SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Daytona Beach,Fl. - Anchoring restriction

19K views 72 replies 20 participants last post by  Don L 
#1 ·
As anyone who visit's this forum may already know- I prefer to anchor my Vessel. I have done so , successfully for the years I have owned her and hope to continue to do so. As I enjoy anchoring as opposed to a dock and it is quite convenient for me.
I do not reside on my vessel as a liveaboard. I have a home and a legal address (although I wouldn't mind living on the boat, and may move aboard in the future) . As such I am not a liveaboard.
On the 6/18th I recieved a "courtesy Notice" from the city of Daytona Beach, Fl . Informing me that I was in Violation of City Ordinance 106-183 and that the notice "signifies the beginning of the removal process of the vessel by city ordinance 106-184 (impoundment of vessels) by the City of Daytona Beach Florida. here is a link to the City Ordinance;

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

As I read through the ordinance I noticed that "Vessels engaged in Navigation " were exempted from this ordinance.
Also I must say that I believe I am engaged in Navigation and am exempt and further the State Statute 327.60 also backs up my right to anchor.
I contacted the Officer who issued the notice to inform him I intend to move, he said fine.
I then asked if the anchorage I had previously used for the previous year and a half (which is also in the city) was OK , to which he said yes, that was the area the city was "allowing" to be used as an anchorage.
I said OK and agreed to move in the next few days as weather would permit.
I think we've been down this road before and some folks are just not getting the message. As I understand the law, I have every right to anchor where I am for as long as I see fit to do so, as long as My "intent" is not to permenantly anchor their for perpetuity.
I am in contact w/ a Maritime law firm familiar with these issues and have forwarded the ordinance information and am in the process of forwarding the rest of the paperwork pertaining to the situation as well. and will anxiously await there take on it.
I thought it was a wives tale previoulsly when I heard of this thing happening here in Daytona and attributed it to just the law enforcements way of moving along the derelicts and the other unwashed !
So, I take my plight to the court of public opinion here on sailnet.
What say you fellow sailors?
Do I fight like a salmon or run like a scared cat?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Fight it... :) IIRC, the state has recently passed some legislation clearly defining what constitutes a liveaboard boat... which you should probably check on.
 
#3 ·
That was the question that came up in my mind. If you're cruising, you will anchor somewhere for some period of time, whether you have a land-based address or not. Do municipalities have a limit on how long you can remain anchored in one place? Do you become a 'liveaboard' when your home address is a PO Box? What are the rules?:confused:
 
#4 ·
Sailingdog-
Thank you for your response , I am aware of the recent revisions as well as the 1996 rulings and state statutes pertaining to anchoring (namely fl statute327.6) as well as there definition of a liveaboard.
However this goes beyond anchoring by liveaboards and addresses ALL vessels anchoring for any cumulative time exceeding 120 hours in any 30 day period !
As I said I thought this was already addressed apparently Daytona didn't get the memo ??
 
#5 ·
You can report illegal enforcement on this website.
 
#6 ·
Sailingdog- Thanks I went to the site and filled out a complaint. I also called the gentleman listed and spoke w/ him directly.
I'm very tempted to stay anchored where I am and "be a Salmon" as my dad used to say. To "buck" the system a bit and see just how much of a stir I can create. As, I have a bit of time on my hands and jave finished all of the contract work (I do canvas and boat repair) that I have and was actually hoping to head out of town to haul for a bottom job and other scheduled maint. issues.
Maybe I'll stay and be a thorn ! I haven't decided yet. We'll see what all the lawers have to say. And if there letters (providing they wright any) have any force or influence. It is appearing that I may not be able to afford much justice.
 
#8 ·
So in other words you live in one place. Semi-permanently anchor your vessel so you can sail locally and don't consider that moored? I like your world.

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

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

Just for the record I don't care about where you are anchored as I could get not my boat into Daytona anyway due to bridge height restrictions.
 
#10 ·
I prefer to anchor my Vessel. I have done so , successfully for the years I have owned her and hope to continue to do so. As I enjoy anchoring as opposed to a dock and it is quite convenient for me.
So, in short, you're anchoring when another person might moor or slip?

I do not reside on my vessel as a liveaboard. I have a home and a legal address ...
Are you actually currently living in said home, at said address, or are you actually currently staying on your boat?

