only exists in the minds of waterfront owners and developers).

Of course, none of that really matters. Because, if these regulations are passed, the condo commandos will have achieved what they set out to do, to get cruisers engaged in lawful transit, out of their sight, because we will follow the laws.

The funny thing is, these people trying to get these laws passed (For the environment, of course) are the same ones I saw cut down protected mangroves in Florida, time and time again, and then just ask the responding DEQ man, who they needed to write the check for the fine to.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

UnionPacific said:


> Yes, because instead of people having old boat shredded, they give them away.
> And no, If I want to stay in a town for 6 or 10 months, This should be my right, I should not have to move 25 miles because you say I must.


We can have an adult debate over whether it should be your right, but it isn't today. You can not move permanently into a public parking space or a pitch a tent in a public park or just pull over and stay on the side of the road. I don't see why an inland waterway is so different.

I'm not taking the side of the landlubber, I'm just suggesting there is a reasonable compromise to be had.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I don't see why an inland waterway is so different.


 Two hundred plus years of admiralty law. That's what's different.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> It will be a long time before anything is resolved. Data analysis will take a while. There will likely be draft legislation hammered out with "help" from a lot of stakeholders including SSCA, Boat/US, NMMA, various Chambers of Commerce, municipal government representatives, and legal counsel for homeowners, individually and in small groups. Legislation will go to the Florida House and Senate where the lobbying will start all over again. It's possible things will end up in court.
> 
> It's going to be messy and drawn out.


Thanks for that info. We're leaving Galveston in the spring, and heading to the Chesapeake, so guess we'll just use all of our usual anchorages. We really enjoyed so many anchorages in Florida in the past 2 years. I sure hope that doesn't change. You guys in Florida...keep us up to date if there are any changes.

Thanks,
Ralph


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

RTB said:


> Thanks for that info. We're leaving Galveston in the spring, and heading to the Chesapeake, so guess we'll just use all of our usual anchorages. We really enjoyed so many anchorages in Florida in the past 2 years. I sure hope that doesn't change. You guys in Florida...keep us up to date if there are any changes.


Please consider joining SSCA and Boat/US. Your dues, not so much money, go to support your rights in the US (both organizations) and elsewhere (SSCA). There are a lot of membership benefits of both organizations above and beyond representation.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Group9 said:


> Two hundred plus years of admiralty law. That's what's different.


'Admiralty Law' keeps being bandied around, but you might be surprised at what you find if you actually learn the law...

FTA: "The right to navigate, moor or anchor a vessel has never been recognized as a "fundamental right."

http://www.cityofmarcoisland.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7465


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> Please consider joining SSCA and Boat/US. Your dues, not so much money, go to support your rights in the US (both organizations) and elsewhere (SSCA). There are a lot of membership benefits of both organizations above and beyond representation.


I'm a Boat US member, but never joined SSCA. We just missed a GAM in Melbourne last year. Probably would be worthwhile joining up. Thanks again.

Ralph


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Multihullgirl said:


> 'Admiralty Law' keeps being bandied around, but you might be surprised at what you find if you actually learn the law...
> 
> FTA: "The right to navigate, moor or anchor a vessel has never been recognized as a "fundamental right."
> 
> http://www.cityofmarcoisland.com/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=7465


I don't want to hurt your feelings, but did you actually read that whole treatise?

And, I'm guessing you didn't catch who paid for that to be written (hint: go to page 48). This is a legal brief is support of the position of the people who are in favor of the state being allowed to regulate anchorages. Like any brief in favor of one particular position, it only gives one side of the argument (the adversary system demonstrated). If you notice, the article starts out citing the Law of the Sea Treaty as evidence of it's position, before finally ending with a footnote that explains why that doesn't matter at (The US isn't a signatory to it). It doesn't get much better as it continues on.

It's amazing what you can learn when you study the law, at a law school. 
J.D. University of Mississippi, Bar number 2510. 

You still want to try and sell us on the idea that no one has an agenda here?

And, I don't understand why you keep complaining just because some of us know better and won't get in line. Your side is going to win, eventually. Have no doubt. They only have to win once, and they can reset the scoreboard to zero as many times as they can write the check to do it.

They are better financed and the side that can throw the most money at politicians will be the one to win this battle in the end. A life time of experience in the law has also taught me that, too. Why do you think this battle is being fought in the legislatures instead of in the courts? (That's what we call a hint, when trying to figure out which way the case law goes.)

