Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-22-2014, 07:52 AM   #21
Guru
 
timjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Anyone know BoatUS's stance on the Florida anchoring debate?

I have seen articles where they are passing info, but haven't seen anything where they are lobbying one way or the other.
BoatUS is an advocate for boaters and boating rights. They are in general agreement to open anchoring rights, but to my knowledge have not proposed or supported legislation either way.

However most legislation proposed, probably all, have been restrictive.
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Tim
Tampa Bay
Carver 355 ACMY Twin Cummins Diesels Sold
timjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 08:28 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Magnawake's Avatar
 
City: NC-Fl
Country: US
Vessel Name: Blue Bayou
Vessel Model: Hatteras 43 MY
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 79
Done. We just got back from a trip from Key West to Ft. Pierce. We anchored out the whole way. I agree with other post. Remove the derelicts and the problem goes away. I couldnt believe the amount of derelicts we saw. Some even sunk and not touched in years. The mangroves are full of them. I bet nobody is complaining about them. However, they are concerned about blocking views of rich homeowners as well as not being able to water ski. Thats crazy talk. Also if cities would limit anchoring out, then they can impose a mooring system and take in money for their city. Its all about the rich homeowners views.
__________________

Magnawake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 09:15 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Capecodder's Avatar
 
City: Cape Cod, MA or Fort Myers, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Osprey
Vessel Model: Her Shine. Newburyport
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
it's all about the view of the "rich" homeowners. I got my house and you can't be in my view. It's like on ICW no wake signs on the docks with the wakeboard boats. YOU better not make a wake! MY KIDs only like to jump the wakes I make.
Capecodder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 09:39 AM   #24
Guru
 
windmill29130's Avatar
 
City: Little River SC
Vessel Name: JAZ
Vessel Model: Ta Chaio/CT35
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 716
Imagine letting local authorities come up with their own anchoring laws. How would one be able to keep up with all of them and know when you are within that municipalities limits. Just Crazy!
__________________
Tracy & Susie Hellman 1985 Ta Chiao CT 35
Twin Lehman Super 90's Westerbeke 4.4kw
Lightkeepers Marina -Little River, SC
windmill29130 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 09:50 AM   #25
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
If states have to petition the feds for no-discharge zones, the should have to do the same for no anchoring. Fair is fair.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 11:58 AM   #26
Guru
 
CaptTom's Avatar
 
City: Southern Maine
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Cygnus
Vessel Model: Prairie 36 Coastal Cruiser
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
If states have to petition the feds for no-discharge zones, the should have to do the same for no anchoring. Fair is fair.
Very good point. Let's think about that. States petitioned for their entire coasts, or large sections, to be NDZ's. They offered one-time grants to install pump-outs so that they could claim there were sufficient stations. Once the law was passed, those stations fell into disrepair, and many were never fully embraced by the marine facilities that agreed to take one.

The only effect was that boaters can't legally discharge treated waste. There's already a federal law against discharging untreated waste.

Meanwhile, towns and cities dump thousands of tons of untreated sewage and storm water runoff whenever there's a rainstorm, and runoff from agriculture and industry continue to pollute as before.

The politicians claimed victory over those "evil" boaters who were fouling up our coasts, and the real problems were never addressed.

Yeah. Let's do THAT again.
CaptTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 12:04 PM   #27
Guru
 
timjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnawake View Post
Remove the derelicts and the problem goes away.Also if cities would limit anchoring out, then they can impose a mooring system and take in money for their city. Its all about the rich homeowners views.
Well that's not quite right. Many of the complaints from waterfront home owners may include that as an argument in their favor but my bet is that for most waterfront home owners there never has been a derelict in front of their house and they've never had a view of one from their house. So removing the derelicts will not stop those advocating anchorage restrictions.

