Join Date: Mar 2007
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Thanks for that great report. This gives a much better understanding of the issue.
I know exactly the spot they are speaking about. We've anchored there and found the holding to be good. It's very nicely protected too.
But I have a friend who keeps his boat at WGM, and I've also seen some boats in there that were too close. Some that looked like they were long-term "parked" there, too, i.e. unattended.
I can appreciate the concern at WGM and Mears. I would ask only that instead of putting all their effort into prohibiting anchoring, they instead go with a two-prong approach and make such a prohibition contingent on dropping in 2-3 (or ??) transient moorings. That is an eminently reasonable compromise, and will meet less resistance.
It really is an ideal location for absorbing some of the overflow from Spa Creek on the really busy holiday weekends. The access to Eastport is very handy. I think folks would be very happy to pay a mooring fee (maybe the lower amount that is charged above the bridge on Spa Creek) for the security and convenience. I know we would.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Pacific Seacraft Crealock 31 #62
NEVER CALLS CRUISINGDAD BACK....CAN"T TAKE THE ACCENT