So again, don't be such a sore loser, because your side will undoubtedly win in the end, but not because they are right, but because the law is frequently for sale. You will have to settle for that.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

I read the entire thing, but I don't think you did. Again, FTA:
"This publication was supported by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under NOAA Grant No. NA06 OAR-4170014. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations."

And I'd certainly appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. I have never expressed a 'side,' as you phrase it, nor have I put forward any assertions regarding 'agendas,' nor have I made any 'complaints.' What exactly is it that I'm 'losing?'

I believe you are confusing me with someone else you've been arguing with.

Here is what I do believe: 
--admiralty law is not a cover for recreational craft, and from what I've read, that is quite apparent
--people who live full-time, own land, permanent residents, are going to trump cruisers.
--I am never convinced that there is any difference between random anchoring and random RV parking, and if you want to reference admiralty law, I refer you to the assertion above

I don't care either way, honestly. I figure people who live somewhere have a right to dictate what happens where they live, land or sea. It's funny, though - I gather that as one goes north, there are more and more restrictions on anchoring not unlike what is now contemplated in Florida, but there is only complaint about Florida for some reason.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> I gather that as one goes north, there are more and more restrictions on anchoring not unlike what is now contemplated in Florida, but there is only complaint about Florida for some reason.


Folks up north like giving up their freedoms and rights...... But that's a different thread.....

I'm not sure why some people have a difficult time separating parking an RV or some other vehicle on *State Owned* or private property. And the difference of the navigable waters of the *United States*. They are two different things.

I'll say it again. I own waterfront property, I am not allowed to dictate what happens in the water behind my property. I am not allowed to stop boating activities behind my property. Why should someone else be allowed to do so.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> I'm not sure why some people have a difficult time separating parking an RV or some other vehicle on *State Owned* or private property. And the difference of the navigable waters of the *United States*. They are two different things.


The navigable waters of the US are "owned" just as Federal lands are, and certainly there are lots of rules about random parking on Federal lands - go to any National Park and see how randomly you can park your RV.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> The navigable waters of the US are "owned" just as Federal lands are


Let me know when the federal government starts restricting anchoring.........

Miami Beach does not represent the United States of America.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> Please consider joining SSCA and Boat/US. Your dues, not so much money, go to support your rights in the US (both organizations) and elsewhere (SSCA). There are a lot of membership benefits of both organizations above and beyond representation.


I've been a Boat US member for a number of years, mainly for the tow service (which, thankfully, have never used). One excellent aspect of this membership is being able to call ahead to a local tow station and get real-time information on any trouble spots from the operators who would much rather tell you where to be careful than go and tow you off a sandbar. The information you can get from sailing websites is often YEARS out of date as far as shoaled spots, missing markers, underwater obstructions, etc. are concerned. Local info. is always the best and can be had by a phone call to Boat US.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Group9 said:


> Two hundred plus years of admiralty law. That's what's different.


We used to stone witches and had the right to own slaves. Laws are not permanent immovable objects. Again, I'm not sympathetic to the land owners, but the stubbornness of cruisers is going to cause them to lose this battle, if not careful. Take a rational, non-waterfront owner, non-cruiser and ask them for a rational answer. It will be compromise and the analogous examples I gave will be persuasive.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> .......I'm not sure why some people have a difficult time separating parking an RV or some other vehicle on *State Owned* or private property. And the difference of the navigable waters of the *United States*. They are two different things.......


You are suggesting the technical jurisdiction over the space, negates the precedent for restricting use of public property? I don't think so.

In fact, there are many cases where the Federal Government has transferred its rights to the States.

It's a pretty good legal technicality that would jam up a legal claim for months or years. That doesn't make it right, nor final.

There needs to be a rational compromise here. One that, by definition, won't make every land owner, nor cruiser, happy.


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

"It's my right!" You hear that all the time. What those with rights often forget is that others have rights too and that when you impinge upon their rights you are wrong. The problem with this debate is that it has two parties that for just one minute cannot consider the other's point of view. 

I want the right to sail and anchor as I please but I don't want my right to interfere with others who share the waterway with me. Guess I am just messed up that way. So no, I don't like it when a waterway squatter anchors his vessel and claim's sovereignty against all who pass or live on the waterway. 

Point blank, be responsible and considerate.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> The problem with this debate is that it has two parties that for just one minute cannot consider the other's point of view.


So what you are saying is that if I purchase property next to the interstate I should have the right to dictate the speed limit............?

Currently you have the freedom to anchor where you feel it is safe and secure. Why do you want to give that freedom up?