As I read through the ordinance I noticed that "Vessels engaged in Navigation " were exempted from this ordinance.
Also I must say that I believe I am engaged in Navigation and am exempt ...
I guess that would depend on how "engaged in Navigation" is defined. My guess would be that the definition would include verbiage to the effect that the vessel actively be "en route" from one place to another.

However [the Daytona ordinance] goes beyond anchoring by liveaboards and addresses ALL vessels anchoring for any cumulative time exceeding 120 hours in any 30 day period !
I guess they figure anybody truly "engaged in Navigation" (i.e.: "en route from one place to another") wouldn't be anchored in one spot for more than five days out of the month.

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

Jim
 
#12 ·
I will attempt to addrees all of your questions and clarify andy misunderstandings-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What say YOU.
 
#13 ·
Joe

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

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

So Pay it forward and do the right thing but don't ***** on the net cause you don't like what you consider to be unfair treatment. If you are correct deal with it in court or through the system.
 
#14 ·
I don't anchor at the waste treatment plant, that's west of the bridge. I anchor just south of the Memorial Bridge. And east of it. It's quite sheltered. It's just east of the entrance to Halifax Harbour. I have anchored at the waste treatment plant (only once) the bottom is so crappy there it took me half an hour to wash down the anchor chain. Never been bothered in the Memorial Bridge anchorage.
 
#15 ·
Joe...under federal law...you are a vessel in navigation even if you are tied to a pier or a mooring ball so you are "in navigation" in the federal sense. The feds have ceded control in inland waters to the states however and the states (Florida in this case) may allow municipalities to control the use of their "bottom land" as long as the municipal regulations don't conflict with the state regulations.
Most of the Florida battles have been fought around live-aboards vs. "full time cruisers" and that has worked out pretty well over the last few years for cruisers and less so for live-aboards moored in place whether by anchor or traditional moorings.
Your situation is quite a bit different in that you simply anchor your boat for rather extended periods without being aboard and the question is "Does a Florida resident have the right to anchor/moor his vessel for an unlimited time at a particular spot in Florida waters AND do municipalities in Florida have the right to regulate such anchoring mooring in their waters (and if so...to what extent?)

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

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

I will be interested in seeing how this turns out for you.
 
#16 ·
svsirius-writes
So in other words you are moored full time on a river and claim to be in navigation. Get real, you can claim to be following the rule of law and if what you are doing is legal just keep on doing it, cause the law applies equally for all, but FWIW and IMHO what you are really doing is skirting the rules. In other words unlike the rest of us that are not cruising full time or really in navigation, you just are unwilling to pay for a fully legal space.
Response - No what I am doing is abiding by the LAW as it is written in the Florida State Statutes and supported by centuries of precident in navigation. It has been common place to anchor for centuries and it is a right of navigation. As far as how "heap Big Cruiser" you are , each to their own definition of that, you have yours apparently , and are showing it as well.
There is no "skirting " the City is the one who is attempting to enforce an ordinance that is clearly beyond their authority. I too have encountered crowded anchorages. Of course not being from your world (?) you're probably not familiar w/ annapolis,MD. I was there fathers day 2007 and every mooring ball in the mooring area was occupied and the creek was packed as well. Of course I didn't worry as I simply found a spot I felt comfortable in and anchored, no problem. The following morning the Harbormaster came around introduced himself and handed me printed material about the area and we had a nice chat. THAT'S the way it should be, not -get out after 5 days! He even said if I needed to walk the dogs I could take them to the park , this guy was great.

Cam - thanks for chiming in.
Personally, I don't think the present statutes address this situation with you
Actually the present statutes DO address my specific situation and I'll post the section of fl statue here for you. It specifically addresses NON-liveaboard vessels at anchor and makes absolutely no reference or diferentiation between "extended Cruisers" and others. The term Extended Cruiser was in fact coined by people wishing to "skirt " the liveaboard label !

Florida State Statute 327.60 Local regulations;
limitations.-

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

327.60 Local regulations;
limitations.-

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

327.60 Local regulations;
limitations.-

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

"Rights of Navigation"

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

"Rights of Navigation"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as always I look forward to reading your opinions on this and other sailing related issues.
 
