[DavyJ]

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.

 

[SVAuspicious]

Compromise doesn't need to have negative connotations. There are merits on all sides of this discussion.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed.

2. Transient boaters need anchorage space which is sometimes in short supply.

Agreed.

3. Managed mooring fields work. They consolidate anchorage acreage and provide safety.

Less clear. A solid anchor for the mooring isn't guaranteed. Depends on where you are. Prices don't always align with value received.

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.

Mostly agree, with the caveat that we have to figure out which government - local, state, or federal?

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.

Which gets back to the jurisdictional issue. My understanding is that with respect to freedom of navigation, federal courts have deferred to states rights unless there is a clear federal interest (clear to the courts, not necessarily to recreational users).

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.

I don't see the proof. An underlying issue is that FWC doesn't have the funding or the political support to impound and dispose of derelict boats. It is easier for politicians to pass new, unfunded law than to budget sufficient resources for existing law.

 

[DavyJ]

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.

 

[masterofnone]

Wouldnt it be nice to see the government doing something proactive and for the people like dropping courtesy moorings in some designated areas for passing boats. Put a time limit on them to prevent them from becoming "home" to the derelict boats. Make a small access point on shore for dinghies. It would save a lot of bottom scouring from dragging ground tackle, would congregate boats in desired areas and be a benefit to the community as when cruisers stop, they invariably go ashore and spend money.

Even the designated anchorages are sweet. If im going to an area and spot one I definately prefer to anchor there. The one near the megadock in charleston and the one in beaufort sc come to mind.

Why make more laws and rules when there are so many now nobody can keep track of them.

 

[smurphny]

You have never visited active captain have you?

I'm a member of Active Captain. They keep more up to date than written publications but still depend on normal delays of crowd sourcing to include/remove items from the interactive maps. It takes a while, at least a few days, for information to be confirmed as correct or not. I have noticed that along the ICW, people will report shoals that are NOT there. They simply went out of the center of channel which is not hard to do. I've seen logs and debris listed that have long since floated away.

 

[smurphny]

Less clear. A solid anchor for the mooring isn't guaranteed. Depends on where you are. Prices don't always align with value received.

Definitely depends on maintenance. There are municipal free moorings I would not hook to and will anchor instead. There are also paid marina moorings that are shaky so I guess it's a judgement call no matter where you are. I've seen some moorings I wouldn't leave my dink on.

 

[SVAuspicious]

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.

Read my entire post. Sticking a notice on the boat requires a bunch of time (time not on patrol) and impoundment and disposal costs money the FWC doesn't have. Again, it is less painful to the politicians for the politicians to pass more laws than to budget funds.

I'm a member of Active Captain. They keep more up to date than written publications but still depend on normal delays of crowd sourcing to include/remove items from the interactive maps. It takes a while, at least a few days, for information to be confirmed as correct or not. I have noticed that along the ICW, people will report shoals that are NOT there. They simply went out of the center of channel which is not hard to do. I've seen logs and debris listed that have long since floated away.

My experience with ActiveCaptain (AC) has been pretty good. You have to be a good consumer of information. AC even posts the reviews in reverse chronological order. If you see a review that doesn't match others you can check out the reviewer to see if there is a professional with better judgment or someone just babbling. You are responsible for your boat. AC is a tremendous resource if you use it well.

Definitely depends on maintenance. There are municipal free moorings I would not hook to and will anchor instead. There are also paid marina moorings that are shaky so I guess it's a judgement call no matter where you are. I've seen some moorings I wouldn't leave my dink on.

I agree with you about maintenance, but not what I was thinking about. There is a huge difference between a mooring shackled to a lump of concrete and one that uses a screw or rock anchor (cemented into a hole drilled or blasted into rock, not a Rocna).

 

[JonEisberg]

Wouldnt it be nice to see the government doing something proactive and for the people like dropping courtesy moorings in some designated areas for passing boats. Put a time limit on them to prevent them from becoming "home" to the derelict boats. Make a small access point on shore for dinghies. It would save a lot of bottom scouring from dragging ground tackle, would congregate boats in desired areas and be a benefit to the community as when cruisers stop, they invariably go ashore and spend money.

Even the designated anchorages are sweet. If im going to an area and spot one I definately prefer to anchor there. The one near the megadock in charleston and the one in beaufort sc come to mind.

So, the taxpayers of Charleston - in addition to footing the bill for the removal of derelicts from those "Special Anchorages" you prefer - should also be paying to install and maintain Courtesy Moorings, as well?

Just because it would be the "Nice" thing to do?

Good luck selling that one to the voters...

Womack said the stretch of the Ashley River from Brittlebank Park to the Wappoo Cut is where most boats are abandoned locally. There are two areas within that stretch known as special federal anchorages. Boats are allowed to moor and anchor in those areas at no cost and with few rules. And they aren't required to be attended to regularly, he said.

Abandoned boats aren't limited to the anchorages, he said, but the special areas could be a contributing factor to the large number of derelict boats on the Ashley.

Derelict boats a matter of cash - Post and Courier

 

[Hush34]

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.

Seems we always fall back to chicken and egg arguments. I would have to believe that the rights of the property owners were established well before Joe **** the Rag man Sailor of fine Derelict Yachts drops anchor and squats behind someone's newly constructed, multi-million dollar investment that he or she pays very high property taxes.