And have some city council member, who probably doesn't even own a boat tell you where you can and can't be safe........



> There needs to be a rational compromise here.


The compromise is this:
The State of Florida will regulate anchoring...... On a statewide basis.......

Of course this is not what local yahoos want.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> So what you are saying is that if I purchase property next to the interstate I should have the right to dictate the speed limit............?.......


Another good example of my warning to compromise here. That interestate was put in, by taking peoples land via eminent domain. All these thing have and can be done. Compromise folks.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Compromise doesn't need to have negative connotations. There are merits on all sides of this discussion. 
1.People do not want sunken, abandoned boats, late night noise, and oil slicks in front of their homes. You can't blame them. It IS their neighborhood. 
2. Transient boaters need anchorage space which is sometimes in short supply.
3. Managed mooring fields work. They consolidate anchorage acreage and provide safety.
4. Municipalities and government CAN work here as they do in providing roadways and other public services. Nobody likes government involvement but sometimes it's the best and only alternative. This seems like one of the things government probably should do.
5. Waterways are a means of public and military transit and must be kept open to all. That's why we fund the Corps of Engineers. Along with this concept goes places to anchor up. It seems to me there should be MORE, not less anchorage space set aside on the ICW.


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> So what you are saying is that if I purchase property next to the interstate I should have the right to dictate the speed limit............?


Each state dictates the speed limit of the interstate within it. I have observed that firsthand.

Those of you who stomp and snort about your loss of "freedoms" are now learning the lessons that Europe has learned probably hundreds of years ago. As people become more numerous, so must the legislation. Humans are as$holes by nature, and decency and morality are not universal, so we must have laws. Quit breeding if you want "freedom."


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

I have been to Marathon three times in the last few months. I have seen this boat first hand. Here is proof that the FWC has the tools needed to deal with derelict boats, they are just using them as an excuse to restrict anchoring.

_Man jailed for derelict vessel in Marathon

Date Reported: Oct 16, 2014

AIWW Mile: 1193.0

Reported by: Mike Ahart, News Editor

With recent issues like the sinking of the tug Tilly, the Keys have pretty much had it with derelict boats...and that's a good thing. The latest episode landed a boat owner in jail, albeit briefly, according to a KeysNews.com article:

The Galaxy got stuck.

A 69-year-old Marathon man was jailed this week after state officers said he failed to remove a wrecked boat from the channel to the Boot Key towers, where the vessel Galaxy remained Friday.

Cody Middleswart is accused of leaving a junked vessel in the waters of Florida since July 29, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission said Friday.

Since July, FWC officers have posted a "derelict" notice on the boat, sent a certified letter to the owner and kept tabs on the vessel..._


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

An extreme example does not prove the point.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

smurphny said:


> The information you can get from sailing websites is often YEARS out of date as far as shoaled spots, missing markers, underwater obstructions, etc. are concerned.


You have never visited active captain have you?


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> An extreme example does not prove the point.


Maybe you missed this part..........


> Since July, FWC officers have posted a "derelict" notice on the boat


If they can arrest and jail a boat owner for leaving a boat in the same place for just under ninety days, I think they should be able to clean up some of the boats that have been kept in the same places for years.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

smurphny said:


> Compromise doesn't need to have negative connotations. There are merits on all sides of this discussion.


Agreed.



smurphny said:


> 1.People do not want sunken, abandoned boats, late night noise, and oil slicks in front of their homes. You can't blame them. It IS their neighborhood.


Agreed.



smurphny said:


> 2. Transient boaters need anchorage space which is sometimes in short supply.


Agreed.



smurphny said:


> 3. Managed mooring fields work. They consolidate anchorage acreage and provide safety.


Less clear. A solid anchor for the mooring isn't guaranteed. Depends on where you are. Prices don't always align with value received.



smurphny said:


> 4. Municipalities and government CAN work here as they do in providing roadways and other public services. Nobody likes government involvement but sometimes it's the best and only alternative. This seems like one of the things government probably should do.


Mostly agree, with the caveat that we have to figure out _which_ government - local, state, or federal?



smurphny said:


> 5. Waterways are a means of public and military transit and must be kept open to all. That's why we fund the Corps of Engineers. Along with this concept goes places to anchor up. It seems to me there should be MORE, not less anchorage space set aside on the ICW.


Which gets back to the jurisdictional issue. My understanding is that with respect to freedom of navigation, federal courts have deferred to states rights unless there is a clear federal interest (clear to the courts, not necessarily to recreational users).