The real problem with derelicts in FL is finding the money to enforce and remove derelict boats. Laws are already well established making it illegal to stow a derelict boat in FL waters: Derelict, Abandoned & At Risk Vessels
__________________
Tim
Tampa Bay
Carver 355 ACMY Twin Cummins Diesels Sold
timjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 12:11 PM   #28
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptTom View Post
Very good point. Let's think about that. States petitioned for their entire coasts, or large sections, to be NDZ's. They offered one-time grants to install pump-outs so that they could claim there were sufficient stations. Once the law was passed, those stations fell into disrepair, and many were never fully embraced by the marine facilities that agreed to take one.

The only effect was that boaters can't legally discharge treated waste. There's already a federal law against discharging untreated waste.

Meanwhile, towns and cities dump thousands of tons of untreated sewage and storm water runoff whenever there's a rainstorm, and runoff from agriculture and industry continue to pollute as before.

The politicians claimed victory over those "evil" boaters who were fouling up our coasts, and the real problems were never addressed.

Yeah. Let's do THAT again.
yet very little of the total water area is actually NDZs.

Plus the compromises proposed in the anchoring law suggest a different outcome than that of an "on" or "off" solution like NDZs.

the point is if at a federal level, it is less likely local governments will wrangle their own positions.

Do you have a link or anything g that shows where states asked for their entire coasts to be NDZs? Like many requests in government...ask for all if you want half.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 05:06 PM   #29
Guru
 
healhustler's Avatar
 
City: Longboat Key, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bucky
Vessel Model: Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,181
The issues concerning maintaining certain distances from homes/land bordering existing anchorage areas are hardly the same in Miami as they are in Sarasota or Destin. In our little cove in Key Biscayne (did you hear me say "our"), the occasional very-loud party boat blasting Latin music all day was miserable, true. Our boat was also struck by a run-away sailboat during a nighttime storm (apparently lost its anchor). When more than a half dozen or so large boats were anchored, swing room was limited, as was scope. Racing PWC's sometimes abused the Idle-Only areas, and actually struck a surfacing manatee while I watched. In spite of this, I enjoyed the view of the varied boats off our dock. It was usually a peaceful cove with responsible boaters. If the Police patrol had been more often than weekly, they had plenty of laws on the books to keep it that way. I'll take a well anchored vessel 100 ft. off my dock anytime ILO a badly anchored vessel 300 ft. away. It's been said many times......we have the laws to do what is needed. Enforcement is another question.

Here are some shots of Smuggler's Cove in Key Biscayne, including one day that three other Krogen's kept me company. It's a place surrounded by high-buck homes, and could be a candidate for some wealthy owners that may be trying to get control of their view. I figure the cove is probably less than 600 ft. wide, so if the proximity limit were extended to say, 300 ft., it would eliminate this cove as an anchorage altogether.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN5171.jpg
Views:	61
Size:	121.4 KB
ID:	34736   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN5153.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	91.7 KB
ID:	34738   Click image for larger version

Name:	Three Krogens in cove.jpg
Views:	66
Size:	117.1 KB
ID:	34739  
__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2014, 06:12 PM   #30
Guru
 
caltexflanc's Avatar
 
City: North Carolina for now
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Small Incentive
Vessel Model: Boston Whaler 130 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,797
My final comments to them were essentially this: as a frequent cruising visitor to Florida and a one time Florida waterside resident, it is completely unacceptable to essentially cede ownership of the water adjacent to homes and businesses to those self-same owners, beyond riparian rights already titled.

Actually I understand the FWC guy's perspective, he is under pressure from full time residents and tax payers, who far outnumber boaters.
__________________
George

"There's the Right Way, the Wrong Way, and what some guy says he's gotten away with"
caltexflanc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 02:01 AM   #31
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,152
I think calling this a charade is off base. Let's go back a moment to how this all started. Communities decided on their own to put in restrictions. The FWC stepped in and asserted the law that the state has control and so the FWC stopped some local ordinances that would have been very anti-anchoring and cruising. They have also had many representatives trying to push through very restrictive laws. To this point they've done two things. First they put in the pilot program in select locations to test some possibilities. No law changes for the state, just a pilot to see. Second they have said they will look at revised state laws. The survey isn't anti boater. It's simply ideas that various sides have presented and getting a perspective of how the public views it. To their credit they didn't attempt to limit input to Florida residents either. It's not like a vote, it's getting opinion and responses. There has to be some framework to set what cities can or can't do and what is reasonable. Now the word "reasonable" has different definitions for us all. I'm both a boater and a waterfront homeowner. I suspect many homeowners would strongly disagree with some of my answers on the survey and many boaters would strongly disagree with others. That is all fine. But the FWC is still addressing what started the entire issue and that is certain communities wanting to move on their own. The FWC has done several things to try to gather opinions. If they didn't do so, it might all fall in the hands of some state representatives with pretty radical views.

I look forward to seeing the results because among other things it might help us find out how many people take the extreme views. Is it a lot or is it just that the ones who do are very loud and in positions to push for action? Ultimately, like most laws and rules there will be a compromise. I have no idea what that will be. But I personally think we're all better off with the FWC attempting to handle this with study and opinions than cities going out on their own or the state legislature passing something very disturbing. Holding meetings and distributing surveys just doesn't impress me as something offensive. I'd say most of the time government moves without doing either.

From all I see Florida remains a friendly place for boaters with a choice of anchorages, moorings, and marinas.

As an example of how individual's form views, FLIBS just ended and I know people in my neighborhood wanting it eliminated because our street is congested for a few days. I'm sure one of them will end up going to the city council to complain. Won't get anywhere. Oh and FLIBS has been around for years while they just bought their home a year ago.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 06:09 AM   #32
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,525
There has to be some framework to set what cities can or can't do and what is reasonable.

The cities have ZERO to say about Navigation in Federal Waters , the states are almost as limited .

Only exceptions I know are >Queen Ann Grants< that pre date the US formation.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 06:10 AM   #33
Guru
 
CaptTom's Avatar
 
City: Southern Maine
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Cygnus
Vessel Model: Prairie 36 Coastal Cruiser
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
But the FWC is still addressing what started the entire issue and that is certain communities wanting to move on their own. The FWC has done several things to try to gather opinions. If they didn't do so, it might all fall in the hands of some state representatives with pretty radical views.
That's a well-thought out and practical answer, given local political realities.

But the question isn't which set of anti-boater laws get implemented.

The question is, does the State of Florida, or do the local communities, or even the local condo associations or individual homeowners, have the right to overrule the long-standing right of navigation?

Laws against derelicts and such are reasonable. But they're already on the books. They just need to be enforced.

Laws revoking rights that have belonged to boaters since before the founding of this country, and are still in force today, are not reasonable, regardless of the political situation any particular state official finds him/herself in.
CaptTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 07:15 AM   #34
Guru
 
timjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,905
BandB's post was indeed well thought out. He brings a unique perspective to this issue because he is both a waterfront landowner and boater.

Ignoring this issue and standing behind long ago laws established well before recreational boating became popular and our countries coast line was filled with expensive waterfront homes will not make the issue go away. There are way more of them than us and they have way more money!

Compromise is the name of the game and I think the FWC due to their mission of regulation and supporting water activities puts them somewhat on our side.

There are only 2 concerns I have as it relates to the questionnaire. The FWC has proposed a limit as to how far one can anchor from a house. This would close some anchorages depending on what distance they use. But I do believe some compromise is needed here. I can see the argument that a waterfront landowner may not want a boat anchored inches from his dock or beach. The other issue which I definitely do not want to be implemented is allowing local govt's to establish their own anchoring limits.

