[RTB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.......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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

An extreme example does not prove the point.

 

[UnionPacific]

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?