DavyJ said:


> I have been to Marathon three times in the last few months. I have seen this boat first hand. Here is proof that the FWC has the tools needed to deal with derelict boats, they are just using them as an excuse to restrict anchoring.


I don't see the proof. An underlying issue is that FWC doesn't have the funding or the political support to impound and dispose of derelict boats. It is easier for politicians to pass new, unfunded law than to budget sufficient resources for existing law.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> An underlying issue is that FWC doesn't have the funding or the political support to impound and dispose of derelict boats.


It's strange then, that at every single workshop, for the pilot program, and this survey, that they say the reasons anchoring restrictions, time limits and set-backs are needed is because of the derelicts. When in truth they just need to slap a "Derelict Notice" on the boat to arrest the owner.


----------



## masterofnone (Nov 23, 2014)

Wouldnt it be nice to see the government doing something proactive and for the people like dropping courtesy moorings in some designated areas for passing boats. Put a time limit on them to prevent them from becoming "home" to the derelict boats. Make a small access point on shore for dinghies. It would save a lot of bottom scouring from dragging ground tackle, would congregate boats in desired areas and be a benefit to the community as when cruisers stop, they invariably go ashore and spend money. 

Even the designated anchorages are sweet. If im going to an area and spot one I definately prefer to anchor there. The one near the megadock in charleston and the one in beaufort sc come to mind. 

Why make more laws and rules when there are so many now nobody can keep track of them.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

UnionPacific said:


> You have never visited active captain have you?


I'm a member of Active Captain. They keep more up to date than written publications but still depend on normal delays of crowd sourcing to include/remove items from the interactive maps. It takes a while, at least a few days, for information to be confirmed as correct or not. I have noticed that along the ICW, people will report shoals that are NOT there. They simply went out of the center of channel which is not hard to do. I've seen logs and debris listed that have long since floated away.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> Less clear. A solid anchor for the mooring isn't guaranteed. Depends on where you are. Prices don't always align with value received.


Definitely depends on maintenance. There are municipal free moorings I would not hook to and will anchor instead. There are also paid marina moorings that are shaky so I guess it's a judgement call no matter where you are. I've seen some moorings I wouldn't leave my dink on.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

DavyJ said:


> It's strange then, that at every single workshop, for the pilot program, and this survey, that they say the reasons anchoring restrictions, time limits and set-backs are needed is because of the derelicts. When in truth they just need to slap a "Derelict Notice" on the boat to arrest the owner.


Read my entire post. Sticking a notice on the boat requires a bunch of time (time not on patrol) and impoundment and disposal costs money the FWC doesn't have. Again, it is less painful _to the politicians_ for the _politicians_ to pass more laws than to budget funds.



smurphny said:


> I'm a member of Active Captain. They keep more up to date than written publications but still depend on normal delays of crowd sourcing to include/remove items from the interactive maps. It takes a while, at least a few days, for information to be confirmed as correct or not. I have noticed that along the ICW, people will report shoals that are NOT there. They simply went out of the center of channel which is not hard to do. I've seen logs and debris listed that have long since floated away.


My experience with ActiveCaptain (AC) has been pretty good. You have to be a good consumer of information. AC even posts the reviews in reverse chronological order. If you see a review that doesn't match others you can check out the reviewer to see if there is a professional with better judgment or someone just babbling. You are responsible for your boat. AC is a tremendous resource if you use it well.



smurphny said:


> Definitely depends on maintenance. There are municipal free moorings I would not hook to and will anchor instead. There are also paid marina moorings that are shaky so I guess it's a judgement call no matter where you are. I've seen some moorings I wouldn't leave my dink on.


I agree with you about maintenance, but not what I was thinking about. There is a huge difference between a mooring shackled to a lump of concrete and one that uses a screw or rock anchor (cemented into a hole drilled or blasted into rock, not a Rocna).


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

masterofnone said:


> Wouldnt it be nice to see the government doing something proactive and for the people like dropping courtesy moorings in some designated areas for passing boats. Put a time limit on them to prevent them from becoming "home" to the derelict boats. Make a small access point on shore for dinghies. It would save a lot of bottom scouring from dragging ground tackle, would congregate boats in desired areas and be a benefit to the community as when cruisers stop, they invariably go ashore and spend money.
> 
> Even the designated anchorages are sweet. If im going to an area and spot one I definately prefer to anchor there. The one near the megadock in charleston and the one in beaufort sc come to mind.


So, the taxpayers of Charleston - in addition to footing the bill for the removal of derelicts from those "Special Anchorages" you prefer - should also be paying to install and maintain Courtesy Moorings, as well?

Just because it would be the "Nice" thing to do?

Good luck selling that one to the voters... 



> Womack said the stretch of the Ashley River from Brittlebank Park to the Wappoo Cut is where most boats are abandoned locally. There are two areas within that stretch known as special federal anchorages. Boats are allowed to moor and anchor in those areas at no cost and with few rules. And they aren't required to be attended to regularly, he said.
> 
> Abandoned boats aren't limited to the anchorages, he said, but the special areas could be a contributing factor to the large number of derelict boats on the Ashley.
> 
> Derelict boats a matter of cash - Post and Courier


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

First of all the highway analogy is weak at best. FYI, there is a governmental process where citizens can be heard regarding the regulation of speed on all roadways. 

Seems we always fall back to chicken and egg arguments. I would have to believe that the rights of the property owners were established well before Joe **** the Rag man Sailor of fine Derelict Yachts drops anchor and squats behind someone's newly constructed, multi-million dollar investment that he or she pays very high property taxes. 

The issue is length of stay. When do you wear out your welcome? As a regularly cruising sailor who is responsible, I don't tend to stay at anchor in any one place for more than a couple of days. If I did, I would be "Anchoring", not "Cruising." I don't think anyone is looking to make a sailor move his vessel into harms way. I do think they are trying to keep derelict vessels from littering, more than they already do, the Florida landscape. 

Wonder how you would feel if someone set their pop up camper in the street in front of your home and decided to call it HOME? 

Responsibility matters. Get the derelict issue under control....no one cares about cruising boats stopping for a reasonable time before they move on.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

SVAuspicious said:


> Read my entire post. Sticking a notice on the boat requires a bunch of time (time not on patrol) and impoundment and disposal costs money the FWC doesn't have. Again, it is less painful _to the politicians_ for the _politicians_ to pass more laws than to budget funds.
> 
> My experience with ActiveCaptain (AC) has been pretty good. You have to be a good consumer of information. AC even posts the reviews in reverse chronological order. If you see a review that doesn't match others you can check out the reviewer to see if there is a professional with better judgment or someone just babbling. You are responsible for your boat. AC is a tremendous resource if you use it well.
> 
> ...


 Having owned/maintained my own moorings for years, I know how rapidly swivels and shackles can corrode. Regular maintenance must be very costly for large mooring fields. The stress on mooring parts can be tremendous in a big blow and many of the parts I've seen below mooring balls are often smaller than they should be to begin with. They also sometimes look like no one has peeked at them for some time. I would like to see the actual mechanics and installation of the screw moorings used in the Florida mooring fields. Having stayed on them for lots of nights, they seem to be rock solid and if anything, oversized. The only thing I don't like about them is the tendency to twist the bow lines. In the Stuart field I have seen only one case of one having to be reset. The fact that they are so reliable is amazing considering the short scope used.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> First of all the highway analogy is weak at best. FYI, there is a governmental process where citizens can be heard regarding the regulation of speed on all roadways.


It was intentionally stated to sound silly.........

As silly as buying waterfront property and then trying to stop boaters from boating there.

Just about as silly as this:



> Wonder how you would feel if someone set their pop up camper in the street in front of your home and decided to call it HOME?





> no one cares about cruising boats stopping for a reasonable time before they move on.


You are completely wrong about this. Some property owners don't want anyone to anchor, for any amount of time, behind their house. One guy in Miami Beach went as far as to anchor about 25 small boats behind his house so no one else could anchor there.

Google maps screen shot of said property owner:









This guy thinks he can control the entire waterway behind his house. This is how far these people are willing to go.


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

Guess you believe every thing you read on the internet. That's hilarious. 

In every argument you have extremists. We just need to find a middle ground on this issue so the waterways in the state I grew up and have lived in all my life are not littered with the vessels of irresponsible, so called sailors. Enough is enough! Time to quit thinking only of ourselves! COMPROMISE!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> .....One guy in Miami Beach went as far as to anchor about 25 small boats behind his house so no one else could anchor there.......


Look at that. You posted a reason where anchoring restrictions would be helpful to the rest of us. Compromise may make sense after all.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

Good grief.........

Link to google maps:
https://goo.gl/maps/fKVe1

TBO,com article on property owner:
TBO.com: Tampa Bay Online, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times - breaking news and weather. | Print

Cruisers net article:
Anchoring Incident in Miami Beach (Input Received After 6/10/11) | Cruisers' Net

There won't be any compromise by people like this.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> ....There won't be any compromise by people like this.


