SailNet Community - View Single Post - Florida is at it again
View Single Post
post #283 of Old 10-14-2015
fallard
Senior Member
 
fallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mystic
Posts: 2,267
Thanks: 15
Thanked 79 Times in 78 Posts
Rep Power: 10
 
Re: Florida is at it again

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnewaska View Post
I've read the argument that a 200ft setback would effectively close miles of the ICW and one isn't permitted to transit the ICW in the dark. While I don't subscribe to providing anchorages, as I can count may places that never had any for miles to begin with, I also can't see a measure that effectively closes long stretches of the ICW to anyone that can move fast enough between anchorages. We also don't want to open it up to night travel, or the consequences and cost could be greater. In a sense, we've already created the problem.

There must be a compromise in there somewhere. Does 100ft allow for anchorages close enough that they can be transited during daylight? Could the regulation exclude anchoring in some places between 1hr after sunrise and 1 hr before sunset, rather than excluded it entirely by the setback, just to allow transiting?

I'm not saying these are good ideas, only that we all need to get along and come up with something. There are a-holes in all walks of life, ashore and afloat.

The slow boiling water analogy is a damnation against democracy. I should decide all these matters, rationally.
One size for setbacks does not fit all situations. Nor does a setback, per se, address other legitimate waterway uses, like transiting, recreational boating (vs. parking) to include sailing, kayaking, etc.

In our harbor we have designated transient anchorages, a fairway through a mooring field (to reduce confllicts between moving and parked boats), and a designated open area to facilitate setting sail before reaching open water at the mouth of our harbor. That is in addition to mooring field setbacks, which are 150' for residential areas and 100' for commercial areas.

My point is that there are a variety of legitimate boating issues that should be accommodated in resolving the transient issue. As some have insinuated, you could turn a narrow waterway into wall-to-wall "parking lot" or, for that matter, you could turn a much larger area into a parking lot to the detriment of boaters who need some open space. One example in our area is the area to the southeast in what is known as the Noank anchorage. Our harbor management plan, which is in effect, designates the area to the east of a north-south line tangent to the west coast of Ram Island and south of Seal Rocks (by Masons Island) to be cleared of moorings through attrition and by precluding new moorings there. FWIW, AC incorrectly identifies this area as an anchorage. Also, FWIW, the southern end of this area has an active shellfish lease--all the more reason to keep moored/anchored boats at a distance.
fallard is online now  
 
 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome