SailNet Community banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
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
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
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......
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #32 · (Edited)
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.:mad:
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
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?
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #47 · (Edited)
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #51 ·
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....:(
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #62 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #87 ·
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.....:D

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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #89 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #94 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #98 ·
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...
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #101 · (Edited)
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #103 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #111 ·
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.
 

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #114 ·

· 2005 Gemini 105Mc
Joined
·
112 Posts
Reaction score
49
Discussion Starter · #124 ·
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'.....:mad:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Group9
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
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