#21 ·
As I see it and as admitted by the Daytona Police officer (A. Cino) in our phone conversation the issue is the land owners adjacent to the specific area I was anchored.
This is an age-old problem that is no different from what land-lubbers deal with in regards to things such as zoning ordinances, restrictive/protective covenants (tho those are civil matters) and the like. What it boils down to is one individual's "right" to do something another individual may feel infringes on their "right" to that thing not being done. For example: Does my next door neighbour have the "right" to park as many cars as he likes on his property, regardless of their condition, etc? I say "It's his property, let him do as he likes with it." The township government says he doesn't. In your case, you're arguing your "right" to anchor your boat where you like, and the Daytona Beach government is supporting their taxpayers' "right" not to have the view from their (probably dearly-purchased) property degraded by having an off-shore "marina" appear there.

Well, kind of...

And this is bolstered by the fact that I was told that if I anchored by the waste treatment facility (where Da Po-folk is be) that it was fine, well this certainly flies in the face of equal enforcement as that location is completeley and unquestionably within the city limits it's just not in sight of the MONEY locations. he even said it !!
...
It's not a question of what is legal and equitable it is a question of "how much justice can you afford?" this is wrong,Wrong,WRONG...
On this we agree. We allegedly did-away with royalty in this country over 200 years ago.

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

Jim
 
#17 ·
Joe, without trying to read all the FS....Are you aware that anchoring "for the purposes of navigation" has been long and uniformly defined to mean that anchoring which a vessel IN TRANSIT normally does when and as necessary?

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

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

If you're just hanging out and being a tourist for a few days--you don't have the rights of a vessel anchoring as part of navigation. And you won't be given them. There's no room for discussion on that, the courts are clear all the way up. So, are you en route to someplace and engaged in navigation? Or are you just hanging out catching rays?
 
#19 ·
hellosailor-
without trying to read all the FS....Are you aware that anchoring "for the purposes of navigation" has been long and uniformly defined to mean that anchoring which a vessel IN TRANSIT normally does when and as necessary?

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

If I need to drop anchor and wait for an inlet to be passable, or for a weather window to my next destination, that's NECESSARY and usual FOR NAVIGATION. Even if that takes some days. But again, if I just want to drop the hook and go to Disneyworld for the day--that's tourism, not navigation.
Response - No I was not aware of this interpretaion of vessel in navigation. you make the claim but quote no authority law,statute,precedence or leagal defense for this claim other than an unsubstantiated statement;
There's no room for discussion on that, the courts are clear all the way up.
please enlighten me as I have found NO clear cut definition that make these claims. what is your source and reference? I am quoting the LAW as it stands and is stipulated time and time again, including the new law HB 1423. and you?

Fullkeel17-
I am eceedingly aware of HB 1423 and see no major changed from previous anchoring laws with the exception of the five (yet to be determined) test site that will require extensive and exhausting approval by the FWC. there has been no conceeding to local municipalities of a blanket type allowing or endorsing any right to regulate NON-liveaboard vessels at all !
quite the contrary it in fact stipulates that the right to anchor and engage in navigation stands with the exception of proximity of established mooring fields w/ upland facilities. and does NOT grant any other authority to municipalities not involved in the five test areas.
Interpretation and reading comprehension seem to be the shortcomingd here.
If anyone can show me precedence or law to the contrary relating to Florida I would be happy to review it. Making unsubstantiated statements about what is long established is just blowing smoke.
to quote Charmaine Smith Ladd "Don't snow me - show me "
 
#22 ·
Semijim- Is it me or do you have an axe to grink w/ alot of things?
Typo- it should be "grind"

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

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

WanderingStar , I believe has offered the simplest and most calming approach thus far and I thank him/her for that insight again;
Sounds like you already fought and won. You dealt with the issue, are you now going to stay to invoke a fight? For a moral victory? I think you've taken the necessary action and succeeded. Be content with success and move on.
The disregard for your fellow sailors/ voyagers and interested potential sailors exhibited in this forum , by some of the more frequent posters, I find offensive/degrading/judgemental/cruel/hateful/presumptious/condisending and testiment to the degredation of our society as a whole.
Fortunately this does not (I believe/hope) represent the sentiment of the majority of those reading these posts.
I will continue to persue an answer to this legal question in the hope that I might offer the information to others who follow in my wake.