No there won't. That's why we should be pushing for one in whatever legislation is considered. They would have to comply, just like us.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

That Sunset Lake situation is perplexing in that there must be some law in place to stop that kind of obnoxious behavior already. Obstructing a waterway? Littering? Environmental hazard? Obviously LE is looking the other way here because they can always find some reason to issue summonses when and if they want to.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

So it begins, or maybe so it ends. Just got this email from a Florida sailing association I belong to.

"First bill has been introduced restricting anchoring in Florida.The first bill has been introduced restricting anchoring in Florida. This could be just the start of many bills to come in regards to anchoring. Senator Charles Dean, Republican from Inverness introduced the bill on March 4th. The bill is scheduled to go into affect July 1, 2015. With the 200-foot setback suggested it would basically knock out any cove less than 600 feet across. This would give water front landowners the control of state owned waters 200 feet from their shoreline! This is a deterrent to cruisers and not a safety issue. "

Here is a link to the bill https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1548/BillText/Filed/PDF


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Captainmeme said:


> So it begins, or maybe so it ends. Just got this email from a Florida sailing association I belong to.
> 
> "First bill has been introduced restricting anchoring in Florida.The first bill has been introduced restricting anchoring in Florida. This could be just the start of many bills to come in regards to anchoring. Senator Charles Dean, Republican from Inverness introduced the bill on March 4th. The bill is scheduled to go into affect July 1, 2015. With the 200-foot setback suggested it would basically knock out any cove less than 600 feet across. This would give water front landowners the control of state owned waters 200 feet from their shoreline! This is a deterrent to cruisers and not a safety issue. "
> 
> Here is a link to the bill https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1548/BillText/Filed/PDF


And here I thought the Republican party was all about smaller government less regulation, unless they want the regulation of course.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

miatapaul said:


> And here I thought the Republican party was all about smaller government less regulation, unless they want the regulation of course.


Local politicians do not follow the cable news stereotypes.

They do what their fairly small set of constituents ask of them.

As far as this issue goes, there will need to be some compromise. Landlubbers outnumber and outvote us.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> Local politicians do not follow the cable news stereotypes.
> 
> They do what their fairly small set of constituents ask of them.
> 
> As far as this issue goes, there will need to be some compromise. Landlubbers outnumber and outvote us.


couldn't agree more.
There is something bribery going on here. This is why America does not have direct democracy, because all the bribes and kickback would disappear.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

You gotta flood the switchboards if this legislation is to be blocked...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

UnionPacific said:


> .....This is why America does not have direct democracy, because all the bribes and kickback would disappear.


That and the fact that the majority of the electorate is ignorant on issues and simply votes for their team. I mean, literally the majority.

Found this fascinating. A Ted Talk audience would generally be fairly educated.

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_and_ola_rosling_how_not_to_be_ignorant_about_the_world?language=en


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> That Sunset Lake situation is perplexing in that there must be some law in place to stop that kind of obnoxious behavior already. Obstructing a waterway? Littering? Environmental hazard? Obviously LE is looking the other way here because they can always find some reason to issue summonses when and if they want to.


He's a millionaire who probably donates a lot of money to city, county and state officials running for re-election. You really think someone like that is going to be written a citation? Not in this lifetime.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> The problem will come later when they ignore the fact that you are against local governments intervention. But, they will then use the results of the survey to say, see, we need anchoring time limits and set-backs from certain areas.


I quoted myself from the first page of this thread. I warned folks to be careful how they responded to the survey. These things are in the state senate bill and the wording is frighteningly similar to the survey. And of course the bill has nothing to do with vessel safety.

Give them an inch, and they will take a mile...... well, in this case 200'.....


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

DavyJ said:


> I quoted myself from the first page of this thread. I warned folks to be careful how they responded to the survey. These things are in the state senate bill and the wording is frighteningly similar to the survey. And of course the bill has nothing to do with vessel safety.
> 
> Give them an inch, and they will take a mile...... well, in this case 200'.....


Having worked in state government at two different times in my life, I would be willing to bet that the survey and this legislation, were written at the same time, by the same people, and for the same purpose.


----------



## DavyJ (May 30, 2008)

> I would be willing to bet that the survey and this legislation, were written at the same time, by the same people, and for the same purpose.


Yeah..... It's probably just a coincidence that Christopher Smith, who tried to introduce last years bill, and Charles Dean, who authored this bill, sit on the same environmental committee.......Yeah, probably just a coincidence......


----------