The other proposals like a 60 day limit and not anchoring near a boat ramp, marina or other marine facility I have no problem with.
__________________
Tim
Tampa Bay
Carver 355 ACMY Twin Cummins Diesels Sold
timjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 07:47 AM   #35
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Wow...is that guy out of touch....a waterway too anchored up for second generation water ski instruction? Like the whole world hasn't changed a bit from when we were kids?

With mentality like that...I see the issue as slanted in top officials eyes already.
I've reposted "post #2" as I stand by it and the first to call out "biased" but not necessarily a "charade" in the thread.

Having been high enough in an administrative organization that helped shape legislation, large scale legislation, if there is even the slightest bias by either high administrative officials or within a political staff.....those biasis can ultimately sway legislation.

Again, not necessarily a charade....but the tone of that lead in video...again as I said before...didn't give me warm and fuzzies.


Plus...didn't the state only REALLY step in only AFTER the big legal issue by the guy on the West coast of Fl where the courts waded in on the issue?????
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 08:19 AM   #36
Guru
 
timjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Plus...didn't the state only REALLY step in only AFTER the big legal issue by the guy on the West coast of Fl where the courts waded in on the issue?????
Yes I think you're right, but why would the courts step in until a law is challenged?

The issue at that time is do local govt's have a right to supersede state or federal laws. I believe they do is some cases but in this case the courts ruled in favor of the boater. But IMHO this is the most important question still to be answered.
__________________
Tim
Tampa Bay
Carver 355 ACMY Twin Cummins Diesels Sold
timjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 08:22 AM   #37
Guru
 
Rogerh's Avatar
 
City: Niceville, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: At Last
Vessel Model: 1990 Jefferson 52 Marquessa
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 665
completed survey.
Rogerh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 08:26 AM   #38
Guru
 
Moonstruck's Avatar
 
City: Hailing Port: Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moonstruck
Vessel Model: Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
I think calling this a charade is off base.


As an example of how individual's form views, FLIBS just ended and I know people in my neighborhood wanting it eliminated because our street is congested for a few days. I'm sure one of them will end up going to the city council to complain. Won't get anywhere. Oh and FLIBS has been around for years while they just bought their home a year ago.
Well, I hope it is not a charade. However, my 20+ years of experience serving on government boards and committees makes me believe that it is probably the case. Boaters are a minority, and anti-anchoring, waterfront homeowners are a large voting block. This and the tone of the video is a bad sign of where this could be going. Most of the people who anchor are not even Florida voters.

Newbies many times are anti anything. I once sold a new home in a new neighborhood to a couple from Vancouver, BC. The next Tuesday evening they appeared at a no growth meeting for the township. Go figure. I guess they got theirs. Oh yeah, they later bought a new condo from me in the same township.

FLIBS dumps a load of cash into the economy. I can't see the city walking away from that.

The way I see it, the anchoring rights crowd is in for some expensive litigation to protect those rights.
__________________
Don on Moonstruck
Sabre 42 Hardtop Express & Blackfin 25 CC
When cruising life is simpler, but on a grander scale (author unknown)
http://moonstruckblog.wordpress.com/
Moonstruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 08:28 AM   #39
Guru
 
timjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,905
This conversation brings up an issue that I've never fully understood. Our founding fathers gave individual states wide latitude to impose laws on their populations. But when can the federal govt supersede those laws. Case in point: Abortion

Before Roe vs Wade, I believe many states outlawed abortion. So under what conditions can the feds supersede state laws, like on the abortion issue.

Please I use the abortion issue as an example not one to be debated.
__________________
Tim
Tampa Bay
Carver 355 ACMY Twin Cummins Diesels Sold
timjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2014, 08:39 AM   #40
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
My point about the court interceding was more about the Florida enforcers were following local requests not state or federal laws/guidelines.....like most would...residents over travelers or vagrants.

I would be more tempted to go with the Feds only being able to regulate anchoring on certain waters, those necessary for safe through navigation of Florida, supporting interstate issues. In that case it would be like federal regulations trumping state or local on the interstate road system.
__________________

psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012