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

I hope you choose the former
as "red-green" is so fond of saying- "remember, we're all in this together"
 
#23 ·
I have recieved this e-mail from Major Paul Ouellette of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission

This quite clearly supports my position-

Re: Daytona Anchoring restrictionsBack to Messages
From: "Ouellette, Paul" <paul.ouellette@MyFWC.com>
reply To: email omitted
Cc: Bcc: Sent: Sat, Jun 27, 2009 09:23 PM

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

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

You may want to show them this.

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please feel free to contact me if you feel you need any further information.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Joe...I won't bother re-quoting your post to me but would make a couple of points:
1. My comment about the Florida regs not addressing your situation was really meant to mean that the RESTRICTIONS on anchoring rights don't seem to be addressed by Florida law in your situation...so we essentially agree on that.

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

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

and also the Florida Open Water Society for the latest... For the protection of the rights of the boater in Florida
 
#26 ·
I've just put my multi-million dollar ICW dream home up for sale because of these issues stated. I just built it two years ago and I'm so depressed. I'm so sick of these yachts infringing on my view of a HOT neighbor across the waterway while she's lounging by her pool (hey, what else am I to look at, because of all the developement, most of the wildlife is absent?). Plus these yachts obstruct my view of the possessions in the backyards of other neighbors...how am I to know what I need to buy in the future in order to keep up?

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

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

Oh, and don't get me started on the abandoned and derelect boats. Maybe a separate issue, but hey, they're are ALL the same to me! BAH!
 
#27 ·
Cam- I am already in contact with both the FOWS and the SCCA and there legal representatives. As of today (sunday) of course I've recieved no responses .
The Positive response from Major Paul Ouellette of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission quite clealry states I am in the wright and within the law and the city of Daytona Beach is WRONG.
The Typical and now expected response to any excercise of nav. wrights has always been scare tactics and Mis-information propaganda by the police authorities and those influencing them.
it usually goes like this;
1. we (sailors) are all crapping in the river.
2. Safety,Safety,Safety
3.potential for boats to cause great damage to shorefront dockage.
4.can't locate owners,financial responsibility
5.gotta stop it now or the whole river will be full of boats ! (Oh MY !)

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

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

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

Stay tuned- we'll be back in after a message from our sponsors-
 
#28 ·
Joe...sounds like you're doing all the right stuff. My own view is that derelict boats ARE an issue (Boot Key had QUITE an expensive problem and cleanup) BUT...there oughta be a way to deal with THAT problem without trampling your rights. Looks like the law is on your side anyway...but threats keep popping up! Vigilance!! :D
 
#29 ·
Joe, thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you found my advice helpful. Frankly, I still struggle at times with anger in my own life. I'm trying to exercise wisdom and kindness instead. There are strong opinions on the forum that sometimes come across harshly (not yours in this thread, but some others). Anchoring rights are a concern to all of us. I recently delivered my boat from Florida to New York. Weather forced me inside at Ponce de Leon inlet. I was a little concerned about anchoring restrictions in Fl. I anchored in Daytona Beach too. But the weather was so bad I thought the marine police wouldn't be writing tickets. I had no visits. You do sound like a reasonable, intelligent fellow. Perhaps we'll cross tacks someday. Fair winds, John.
 