The issue is length of stay. When do you wear out your welcome? As a regularly cruising sailor who is responsible, I don't tend to stay at anchor in any one place for more than a couple of days. If I did, I would be "Anchoring", not "Cruising." I don't think anyone is looking to make a sailor move his vessel into harms way. I do think they are trying to keep derelict vessels from littering, more than they already do, the Florida landscape.

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?

Responsibility matters. Get the derelict issue under control....no one cares about cruising boats stopping for a reasonable time before they move on.

 

[smurphny]

Read my entire post. Sticking a notice on the boat requires a bunch of time (time not on patrol) and impoundment and disposal costs money the FWC doesn't have. Again, it is less painful to the politicians for the politicians to pass more laws than to budget funds.

My experience with ActiveCaptain (AC) has been pretty good. You have to be a good consumer of information. AC even posts the reviews in reverse chronological order. If you see a review that doesn't match others you can check out the reviewer to see if there is a professional with better judgment or someone just babbling. You are responsible for your boat. AC is a tremendous resource if you use it well.

Yes, I definitely agree that AC is a great resource, certainly the most up to date. Before departing I always check the posts and mark my charts up to indicate any potential problem spots.

I agree with you about maintenance, but not what I was thinking about. There is a huge difference between a mooring shackled to a lump of concrete and one that uses a screw or rock anchor (cemented into a hole drilled or blasted into rock, not a Rocna).

Having owned/maintained my own moorings for years, I know how rapidly swivels and shackles can corrode. Regular maintenance must be very costly for large mooring fields. The stress on mooring parts can be tremendous in a big blow and many of the parts I've seen below mooring balls are often smaller than they should be to begin with. They also sometimes look like no one has peeked at them for some time. I would like to see the actual mechanics and installation of the screw moorings used in the Florida mooring fields. Having stayed on them for lots of nights, they seem to be rock solid and if anything, oversized. The only thing I don't like about them is the tendency to twist the bow lines. In the Stuart field I have seen only one case of one having to be reset. The fact that they are so reliable is amazing considering the short scope used.

 

[DavyJ]

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.

 

[Hush34]

Guess you believe every thing you read on the internet. That's hilarious.

In every argument you have extremists. We just need to find a middle ground on this issue so the waterways in the state I grew up and have lived in all my life are not littered with the vessels of irresponsible, so called sailors. Enough is enough! Time to quit thinking only of ourselves! COMPROMISE!

 

[Minnewaska]

.....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.......

Look at that. You posted a reason where anchoring restrictions would be helpful to the rest of us. Compromise may make sense after all.

 

[DavyJ]

Good grief.........

Link to google maps:
https://goo.gl/maps/fKVe1

TBO,com article on property owner:
TBO.com: Tampa Bay Online, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times - breaking news and weather. | Print

Cruisers net article:
Anchoring Incident in Miami Beach (Input Received After 6/10/11) | Cruisers' Net

There won't be any compromise by people like this.

 

[Minnewaska]

....There won't be any compromise by people like this.

No there won't. That's why we should be pushing for one in whatever legislation is considered. They would have to comply, just like us.

 

[smurphny]

That Sunset Lake situation is perplexing in that there must be some law in place to stop that kind of obnoxious behavior already. Obstructing a waterway? Littering? Environmental hazard? Obviously LE is looking the other way here because they can always find some reason to issue summonses when and if they want to.

 

[Skipper Jer]

So it begins, or maybe so it ends. Just got this email from a Florida sailing association I belong to.

"First bill has been introduced restricting anchoring in Florida.The first bill has been introduced restricting anchoring in Florida. This could be just the start of many bills to come in regards to anchoring. Senator Charles Dean, Republican from Inverness introduced the bill on March 4th. The bill is scheduled to go into affect July 1, 2015. With the 200-foot setback suggested it would basically knock out any cove less than 600 feet across. This would give water front landowners the control of state owned waters 200 feet from their shoreline! This is a deterrent to cruisers and not a safety issue. "

Here is a link to the bill https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1548/BillText/Filed/PDF

 

[miatapaul]

So it begins, or maybe so it ends. Just got this email from a Florida sailing association I belong to.

"First bill has been introduced restricting anchoring in Florida.The first bill has been introduced restricting anchoring in Florida. This could be just the start of many bills to come in regards to anchoring. Senator Charles Dean, Republican from Inverness introduced the bill on March 4th. The bill is scheduled to go into affect July 1, 2015. With the 200-foot setback suggested it would basically knock out any cove less than 600 feet across. This would give water front landowners the control of state owned waters 200 feet from their shoreline! This is a deterrent to cruisers and not a safety issue. "

Here is a link to the bill https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/1548/BillText/Filed/PDF

And here I thought the Republican party was all about smaller government less regulation, unless they want the regulation of course.

 

[Minnewaska]

And here I thought the Republican party was all about smaller government less regulation, unless they want the regulation of course.

Local politicians do not follow the cable news stereotypes.

They do what their fairly small set of constituents ask of them.

As far as this issue goes, there will need to be some compromise. Landlubbers outnumber and outvote us.

 

[UnionPacific]

Local politicians do not follow the cable news stereotypes.

They do what their fairly small set of constituents ask of them.

As far as this issue goes, there will need to be some compromise. Landlubbers outnumber and outvote us.

couldn't agree more.
There is something bribery going on here. This is why America does not have direct democracy, because all the bribes and kickback would disappear.