#30 ·
Cam- Derelict boats are a problem in part because the law enforcement didn't do their job. there are and have been laws on the books that can avoid a derelict becoming a sunken or washed up derelict
I can and will if you would like reference the laws,statutes and such.
Essentially the vessel must be capable of making way,(sail,power,paddles ,etc) and also must meet coast guard safety requirements as well as blackwater MSD requirements. The Only reason an officer can board your vessel w/out your consent is in the process of checking your MSD device . If the officer cannot see the device he can board your vessel. That is just one example of a manner that law enforcement can do due diligence in determining a vessle to be derelict. there are many other methods.
With the "new" revised anchoring laws that were just passed the law enforcement has yet another tool to determine a vessels status. That is Registration requirement for ALL vessels upon the water whether they are in use or not.
Previously vessels w/out a motor or "not in use" were exempt from registration. Similiar to the manner in which unregistered vehicles cannot be parked on the street or in your front yard (I am wary of using autos to compare to vessels, slippery slope) However the LEO's have been lazy and remiss in there duties.And now , a big problem.
Instead of spending one second worrying about an obviously capable vessel's anchoring status, there efforts could and should be spent pursuing the real issues.
But like most gov't operations there is much waste, and misuse of funds,equipment and manpower on fel good actiities that don't require any actual action. They prefer the easy stuff.It is actually the leadership and executive departments that should be taken to task for this approach as the officers are often only doing as instructed or what they think they can get by on.
I see many instances here in the daytona area where an obvious derelict is sinking due to lack of attention and it is left to sink and create a worse issue than if it was impounded or hauled away before it sank. This is legal anf]d there are laws in place NOW to address it. But that would require actual work. and what is more would not serve to bolster their cry for more resources,more manpower, and more of OUR tax dollars.
derelict vessels according to the state records of recording derelict vessels (a study paid by tax dollars) account for less than one tenth of one percent of all registered vessels in the state of florida. funding has been alotted to continue to ducument derelict vessels and vessel stored on the water, but not for removal, that is a different federal fund. I can get the info on that if you would like as well or you can research it yourself.
Don't fall for all the hype, it's an age old issue that has and can be dealt with equitably, and without major expense with the tools we already have and have paid dearly for.
the registration requirements are a good thing as it will shoe continuity of ownership and if a vessel is found to be unregistered it can be removed before it sinks and becomes a bigger issue.
 
#72 ·
Cam- Derelict boats are a problem in part because the law enforcement didn't do their job. there are and have been laws on the books that can avoid a derelict becoming a sunken or washed up derelict
I can and will if you would like reference the laws,statutes and such.
Essentially the vessel must be capable of making way,(sail,power,paddles ,etc) and also must meet coast guard safety requirements as well as blackwater MSD requirements. The Only reason an officer can board your vessel w/out your consent is in the process of checking your MSD device . If the officer cannot see the device he can board your vessel. That is just one example of a manner that law enforcement can do due diligence in determining a vessle to be derelict. there are many other methods.
With the "new" revised anchoring laws that were just passed the law enforcement has yet another tool to determine a vessels status. That is Registration requirement for ALL vessels upon the water whether they are in use or not.
Previously vessels w/out a motor or "not in use" were exempt from registration. Similiar to the manner in which unregistered vehicles cannot be parked on the street or in your front yard (I am wary of using autos to compare to vessels, slippery slope) However the LEO's have been lazy and remiss in there duties.And now , a big problem.
Instead of spending one second worrying about an obviously capable vessel's anchoring status, there efforts could and should be spent pursuing the real issues.
But like most gov't operations there is much waste, and misuse of funds,equipment and manpower on fel good actiities that don't require any actual action. They prefer the easy stuff.It is actually the leadership and executive departments that should be taken to task for this approach as the officers are often only doing as instructed or what they think they can get by on.
I see many instances here in the daytona area where an obvious derelict is sinking due to lack of attention and it is left to sink and create a worse issue than if it was impounded or hauled away before it sank. This is legal anf]d there are laws in place NOW to address it. But that would require actual work. and what is more would not serve to bolster their cry for more resources,more manpower, and more of OUR tax dollars.
derelict vessels according to the state records of recording derelict vessels (a study paid by tax dollars) account for less than one tenth of one percent of all registered vessels in the state of florida. funding has been alotted to continue to ducument derelict vessels and vessel stored on the water, but not for removal, that is a different federal fund. I can get the info on that if you would like as well or you can research it yourself.
Don't fall for all the hype, it's an age old issue that has and can be dealt with equitably, and without major expense with the tools we already have and have paid dearly for.
the registration requirements are a good thing as it will shoe continuity of ownership and if a vessel is found to be unregistered it can be removed before it sinks and becomes a bigger issue.
This is an age-old problem that is no different from what land-lubbers deal with in regards to things such as zoning ordinances, restrictive/protective covenants (tho those are civil matters) and the like. What it boils down to is one individual's "right" to do something another individual may feel infringes on their "right" to that thing not being done. For example: Does my next door neighbour have the "right" to park as many cars as he likes on his property, regardless of their condition, etc? I say "It's his property, let him do as he likes with it." The township government says he doesn't. In your case, you're arguing your "right" to anchor your boat where you like, and the Daytona Beach government is supporting their taxpayers' "right" not to have the view from their (probably dearly-purchased) property degraded by having an off-shore "marina" appear there.

Well, kind of...

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

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

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